A federal appeals court Wednesday authorized the televising of a Dec. 6 hearing on whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, should be struck down.
It's... not... a... ban. It really is disgusting how biased the media coverage has been all along.
The hearing is supposed to start at 10 a.m.
The 9th Circuit is hearing an appeal of an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who presided over a trial that examined such questions as whether homosexuality could be changed and whether same-sex parenting harmed children.
Neither one of those needs to be true for Prop 8 to be Constitutional. All that needs to be true is for the court to recognize what the people, nature, all major religions, and all of the great moral thinkers throughout history have recognized – that the pairing of a bride and groom is objectively different than the pairing of two men or two women. Homosexual people know there is a difference. That is why they identify as homosexual.
[A look at comments after the jump.]
"Ironman Carmichael" at November 17, 2010 at 05:27 PM:People are actually going to be televised making those silly hypocritical arguments about procreation being the basis for marriageThe ability to naturally procreate is one reason why the state has an interest in marriage that it does not have in other kinds of relationships. We know a couple that excludes one of the sexes won't naturally procreate.
and how same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy
It's really more the arguments used that will. What reason compels us to extend marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, which have not historically been recognized as forming a marriage, that does not also apply to the historically sanctioned practice of polygamy? Both kinds of relationship categories involve consenting adults who desire to make a life together based on love, sex, attraction, etc. Just as with same-sex couples, there are children being raised in homes that are polygamous. polygamy isn't going away, and there are polygamous relationships that have been going strong for decades.
Conversely, the other people are actually going to say that the majority can't set the requirements of licenses issued on their behalf (who, pray tell, can?), and hypocritically say there's no difference between the pairing of a man and a woman, which is how we all got here, and the pairing of two men or two women, which does not add anything to society that a platonic relationship wouldn't.
"Tony" at November 17, 2010 at 06:24 PM:
Straight, gay everyone should have the SAME rights or then there is an 'inequality' of rights.I agree! Everyone has the same rights whether or not Prop 8 stands. So that can't be a reason to overturn the amendment.
The Brave are those who 'stand up' to those who scream religion or morality or funny as it sounds 'unnatural' .One need not invoke religion to support Prop 8. We are all invoking morality, including you. You said "everyone should have the SAME rights". That is a moral claim.
“Remember that Judge Walker was shot down in his attempt to televise his personal "stick to the people/death to marriage" moment.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s a little dramatic. Ok, a lot dramatic. Judge Walker was in no way disciplined or castigated for wanting to do what the Appeals Court now wants to do: broadly disseminate a hearing thought to be of great interest to “the people.” I thought we were all supposed to give great credence to what “the people” want? I bet most people, if asked, would have been happy to have Judge Walker’s trial YouTubed. He got thousands of supportive emails, and few against YouTubing the trial. So now “the will of the people” doesn’t matter so much?! What are you guys hiding that you don’t want America to see?
“I wonder if this means that the notorious 9th Circuit folks want everyone to see just how great they are when they stick it to the people?”
Or maybe they just want to televise a hearing whose nature seems to be of great interest to people? Could that be the reason?
“It's... not... a... ban. It really is disgusting how biased the media coverage has been all along.”
Well if a law is passed preventing from happening, that sure seems like a ban.
“Neither one of those needs to be true for Prop 8 to be Constitutional.”
And all that needs to be true to ban same-sex marriage is a rational state interest. Can you think of any rational reason for the state to ban same-sex marriage? Anything?!
“that the pairing of a bride and groom is objectively different than the pairing of two men or two women.”
Bride and groom pairings will continue to be legal when same-sex marriage is legal. No one wants to outlaw opposite-sex marriage that I know of.
“The ability to naturally procreate is one reason why the state has an interest in marriage”
Obviously it’s not the only reason, since infertile couples can marry, and no marriage is dissolved at any point for lack of procreativity. The state also has an interest in keeping couples together who are raising children. That includes same-sex couples.
“What reason compels us to extend marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, which have not historically been recognized as forming a marriage, that does not also apply to the historically sanctioned practice of polygamy?”
Polygamy is illegal. So is incest. No need to worry about either then. If you’ll think about it a little bit, you’ll realize that polygamy existed, and was outlawed, well before same-sex marriage came along. Polygamy, and any attendant problems you perceive with it, PRECEDED same-sex marriage, and was dealt with. Ergo, same-sex marriage cannot be any more of a stepping stone to polygamy than opposite-sex marriage was.
“Everyone has the same rights whether or not Prop 8 stands.”
False. If Prop 8 stands, gay people in California will not have the right to marry the consenting person of their choice, while straight people will. If Prop 8 falls, gay Californians will have the same marriage rights as straight Californians.
“One need not invoke religion to support Prop 8. We are all invoking morality, including you. You said "everyone should have the SAME rights". That is a moral claim.”
I guess some moral claims are more moral than others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, for me, I can't be a party to a public policy position that advocates that children be raised outside of wedlock. Years of research and writings by marriage experts, and like Maggie Gallagher of NOM, show that children do better when raised by married parents. This is true for the children of same-sex couples (unless and until someone can demonstrate otherwise, which seems unlikely).
