The Conservative Devaluation of Marriage
Unless you live on a deserted island, you know that three more states banned same-sex marriage last week. This brings the number of US states with such bans to 30. Citizens in Arizona, Florida and – almost unbelievably – California voted to deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Not surprisingly, efforts to use courts and state Constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage are often led by religious and social conservatives. This certainly was true last week, especially in California, where it is estimated that the Mormon church raised more than $20 million dollars to support Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Religious and social conservatives typically claim that, by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, they are recognizing marriage as the bedrock institution upon which societies are built. In so doing, they claim that they are respecting and honoring marriage and recognizing its enormous social and spiritual value. I call bullshit.
What religious conservatives have done, in lieu of celebrating the complexity and beauty of marriage, is to define marriage as primarily a sexual union. In the eyes of conservatives, marriage has to be heterosexual because heterosexual relations are the primary means by which procreation occurs. After all, God’s first commandment to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply; reproduction was their principal responsibility (and people say God’s not a Darwinist – HAH!). As society evolved, marriage became a legal and financial institution, as well as a sexual and social one. These are the basic functions marriage fulfilled throughout most of human history.
Over the past several centuries, Western conceptions of marriage have broadened. These days, the ideals of married life include companionship, shared goals and love – the union of spirits as well as bodies. These are ideals that heterosexual married couples strive to achieve and maintain in their relationships. These are ideals that same-sex couples want to share, but continue to be denied because American society persists in viewing marriage primarily as a sexual union. Yes, sex is an important and enjoyable facet of marriage, but it is only one component of a relationship that encompasses far more than the exchange of bodily heat and fluids. Same-sex couples don’t want to get married to have sex – they’re already doing that (just as most heterosexual couples are, regardless of marital status). Same-sex couples want to get married so that they may enjoy all of the legal, financial, social and interpersonal benefits of marriage that heterosexuals enjoy. I’m still waiting to hear a good reason why those benefits shouldn’t be extended to them.
Religious and social conservatives claim that endorsing same-sex marriage will destroy family life and social structures. I call double-bullshit and fear-mongering. Human society will continue to be dominantly heterosexual because that is a trait that ensures the survival of the species. The existence of homosexual and bi-sexual (which obviously does not preclude procreation) members of the human species does not change basic reproductive facts. Notwithstanding technological developments, heterosexual relations will continue to be the preeminent means of human reproduction for the foreseeable future. After all, sex is a much more pleasant means of reproduction than the alternatives. Therefore, it will not cost our society anything to allow the relatively small number of homosexuals in our midst to enjoy intimacy and marriage without imposing legal and financial penalties, guilt, fear or scorn on them.
Not realizing that they’ve said far too much already, conservatives also protest that children must not be taught that homosexuality is acceptable. At the risk of sounding condescending, I can’t help pointing out that conservatives don’t have a great track record in the social values arena. In times past, conservatives taught that dark-skinned people were inferior to light-skinned people. In times past, conservatives taught that women were inferior to men. In times past, conservatives taught that Catholics were less noble than Protestants, that Jews were less trustworthy than Christians, that Muslims were less admirable than Jews, tha- oops, I think that last one (and its variants) is still making the rounds. Religious and social conservatives have been wrong in the past, and they’re wrong, yet again, about homosexuality. Children should be taught to accept and respect people of all sexual orientations, just as they should be taught to respect people of all hues, of all or no faiths, and of all cultures.
Perhaps the most ridiculous claim conservatives make is that homosexuals have an agenda to recruit children to their lifestyle. I call triple-bullshit, fear-mongering and delusion. First of all, homosexuals don’t have a distinct “homosexual lifestyle.” Homosexuals are stock brokers, athletes, hair stylists, artists, construction workers, salespeople, writers, bank tellers, teachers, firemen, musicians, doctors, mechanics, plumbers…. They live in houses, condos, apartments, trailers, houseboats, motor homes…. They’re rich, poor, middle-class, smart, stupid, funny, boring, sad, happy…. I dare anyone to take such varied traits and create a profile for a typical homosexual lifestyle that fits all, or even most, members of the group. Secondly, homosexuality is not a learned or acquired trait, it is simply a natural part of one’s makeup. Children are born heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, perhaps even sexually indifferent (I suspect these people are rare, but they’re probably somewhere), solely on the basis of the genetic and chromosomal material their parents donate to them. The notion that children will be recruited into homosexuality is as ludicrous as the idea that they will be recruited from Anglo-Saxonism to African-Americanism.
Conservatives want to constrain marriage and define its parameters narrowly so that fewer people will benefit from it. In contrast, we who are not socially or religiously conservative want to expand marriage and define it more broadly so that more people’s lives will be enriched by it. I ask you, who among us values marriage more highly?