ReplyDeletePolygamy is illegal. So is incest. No need to worry about either then.
ReplyDeleteSee, this is why it's no use bothering with Sean. Repeatedly making statements that any ten-year-old can easily refute.
Years of research and writings by marriage experts, and like Maggie Gallagher of NOM, show that children do better when raised by married parents.
Failing to note, of course, that the studies also show that they do better with their own married mother and father than they do with stepparents.
Ultimately, for me, I can't be a party to a public policy position that advocates that children be raised outside of wedlock.
Uh, unless I'm missing a position of Sean's, he is not being consistent. Hint here.
My personal recommendation: Due to his inability to engage in honest debate, if we discuss Sean's posts here at all, let's do it between us, using Sean's name in the third person. I will no longer address arguments to him directly in here.
“studies also show that they do better with their own married mother and father than they do with stepparents.”
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point (what a shock): if they’re living with stepparents, biological parents, foster parents, children are always better off when those parents are better. Why? Because marriage creates a more secure relationship between the two adults, and the gives greater security to the children.
I think anyone who advocates a public or social policy that prefers to see children raised out of wedlock, when they could easily be raised within marriage, has a problematic position. Our children are our future and they deserve our best. If they are being raised by a couple, and they identify that couple as their parents, we should be encouraging that couple to marry rather than discouraging it or even prohibiting it. How we treat our children says a lot about us.
“…if we discuss Sean's posts here at all, let's do it between us, using Sean's name in the third person.”
Ok.
I think anyone who advocates a public or social policy that prefers to see children raised out of wedlock, when they could easily be raised within marriage, has a problematic position. Our children are our future and they deserve our best. If they are being raised by a couple...
ReplyDeleteNote that Sean doesn't deal with the logical implication, that if we should call those raising children married because it's better for the children, where does this then leave children who are being raised by one parent?, especially when that parent does not wish to marry? Well, I guess it's just tough luck on those kids, they're not important enough to redefine marriage for and say that those raising children alone can legally just be married to themselves.
If the argument is that we should redefine marriage because children need married parents, then out of consistency one should either advocate that single parents be considered married, or that (to follow the type of reasoning Sean uses elsewhere) they not be allowed to raise children.
But since Sean can not even understand why society should have a greater interest in a form of sexual contact that can produce children, even when the couple is fertile, than in a form of contact which never can, I have a lot of doubt about his concern about the children and our future when it does not suit his argument. As it apparently would not concern him if there were far fewer children in the future, or even none at all. Or he has not thought of this.
R.O. (writes)
ReplyDelete"I think anyone who advocates a public or social policy that prefers to see children raised out of wedlock, when they could easily be raised within marriage, has a problematic position. Our children are our future and they deserve our best. If they are being raised by a couple, and they identify that couple as their parents, we should be encouraging that couple to marry rather than discouraging it or even prohibiting it. How we treat our children says a lot about us."
One of the things that so bemusing about this debate is the number of people who have come to it only out of concern for gay marriage.
For those of us at this sight who have spent years advocating for married intact childrearing R.O. point seems "convienant" at best. Any cursory inspection of the cultural left reveals that they have spent the last forty years and continue to insist that married childrearing is not important for children or society.
Suddenly when it comes to gay "marriage" they are concerned (suddenly) that children be raised in "married" households.
Yet we have been ringing the alarm bells over 70 percent illigetamacy rates amoung African Americans and we were repeatedley ignored by the left and called racist and bigots for saying children needed a Mother & Father. Apperently its O.K. to advocate for marriage for gay couples but the left dosent care about the children of straight couples being married.
What R.O. dosent realize is that we are watching not his (convienant) concension too "two person" childrearing but rather keeping our eye on his leadership of activists and intellectuals who will not cede even a two person standard as important for society much less the more historically and culturally important (and time tested) standard of a mother & father.
“where does this then leave children who are being raised by one parent?”
ReplyDeleteWith an unmarried single parent I guess. You can’t marry yourself.
“If the argument is that we should redefine marriage because children need married parents”
No one’s redefining marriage. It has never been “defined” until recently, actually, and has never been defined until very, very recently as the union of only a man and a woman. To wit:
“The three states that had statutory language defining marriage pre-dating DOMA are Wyoming (1957), Maryland (1973) and New Hampshire (1987)”
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
The argument is that if having married parents is good for children (and good for adults, too), then any couple raising children should be given the opportunity to be married. But hey, if you don’t want what’s best for kids…..
“I have a lot of doubt about his concern about the children and our future when it does not suit his argument.”
What about YOUR concern? Do you have any, or are children acceptable collateral damage in your effort to keep “the gays” away from legal marriage?
You can’t marry yourself.
ReplyDeleteSean doesn't see that his categorical dismissal of the idea...basically, that people can't marry themselves because, well, because, well we just know you can't marry yourself, is really no better than most people's dismissal of the idea of same-sex marriage.
But of course, suddenly the idea that parents should be married because it's better for the children disappears, even though far more children are being raised by single parents than are being raised by same-sex couples.
No one’s redefining marriage. It has never been “defined” until recently, actually, and has never been defined until very, very recently as the union of only a man and a woman.
You know, that argument might work if even one percent of the world's cultures had a long-term concept that the union of a woman and a man was no different from the union of two women or two men, and called them by the same word. Absent even one one-hundreth of that much in the historical record, the idea that it is not a redefinition smacks of Orwellian newspeak. And this is true even if you believe that arguments from tradition are meaningless.
The argument is that if having married parents is good for children (and good for adults, too), then any couple raising children should be given the opportunity to be married.
Why just a "couple"? But hey, if you don’t want what’s best for kids…..
Of course, I do not advocate that single parents be called "married" any more than I advocate same-sex couples be called married. Ideally, all children could be raised by married parents, but it's not an ideal world, and you have to weigh out the benefits to children of calling any parent or couple, or group of more than two, "married" versus the disadvantages of corrupting the view of what marriage is, specifically by eroding the concept that it unites the two people that create a child, mothers and fathers. Not to mention how it effects all children's concept of not only what marriage is, but their concept of romance and friendship as well, and much else that will likely only be apparent after a generation has passed. I suspect it is because Sean actually fears this that he has not even commented on my proposal that we wait 30 years to see what happens in the countries that have it already, and meanwhile hold off on adopting it anywhere else.
As he has also not clarified whether he really meant it when he said that marriage has a "sexual nature", or whether society should really place no greater importance to opposite-sex intercourse fertile or not over same-sex acts.
“Sean doesn't see that his categorical dismissal of the idea..”
ReplyDeleteYeah, you’re right, Sean doesn’t see it. Because marriage is a contract, it needs at least two participants. You can’t legal commit to yourself, or create legal obligations and legal rights with yourself. I’m as flexible as the next guy but I think there are some rules than can’t be broken!
“suddenly the idea that parents should be married because it's better for the children disappears”
Not for Sean it doesn’t. He told me so! Single parents can’t give the benefit of marriage to their children if they are not in a relationship with someone willing to provide parenting to their child. Same-sex couples often want to provide shared parenting responsibilities. In this case, it is great if they marry, because their commitment to each other and to the child is strengthened with marriage.
“You know, that argument might work if even one percent of the world's cultures had a long-term concept that the union of a woman and a man was no different from the union of two women or two men, and called them by the same word.”
I think the argument that something hasn’t been around for a long time so therefore is can’t exist is weak. I also think the “you can’t ‘redefine’ marriage!” argument is weak, too: who gets to define marriage and who says its definition is unchangeable? Even is society was redefining marriage, as opposed to merely extending marriage rights to gay people, so what?
That the practice of marriage has traditionally been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples is nice, and anthropologically interesting, but it doesn’t preclude same-sex couples participating.
“Why just a "couple"?”
ReplyDeleteWell, society seems to want to limit marriage rights to couples, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights to do so.
“you have to weigh out the benefits to children of calling any parent or couple, or group of more than two, "married" versus the disadvantages of corrupting the view of what marriage is”
I’m glad to see you’re admitting that you’re compromising children’s well-being when you deny them married parents.
“eroding the concept that it unites the two people that create a child, mothers and fathers.”
In no way is the meaning or purpose of marriage, uniting the two people who create a child, compromised when same-sex couples marry. Just look at elderly couples who marry: clearly they can’t create a child but we fully recognize their marriages.
“I suspect it is because Sean actually fears this that he has not even commented on my proposal that we wait 30 years to see what happens in the countries that have it already, and meanwhile hold off on adopting it anywhere else.”
Sean doesn’t fear too much about legal same-sex marriage. If something goes wrong, we can always fix it. But you can’t see if anything goes wrong if you don’t try it. Plus, this is an issue of constitutional rights and justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The most significant and damaging change to marriage came with easy divorce. The notion that marriage is no longer for life, but rather for happiness, changed society in ways that a few same-sex couples getting married could or will. The damage to children of divorce, commonplace these days, is just starting to be understood.
“As he has also not clarified whether he really meant it when he said that marriage has a "sexual nature", or whether society should really place no greater importance to opposite-sex intercourse fertile or not over same-sex acts.”
I’ll ask him, hold on…….ok, he says that sex during marriage, at least theoretically, is so widespread that it’s a safe assumption to say that people who marry have a reasonable expectation that they will have sex together during the marriage.
Sean says he thinks society can value same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally: both are forming social units and may end up raising children.
Yeah, you’re right, Sean doesn’t see it. Because marriage is a contract, it needs at least two participants. You can’t legal commit to yourself, or create legal obligations and legal rights with yourself. I’m as flexible as the next guy but I think there are some rules than can’t be broken!
ReplyDeleteNot for Sean it doesn’t. He told me so! Single parents can’t give the benefit of marriage to their children if they are not in a relationship with someone willing to provide parenting to their child. Same-sex couples often want to provide shared parenting responsibilities. In this case, it is great if they marry, because their commitment to each other and to the child is strengthened with marriage.