– the chaplain
Great post,
Creating divisions and on-going social crises, that they argue they have the ultimate truths and answers for, are important tools in maintaining the over-whelming control the church has, over so many.
Without abortion, ID, stem cells and gay marriage, how many of the flock might drift towards, catching a movie or a trout on Sundays, instead of dutifully attending the sermon.
98% of the world’s population does not recognize same gender marriage, and the 2% that does has only done so very recently. Might that be one reason people remain hesitant to change the definition?
Great post. I loved the section on what Conservatives have taught us in the past. It does seem that fear and ignorance cause people to put on blinkers. And then, as soon as religion (with its own blinkers) get involved, the blinkers get screwed to the head and are difficult to remove.
I would like to see your data to back up your claims of oppression by conservatives and “everybody knows it’s true” won’t cut it with me.
On the level. Homosexuals do indeed exploit their perversions (yes it is perverted) because it is their agenda to thrust their sickening ideals into the faces of everyone else at any consequence. The reason for that is of course that it is perverted, they know it is sick and rather than admit to that, homosexuals want everyone else to accept it whether they like it or not. In other words, to say to the perverts that their lifestyle is acceptable. Well, it is not. The majority finds this lifestyle disgusting and we do not want to see it, much less issue special rights because of it. We are particularly getting sick and tired of our children being indoctrinated to this agenda in our schools. How perverted is that? Kids do not need to be learning about “Tommy has two Moms… but that’s OK”. Stay away from our kids, quit marching in our streets and get your nasty crap back into the closet!
Essentially, what conservatives work to conserve is the feeling of superiority which comes at the expense of others. All of your wonderful examples are indicative of that. To me, that’s yet another way they ultimately devalue what they’re protecting. Is the only way one can have value and significance is by devaluing another? Is the only way to win a competition is to ensure the other team(s) can’t play? What does that say about the perceived value of what they’re protecting? If your marriage will have less luster because your gay neighbors’ marriage might outshine yours, then perhaps your energy is best focused inward instead of outward.
And frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass what 98% of the population of the world thinks. Most are under the sway of dogmatic bullshit, be it superstition or communism, each of which see homosexuality as a deviance. Should the West, should America be influenced by such nonsense by the majority of the world’s population? I would think not. We should be the shining city on the hill, not the obedient dog following from behind.
Substitute “nigger” for “homosexual” in Mike’s comment and it would look like it was written at least 50-60 years ago. Hate and value at the expense of others is the same regardless of how you dress it up. What I would like to see returned to the closet sir, is your hood and the rest of your Klan costume. THAT is some seriously “nasty crap”.
I’m with you in calling triple-bullshit!
Thanks for a very eloquent discussion of how the conservatives try to justify their bigotry.
@MikeinTn:
You asked The Chaplain for data facts on the oppression by the conservatives….where is your “data” and “proof” that homesexuality is perverted?
Let’s start with that, shall we?
This is just another case of religious bigotry in the part of Christians who think their ridiculous beliefs somehow entitle them to mistreat others. Anyone surprised?
@Philly: Come on, you know that a lot of these hate-mongers would be only too comfortable in those sheets as well, they had desegregation forced upon them, they never embraced it and they still don’t like them “damned niggers” being more than 3/5 human. Now they’re doing the same thing to homosexuals. Just wait until they get to the atheists.
Great post, chappy. I hadn’t seen the argument from that angle.
By defining marriage strictly in terms of procreation, women are reduced to the status of ‘womb support system.’ By reducing women to that status, anti-abortion forced childbirth becomes a viable stance. Women are also forced back into the ‘Biblical’ role prescribed by Christianity and Old Testament Judaism. The bugaboo of ‘what about the children’ is an attempt to force children to learn that the only reason for a woman to live is childbirth and the only reason to marry is to have children. This cedes education of our young to the religious right and their definition of ‘morality.’
Good post. Thought provoking.
Orion – you know what they say, churches multiply by dividing.
Charles – if 98% of the population believed the earth was flat, would that make them right?
AThinkingMan – maybe Hitchens got it right: religion poisons things.
Mike – thanks for your proving my point; every sermon needs a good illustration.
Philly – “Hate and value at the expense of others is the same regardless of how you dress it up.” Yep, it’s bigotry founded on personal insecurity and authoritarian ideology.
Natalie – thanks for joining me – it was getting scary wading in all that bullshit by myself.
Bitchspot – unfortunately, I’m not the least bit surprised.
bullet – thanks.
(((Billy))) – You’ve only just begun articulating the complex ideology that underlies homophobia, misogyny and a host of other prejudices.
Chaplain…I saw this tonight – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChanTFSmqao – and thought of you. A wonderfully impassioned speech.
Natalie – thanks for the link. Olbermann’s pitch was perfect.
To the chaplain, my point is that SSM is a radical new concept. Marriage (female/male), has persisted across all cultures of the world for thousands of years whether the culture was religious or not.