Please note that the argument Sean has been making has been that children suffer when their parents are not recognized as married. Sure, all the other arguments for why we don't call singles married are sensible. But if the argument is that we should call those raising children "married" because it hurts children for them not to be called so, even if this means changing the universal idea of what marriage means and has meant over the centuries, then one should be consistent and demand the same absolutism in regard to any child not being raised by what has traditionally been called married parents. Especially when that person uses an absolutist rigid criteria in other cases when it suits his desired ends, like using any exception to claim an invalidation of a central purpose.
I think the argument that something hasn’t been around for a long time so therefore is can’t exist is weak.
Not as weak as many think. More on this coming.
I also think the “you can’t ‘redefine’ marriage!” argument is weak, too: who gets to define marriage and who says its definition is unchangeable? Even is society was redefining marriage, as opposed to merely extending marriage rights to gay people, so what?
In other words, so what if it is a redefinition? In regard to the semantic quibble, 'nuff said. It's a redefinition.
Well, society seems to want to limit marriage rights to couples, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights to do so.
I think all can agree on one thing: what the law says one day may be different from what it says later. Same with society. Falling back on this kind of statement is Sean's way of avoiding tackling the issues logically.
I’m glad to see you’re admitting that you’re compromising children’s well-being when you deny them married parents.
First of all, there's a big question here: why aren't these bad effects of not calling same-sex couples raising children "married" not showing up in all these studies which claim "no significant difference" between children raised be same-sex and opposite-sex couples? Another related question: why aren't the bad effects of social stigmatization, either because of the parents not being married or because of their being gay, also not showing in the studies? Is it because there is no such negative effect, or because if there is it's marginal? Is it because those conducting the studies already know which bad effects are to be attributed to society's stigmatization of gays, and already know what bad effects would have to be attributed merely to being raised by a same-sex couple? (I thought this was what studies were supposed to determine). Or does this indicate flaws in these studies?
Besides that, Sean is also "compromising children’s well-being" by denying them the benefits they may get from having their one single parent called "married".
In no way is the meaning or purpose of marriage, uniting the two people who create a child, compromised when same-sex couples marry.
ReplyDeleteSince Sean doesn't want to read it, I guess I'll have to post the rest of the Duke article he admits to only getting a third of the way through, as it deals, in better words, with his naive view that (essentially) one culture can simultaneously and over time have two different definitions of an institution.
Sean doesn’t fear too much about legal same-sex marriage. If something goes wrong, we can always fix it. But you can’t see if anything goes wrong if you don’t try it. Plus, this is an issue of constitutional rights and justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Still not dealing with my proposal, which is actually similar to something he suggested here (though I don't know if he ever had plans to agree with even the more short-term idea he proposed).
The most significant and damaging change to marriage came with easy divorce. The notion that marriage is no longer for life, but rather for happiness, changed society in ways that a few same-sex couples getting married could or will. The damage to children of divorce, commonplace these days, is just starting to be understood.
I don't think anyone here disagrees that easy divorce has been very damaging to marriage. I'm for eliminating no-fault divorce; I still don't know if Sean is. It would be a very uphill battle, which is why more people are not trying to eliminate it now. What this shows, though, is that once you make a bad change to an institution, it becomes very hard to undo the damage even after the damage is apparent. It is not so easy as "if something goes wrong, we can always fix it", as Sean seems to think.
The damage to children of divorce, commonplace these days, is just starting to be understood.
Exactly! It's not a matter of deciding that everything is A-OK because we don't see the damage yet after a decade or less. Same goes with any major change to an institution like marriage.
I’ll ask him, hold on…….ok, he says that sex during marriage, at least theoretically, is so widespread that it’s a safe assumption to say that people who marry have a reasonable expectation that they will have sex together during the marriage.
In other words, backing away from his statement that marriage has a sexual nature. It's now just something that is statistically related.
Sean: I think the argument that something hasn’t been around for a long time so therefore is can’t exist is weak.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, that the argument from tradition is weak.
I agree that an appeal to tradition does not prove a case. But many state it as if it is not even a legitimate argument to be used at all, even for the purpose of arguing for skepticism or caution in regard to a proposed change.
I think all of us here are intelligent enough to know that none of us can prove, at this time at least, whether or not SSM will be beneficial or harmful. Hence, I hope neither Sean nor I expect that our arguments are only valid if they prove something.
When a change is proposed that has no historical precedent (or when what precedent there is is insufficient for determination) we have nothing to go on thus to determine whether its effect will be good or bad. We can theorize, we cannot know. It may be good, it may be bad. Anyone disagree?
If a proposed change has historical precedent which shows apparent positive effect, it makes the case for its positive effect in the present time and situation more likely, though even with this it does not absolutely prove that the effect will be positive because there may be different factors in the present situation which may affect the success of the change differently from the factors which were present in the past situations.
Similarly, if a proposed change has historical precedent which shows apparent negative effect, it makes the case for its negative effect in the present time and situation more likely, though again, it does not absolutely prove that the effect will be negative because, again, of the possible different factors which may affect the change differently.
But when a proposed change has NO historical precedent, while this tells us nothing about what effects the change may have, the question of why there is no historical precedent is a legitimate one to ask, and the answer—-if it is even possible for us to determine—is relevant.
If we can, with reasonable certainty, answer such a question, and determine that the reason for the lack of historical precedent is one that definitely does not apply in the present, then we have a better case for the change, though not a conclusive one, as the change can be vulnerable to other factors which we do not know about.
If we cannot answer the question of why a change has no historical precedent, we are taking more of a gamble with adopting the change. Another question we may then ask, though, is if the lack of historical precedent, all else being equal, should be expected based on the amount of past information available to us, or if it goes against probability and hence needs an explanation. If the latter is true, are we not by adopting the change without the explanation for its absence taking a greater gamble than we would be if the historical absence were merely what we’d expect, let alone if we had an explanation for the absence which accounted for it?
This is where arguments based on tradition come in. Tradition may not always be helpful in telling us why a custom exists. Frequently those who hold to the custom no longer can tell us exactly why it exists, especially not in long-term cause-and-effect terms. To vastly generalize, however, the answer to why traditions exist are likely to be either 1) experience, or 2) some other factor irrelevant to experience.
ReplyDeleteNow 2) is usually not (maybe never) anything which if changed would affect survival (or, perhaps, a society’s progress).
As for 1), this may be due to a false association of a custom with a survival/progress value. Or the association may be true.
But if many cultures have the same custom, is this custom more likely to be of Type 1, or of Type 2? And if Type 1, is it more likely to be of the type which really affects survival or progress, or of the type which does not?
If most cultures have the same custom? If all known cultures have the same custom?
Usually, those opposed to ever using an appeal to tradition, even as an argument for skepticism or caution, base this belief on the idea that the traditions of past cultures are always due to factors irrelevant to experience, or to a false association of a custom with survival, or progress.
In other words, they assume past cultures to be either irrational in their traditions, or to be drawing an erroneous association of a custom with survival or progress.
Because unlike today’s enlightened, who can figure out the truth with intellect alone, even over hundreds or thousands of years, people of the past could not even learn anything from experience.
So anything they think they learned from experience can be readily dismissed.
Because they were backward, and unenlightened, and hence just plain stupid.
What is this starting to sound like?
Again, this is why I argue that while appeals to tradition may not be proof, they are relevant as arguments for skepticism or caution in regard to proposed changes. The assumption that enlightenment always trumps experience is at the root of the categorial dismissal of arguments from tradition. This assumption does not hold any water.
“Please note that the argument Sean has been making has been that children suffer when their parents are not recognized as married.”
ReplyDeletePlease note that RK has misconstrued Sean’s argument: he actually says that children are better off when their parents are married, regardless of who “recognizes” it or not. The benefit to children of having married parents is that the two people they become bonded to and upon whom they depend, are stuck together by force of law. That means they will be there to raise the children, hopefully forever, but at least as long as the children are minors.
Unmarried couples find it easier to separate and go their separate ways. That threatens the security of children.
“But if the argument is that we should call those raising children "married" because it hurts children for them not to be called so…..”
It is truly a spectacle to watch a moron in action. To witness someone desperate to “win” an argument create inane arguments is something to behold. Thanks for the entertainment.
“Especially when that person uses an absolutist rigid criteria in other cases when it suits his desired ends, like using any exception to claim an invalidation of a central purpose.”
Are you referring to procreation as the basis for marriage? Well if you want to argue that marriage is for procreation, it is not unreasonable to prohibit non-procreative couples from marrying, especially when you’re using inability to procreate against same-sex couples. If procreation is what marriage is about (forgetting for the moment that you still haven’t addressed how letting same-sex couples marry inhibits this purpose), then lets apply this rule equally and fairly: elderly couples, infertile couples and couples who refuse to have children should not be allowed to marry, as well as same-sex couples. It’s easy enough to find out if a couple can have children, and intends to: just ask! Plus, with this new definition of marriage, a public relations campaign can be developed to inform the public that marriage is now about procreation: TV and radio public service ads can state something to the effect, “No kids? No marriage!” It’s catchy, isn’t it?
Of course, marriage license bureaus can post signs with the following: “Only couples who can procreate and intend to do so may marry! All others forbidden!”
But if society prefers some “wiggle room” on the mandatory procreation issue, and is willing to let non-procreative couples marry, it can certainly include same-sex, infertile and elderly, couples.
“Not as weak as many think. More on this coming.”
I wait with baited breath!
“In other words, so what if it is a redefinition? In regard to the semantic quibble, 'nuff said. It's a redefinition.”
Well, gosh, if you say so, that’s all I need to know!
“what the law says one day may be different from what it says later.”
Exactly. So extending marriage law to include same-sex couples is really no big deal.
“why aren't these bad effects of not calling same-sex couples raising children "married" not showing up in all these studies which claim "no significant difference" between children raised be same-sex and opposite-sex couples?”
They are showing up. Here’s what Maggie Gallagher said about comparing married to unmarried couples raising children:
“Mountains of research tell us that children reared outside of intact marriages are much more likely than other kids to slip into poverty, become victims of child abuse, fail at school and drop out, use illegal drugs, launch into premature sexual activity, become unwed teen mothers, divorce, commit suicide and experience other signs of mental illness, become physically ill, and commit crimes and go to jail. On average, children reared outside of marriage are less successful in their careers, even after controlling not only for income but also for parental conflict.”