Traditional marriage is not outmoded nor is it comparable to believing in a flat earth. Traditional marriage still offers benefits to society that no other familial arrangement can.
Charles,
What are these advantages?
MikeinTn “…to thrust their sickening ideals into the faces of everyone else at any consequence.”
Am I the only one whose a little aroused by that sentence? Oh.
“In other words, to say to the perverts that their lifestyle is acceptable. Well, it is not. The majority finds this lifestyle disgusting and we do not want to see it, much less issue special rights because of it.”
Ah, that sounds like one of the arguments of the anti-miscegenation movement. The 1940’s are long past, however.
“We are particularly getting sick and tired of our children being indoctrinated to this agenda in our schools.”
Tolerance and knowledge are “indoctrination” now? Outrage!
“How perverted is that?”
Remember that when your son or daughter comes to you and says they’re gay.
“Kids do not need to be learning about “Tommy has two Moms… but that’s OK”.”
But Tommy does have two moms. Is reality-based teaching really so bad?
“…quit marching in our streets.”
Did you notice that word that you used? “Our” streets. They aren’t hetero-only streets. That would be silly. Homosexuals pay taxes too, y’know!
“…and get your nasty crap back into the closet!”
Or what? You’re not the boss of them!
(((Billy))) “By defining marriage strictly in terms of procreation, women are reduced to the status of ‘womb support system.’”
I believe the term is “baby factory”. Maybe “seed bank”.
Charles “Marriage (female/male), has persisted across all cultures of the world for thousands of years whether the culture was religious or not.”
So did slavery. And so?
“Traditional marriage is not outmoded nor is it comparable to believing in a flat earth. Traditional marriage still offers benefits to society that no other familial arrangement can.”
I can’t speak for everyone, but after gay marriage was legalized in Canada the worst thing happened was that some of the people who got married got divorced. You can’t get much more traditional than that!
Great post, Chappy. I spent an hour talking over you last week and you could have said it better. Talking about stepping on toes!
For those people who claim that homosexuality is a perversion, please explain your reasoning. I’ll give you that it is not the majority behavior, so deviant might be a word you can use, although it has negative connotations.
Homosexuality has persisted throughout time. It is evident in nature in many species. I don’t think you can even call it unnatural. So all you can stand on is that you’re disgusted by the act. That does not make the act wrong, immoral, or perverse.
If you personally don’t like the act, don’t partake of it. That’s your choice. But to try to deny rights to homosexuals, rights that ever American should have, based on your bias is wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s motivated by personal distaste or because your Bible told you so. Our country is not ruled by the values of one or more religions. It was founded on the idea of protecting individual liberty. The founders didn’t quite get it right and minority groups have been oppressed. And those minority groups have included homosexuals since the inception of our country.
It’s long past time that we right that wrong.
You might like a paper titled “The Heterosexual Agenda“; it’s brilliant.
Also, you make this comment: “Children are born heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, perhaps even sexually indifferent (I suspect these people are rare, but they’re probably somewhere)”
Sexually indifferent people sometimes refer to themselves as “asexual“. I think I might be asexual myself.
Charles – I never said that traditional marriage is outmoded. I’m in my 30th year of a traditional marriage and I don’t regret it a bit.
With regard to the so-called 98% who just aren’t ready to make a change, I’ll point out that, during the American civil rights era, people who didn’t want to change their racist attitudes and practices said something very similar: we’re not ready to make such radical changes yet; be patient and give us time to adjust. Fortunately, American society did the right thing and began overturning racist laws, habits and thinking, in spite of pleas for more time. American society recognized that, once injustices had been identified, it was necessary to take immediate steps to correct them. The same principle applies with regard to gay rights. These people are being treated unjustly and our society has a responsibility to do what is right, regardless of the protests of those who are not ready (or willing) to make the changes that justice requires.
Sean – good question; I hope you’re not holding your breath waiting for an equally good answer.
MO & OG – thanks for joining the conversation; both of you made some good points.
Notreallyalice – I initially used the term “asexual” and wasn’t sure if it would be offensive. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
I often wonder why so many of the people who are so vocally (and otherwise) anti gay marriage seem to have a relationship with their spouse which my own of 40 plus years would have ended long ago, or are practitioners of serial polygamy.
“Traditional marriage” and social good, my ass.
You’ve utterly pegged this one.
How my lifestyle could possibly be threatened by two gay people marrying is beyond me.
== Re: Post# 16 by Sean the Blogonaut== =
==”Charles,
What are these advantages?”==
The main advantage is that it gives a child a mother and a father. Where a child comes from is very important to a child.
========================
== Re: Post#21 by the chaplain ==
=”With regard to the so-called 98% who just aren’t ready to make a change, I’ll point that, during the American civil rights era, people who didn’t want to change their racist attitudes and practices said something very similar.=
My point is the US is not out of step with the rest of the world. Marriage did not survive for thousands of years to limit the rights of gays, but to enhance the rights of children.