I, for one, am not willing to relegate the children of same-sex couples to this sorry existence. Are you?
“why aren't the bad effects of social stigmatization, either because of the parents not being married or because of their being gay, also not showing in the studies?”
ReplyDeleteBeats me. Maybe there are not enough married same-sex couples with children around to do a decent study. Even if social stigmatization existed, why would that have an impact on legalizing same-sex marriage? The “stigma” of being a biracial child in a racist society wasn’t enough for the US Supreme Court to rule miscegenation laws constitutional. And not every same-sex couple will raise children.
“Sean is also "compromising children’s well-being" by denying them the benefits they may get from having their one single parent called "married"”
Nope, Sean is merely recognizing that marrying oneself is legally impossible. If it can’t happen anyway, it seems pointless to advocate it. Same-sex marriage very much can happen, as we know. So let’s use it to make children more secure, with brighter futures.
“with his naive view that (essentially) one culture can simultaneously and over time have two different definitions of an institution.”
ReplyDeleteWell, somehow the good people of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and DC are doing just this! What makes them so special that they can accept “different” definitions of marriage, and you can’t?
“Still not dealing with my proposal”
What’s your proposal? Equal access to marriage for all legal couples? Because anything less is not a good idea, and probably not legal.
“I'm for eliminating no-fault divorce; I still don't know if Sean is.”
He’s not. If you don’t want to be married, get a divorce. It would be nice if couples could think about what’s best for their children, in a deeply thoughtful way, but they may well reach the conclusion that the kids are better off if the parents divorced. It’s a personal decision.
“It would be a very uphill battle, which is why more people are not trying to eliminate it now.”
But going after a small minority seems a lot easier, if rather immoral. So opposing same-sex marriage is based on majority strength, rather than a commitment to principles. Interesting.
“It is not so easy as "if something goes wrong, we can always fix it", as Sean seems to think.”
Well maybe if RK could explain to our viewing audience what the downside of same-sex marriage is, we could all join in the fight to stop it. What are your fears? What harms are looming on the horizon that you see, but others can’t?
“It's not a matter of deciding that everything is A-OK because we don't see the damage yet after a decade or less. Same goes with any major change to an institution like marriage.”
I think the courts are going to need a little more to go on than the sentiment that something might go wrong. No state has defended marriage discrimination on this basis, by the way. The Prop 8 intervenors did, reasoning (and I’m using the term loosely) that other states should test the waters and go first. Not very convincing.
“backing away from his statement that marriage has a sexual nature”
Marriage certainly does have a sexual nature, which supports legalized same-sex marriage. Marriage does not have a legal sexual requirement, with regard to consummation or procreation.
“I agree that an appeal to tradition does not prove a case. But many state it as if it is not even a legitimate argument to be used at all, even for the purpose of arguing for skepticism or caution in regard to a proposed change.”
ReplyDeleteThe tradition isn’t changing: opposite-sex couples can still marry. There was never really any tradition against same-sex couples marrying because few, if any, tried. The tradition was never against same-sex couples marrying, in other words, until very recently. States didn’t outlaw it, until Wyoming, in 1957, Maryland in 1973, and New Hampshire in 1987. After that, a bunch of states outlawed it. So the tradition of forbidding same-sex marriage is a very recent one.
We’re talking about a fundamental right here: the right to marry. The bar is high to prohibit some, but not other, couples from getting married. I wonder, how would you feel to know that your adult committed relationship is considered less valuable to society than the adult committed relationship of a convicted murderer? Or a man who doesn’t pay his child support payments?
If I were gay, I think I’d be pretty insulted to be put lower on the totem pole than a convicted murderer on this issue.
“I think all of us here are intelligent enough to know that none of us can prove, at this time at least, whether or not SSM will be beneficial or harmful. Hence, I hope neither Sean nor I expect that our arguments are only valid if they prove something.”
I strongly disagree. It is very beneficial to society to honor the nation’s constitution, and avoid a situation where one group’s constitutional right to equal treatment is violated. It is beneficial to children to have married parents. That research is already done and validated. We are hurting gay people, of all ages, by continuing to discriminate against them. We are validating homophobia, by putting government disapproval on gay relationships. Ironically, if the anti-same-sex marriage crowd hadn’t made such a big deal of this, it would be easier to support marriage discrimination. But now that it is a big deal, and the government is forced to take a stand, it can’t take a stand that harms a group of its citizens.
“When a change is proposed that has no historical precedent”
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?! Marriage has been around for thousands of years, and since the beginning of our nation’s founding, even before.
“We can theorize, we cannot know. It may be good, it may be bad. Anyone disagree?”
We know that denying marriage to gay couples harms them: they don’t get the rights and privileges that straight couples who marry get.
I appreciate your “concern” about the implications about same-sex marriage but the standard is not a valid legal one. Same-sex marriage can be harmful to society and still be constitutionally required. We don’t seem to mind convicted murderers and pedophiles from marrying and having children. It is inexplicable, to say the least, that we could possibly object to law-abiding, tax-paying gay citizens from marrying and raising children.
But gosh, if you think the fear of unintended bad consequences holds any water, legally, go for it. Join the inevitable future legal cases and repeat what you’ve written here in a court of law.
“those opposed to ever using an appeal to tradition, even as an argument for skepticism or caution, base this belief on the idea that the traditions of past cultures are always due to factors irrelevant to experience, or to a false association of a custom with survival, or progress.”
ReplyDeleteThose opposed to the use of tradition realize that it’s a trap that ensnares those being discriminated against. The argument that we can’t change something for fear of negative consequences is rhetorical fear-mongering, especially when no effort is made to identify the negative consequences, and the positive consequences are ignored.
Instead of using “tradition” as a proxy for negative consequences, why not explain the actual consequences you fear?
“Again, this is why I argue that while appeals to tradition may not be proof, they are relevant as arguments for skepticism or caution in regard to proposed changes.”
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.”
Please note that RK has misconstrued Sean’s argument: he actually says that children are better off when their parents are married...
ReplyDeleteNo misconstrual on my part, as objective reader should notice. Failure on Sean's part to deal with the context and the question.
It’s easy enough to find out if a couple can have children, and intends to: just ask!
Contingent falsity.
Exactly. So extending marriage law to include same-sex couples is really no big deal.
Failure to deal with the context and the question.
They are showing up. Here’s what Maggie Gallagher said about comparing married to unmarried couples raising children:
Deliberate misconstrual of the question and of the comparison being studied.
Beats me. Maybe there are not enough married same-sex couples with children around to do a decent study.
Deliberate misconstrual of the comparison being studied.
Nope, Sean is merely recognizing that marrying oneself is legally impossible. If it can’t happen anyway, it seems pointless to advocate it.
Totally contradictory with other arguments made by poster, and failing to realize parallels to the situation of his own main cause.
Well, somehow the good people of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and DC are doing just this!
Refusal to distinguish between short-term and long-term, contradictory with posters own acknowledgements about another subject.
What’s your proposal?
Failure to look back in previous thread to read answer for himself.
He’s not. If you don’t want to be married, get a divorce.
Demonstration of phoniness of stated concern.
But going after a small minority seems a lot easier, if rather immoral.
Again, phoniness of concern demonstrated, also falsely equating recognition of degree of achievability with hypocrisy.
The tradition isn’t changing: opposite-sex couples can still marry. There was never really any tradition against same-sex couples marrying because few, if any, tried. The tradition was never against same-sex couples marrying, in other words, until very recently.
Egregiously distorted understanding of term.
We’re talking about a fundamental right here: the right to marry.
ReplyDeleteBegging the question, which of course poster still has refused to admit misunderstanding of meaning of.
We are validating homophobia, by putting government disapproval on gay relationships. Ironically, if the anti-same-sex marriage crowd hadn’t made such a big deal of this, it would be easier to support marriage discrimination.
Distortion of historical record as well as misapplication of term.
What are you talking about?! Marriage has been around for thousands of years, and since the beginning of our nation’s founding, even before.
Deliberate misconstrual of specific issue discussed.
Same-sex marriage can be harmful to society and still be constitutionally required. We don’t seem to mind convicted murderers and pedophiles from marrying and having children.
Drawing of false analogy to erroneously create image of inconsistency. Already dealt with in previous thread.
The argument that we can’t change something for fear of negative consequences is rhetorical fear-mongering, especially when no effort is made to identify the negative consequences, and the positive consequences are ignored.
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/.
Instead of using “tradition” as a proxy for negative consequences, why not explain the actual consequences you fear?
Have done so here already, will repost or link to original. Though not really necessary.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.”
Term demonstrating irrelevance to situation discussed (Henry IV), and unwarranted assumptions: "if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since", "simply persists from blind imitation of the past".
It is truly a spectacle to watch a moron in action. To witness someone desperate to “win” an argument create inane arguments is something to behold. Thanks for the entertainment.
Ad hominem desperation tactic, but a thoroughly predictable one.
children are better off when their parents are married, regardless of who “recognizes” it or not.
ReplyDeleteSean, can I quote you on that?
The benefit to children of having married parents is that the two people they become bonded to and upon whom they depend, are stuck together by force of law.
Proof? You claimed that Maggie Gallagher had studies, can you quote where they bear out that interpretation?
And does that mean that all marriage needs to be for you -- or at least needs to be in order to benefit children -- is that it forces two people to stay together?
Are any two people just as beneficial to the child as any other two people?
That means they will be there to raise the children, hopefully forever, but at least as long as the children are minors.
Is that really what the "force of law" says? Or is this yet another example where Sean reads into the law things that aren't there?
“Sean, can I quote you on that?”
ReplyDeleteYes, you may.
“You claimed that Maggie Gallagher had studies, can you quote where they bear out that interpretation?”
I can reprint a passage from a Gallagher article from 2001:
“Mountains of research tell us that children reared outside of intact marriages are much more likely than other kids to slip into poverty, become victims of child abuse, fail at school and drop out, use illegal drugs, launch into premature sexual activity, become unwed teen mothers, divorce, commit suicide and experience other signs of mental illness, become physically ill, and commit crimes and go to jail. On average, children reared outside of marriage are less successful in their careers, even after controlling not only for income but also for parental conflict.
Yes, marriage protects children. And yes, marriage therefore protects taxpayers and society from a broad and deep set of costs, personal and communal.”
“does that mean that all marriage needs to be for you -- or at least needs to be in order to benefit children -- is that it forces two people to stay together?”
No, marriage’s benefits come from mutual commitment, the knowledge that one has a secure relationship (which gives couples more confidence in making mutually advantageous decisions together), etc. I’ll try to find if Maggie explains why marriage has all the benefits it has.
“Are any two people just as beneficial to the child as any other two people?”
No, I think the two people who want to raise the child are more important than any other two people.
“Is that really what the "force of law" says? Or is this yet another example where Sean reads into the law things that aren't there?”
It’s must be the force of law, because doesn’t read into law things that aren’t there.
Mountains of research tell us that children reared outside of intact marriages[...]
ReplyDeleteSean, Maggie is qualifying the statement by specifying marriage of a unique quality. What do you think Maggie is specifying with the word "intact"?
Also, the two following statements show two entirely different theories on how marriage benefits children, which is of concern to me since they were prompted with what I thought was a similar query both different times.
Sean: >>> The benefit to children of having married parents is that [they] are stuck together by force of law.
Then when I asked if, "does that mean that all marriage needs to be for you -- or at least needs to be in order to benefit children -- is that it forces two people to stay together"?
Sean: >No, marriage’s benefits come from mutual commitment, the knowledge that one has a secure relationship
So is it the force of law, or the mutual commitment that comes from their own free will and choice that brings the benefits?
Sean: It’s must be the force of law, because doesn’t read into law things that aren’t there.
"It's must be"? "Because doesn't read"? Care to try that one again?
“What do you think Maggie is specifying with the word "intact"?”
ReplyDeleteMarried couples who haven’t divorced.
“So is it the force of law, or the mutual commitment that comes from their own free will and choice that brings the benefits?”
I think it’s both. Couples know they’re “stuck” together since they’re married, so they make decisions predicated on being together for the long-term.
“"It's must be"? "Because doesn't read"? Care to try that one again?”
No.
Me: >> “What do you think Maggie is specifying with the word "intact"?”
ReplyDeleteSean: > Married couples who haven’t divorced.
That doesn't even seem plausible. Marriage is like pregnancy, you are or you are not married. You aren't "divorced marriage" or "intact marriage", you are simply married or not.
Also it is clear from the context that you present that this means something in evaluating couples that are living together, either married or not. None of the cited studies look at people who are divorced but living together raising children, as opposed to "intact marriage" and living together raising children.
So where did Maggie say what she meant "couples who haven't divorced" when she called them "intact" that causes you to think that is what she meant?
Me: >> “So is it the force of law, or the mutual commitment that comes from their own free will and choice that brings the benefits?”
Sean: > I think it’s both. Couples know they’re “stuck” together since they’re married, so they make decisions predicated on being together for the long-term.
How does either force of law make them feel stuck together, and how does mutual commitment make them feel stuck together?
Me: >> “"It's must be"? "Because doesn't read"? Care to try that one again?”
Sean: > No.
Why not? Those statements could certainly use clarification or correction.
Whatever was important enough for you to write them in the first place is important enough for you to make sure they mean what you want them to mean.
“You aren't "divorced marriage" or "intact marriage", you are simply married or not.”
ReplyDeleteWell, take it up with Gallagher, who refers to “intact marriages.”
“None of the cited studies look at people who are divorced but living together raising children”
I suspect that a formerly married couple is continuing to live together, with or without children.
“How does either force of law make them feel stuck together, and how does mutual commitment make them feel stuck together?”
Get married and you’ll know the feeling.
Me: >> "So where did Maggie say what she meant "couples who haven't divorced" when she called them "intact" that causes you to think that is what she meant?"
ReplyDeleteSean: > Well, take it up with Gallagher, who refers to “intact marriages.”
The question is, why do you think "intact marriages" is defined as simply non-divorced couples?
Doesn't that contradict how you use that quote to denote situations where people are living together since none of those studies observed couples who lived together, raising children together, even after a divorce?
Do you think that "intact marriage" might mean something different than what you initially understood it to mean?
Sean: > I suspect that a formerly married couple is continuing to live together, with or without children.
The first sentence you quoted is, "Mountains of research tell us that children reared outside of intact marriages are much more likely than other kids to [etc...]".
What in that quote would make one suspect that the studies referenced in that citing were about households without children?
And just to re-iterate a few questions I would still like to hear you explain from your own understanding...
Me: >.. “How does either force of law make them feel stuck together, and how does mutual commitment make them feel stuck together?”
and...
Me: >.. “"It's must be"? "Because doesn't read"? Care to try that one again?”
and...
Me: >.. "Is that [[the two people they become bonded to and upon whom they depend] will be there to raise the children, hopefully forever, but at least as long as the children are minors] really what the "force of law" says?"
And could you clarify your confusing language, "It's must be" and "Because doesn't read"?
Thanks!