Nearly all of the “innovations” we have introduced for families over the last 30 years (no fault divorce, single motherhood, etc.,) have, overall, negatively impacted children.
SSM denies all children in those relationships the connection to one of their biological parents. Because of this, I remain unconvinced it is a step forward.
Charles:
I could care less whether the USA is out of step with the rest of the world. The USA is out of step with the rest of the world regarding the legitimacy of our presence in Iraq too, but we’re still there. With regard to gay rights, if we in the USA know what’s right, then we should do it regardless of what the rest of the world does.
Marriage did not survive for thousands of years to limit the rights of gays, but to enhance the rights of children.
That’s a nice sentimental, idealized interpretation of how families have functioned throughout history. It’s also false. The reality is that most societies haven’t given a damn about the rights of children. In fact, they haven’t figured that kids had any rights at all. In Western societies, including the USA, child labor in brutal conditions was normative until about a century ago. If you haven’t read about the exploitation of child coal miners, or seen photos of them, just click this link. In many non-Western societies, children continue to be exploited as cheap units of production. Marriage has never been primarily about “enhancing the rights of children.” It’s been about forging economic and political alliances, procreation and lots of other stuff, most of which has little to do with the quality of children’s lives. Yes, families are the primary means by which children are reared, but rearing children is not synonymous with enhancing their lives.
As for recent “innovations” in parenthood, is your criticism of single motherhood matched by an equal amount of scorn for men who sire children, then neglect to support them? More to the point, single parent families have been around for centuries, often due to the deaths of mothers in childbirth or fathers in warfare, or the absence of fathers who have had to work far away from home for extended periods of time. The constant presence of two parents in the home is a luxury that few but the wealthiest families have enjoyed through much of human history.
You also stated that “SSM denies all children in those relationships the connection to one of their biological parents.” So does adoption. In fact, adoption often denies children connections to both biological parents, so my guess is that you oppose it too. You do realize, don’t you, that you’re defining parenthood in terms of biology rather than relationship? Biological parenthood is not at all the same thing as loving, nurturing relations with children. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather see children living in homes with gay parents who love them than with heterosexual parents who neglect or abuse them.
I still haven’t heard a good explanation on what makes homosexuality “perverse” or “unnatural” or why it is unhealthy for children to be raised by homosexual parents.
Until then I am going to continue to fall back on my argument that those opposed are bigots based on the “ick, I don’t like it!” factor.
Here are some things that I’m “ick” about that I tolerate:
Turnips
Roaches
Country Music
Sick Co-workers (who come in and make the rest of us sick)
Religion
Hmm.. I suppose we can all be tolerant if we try.
Charles “Nearly all of the “innovations” we have introduced for families over the last 30 years (no fault divorce, single motherhood, etc.,) have, overall, negatively impacted children.”
And yet there are never any state propositions to ban divorce. Odd… It’s easy to regulate what the other people do, but the fun stops when it comes to laws that potentially effect you.
“SSM denies all children in those relationships the connection to one of their biological parents. Because of this, I remain unconvinced it is a step forward.”
Again, so you’re starting a ballot to ban divorce?
I’ll see your disconnected parent and raise you a widow, one abusive parent, divorce, as well as the ones that the chaplain mentioned.
the chaplain “The USA is out of step with the rest of the world regarding the legitimacy of our presence in Iraq too, but we’re still there.”
We really went over there to protect them from gay marriage. True story.
You made a lot of points chaplain, I’ll try to respond to some of them.
=”I could care less whether the USA is out of step with the rest of the world.”=
It’s not that, it’s that SSM supporters are out of step with fellow Americans.
=”With regard to gay rights, if we in the USA know what’s right, then we should do it regardless of what the rest of the world does.”=
Who is this “we”? The minority? A judge?
=”The reality is that most societies haven’t given a damn about the rights of children. In fact, they haven’t figured that kids had any rights at all.”=
So we should continue taking away children’s rights; like the right to be raised by their mother and father?
=”As for recent “innovations” in parenthood, is your criticism of single motherhood matched by an equal amount of scorn for men who sire children, then neglect to support them?”=
My scorn applies to both because it has not benefitted children.
=”More to the point, single parent families have been around for centuries. . . The constant presence of two parents in the home is a luxury that few but the wealthiest families have enjoyed through much of human history.”=
I’m unsure what you are saying. Whatever it is, single parenthood has statistically been bad for children.
And no, a mother and father in the home has been the norm until very recently.
Removing any vestige of the nuclear family by giving a child two “parents” instead of a mother and father is another step backwards in my opinion.
=”You also stated that “SSM denies all children in those relationships the connection to one of their biological parents.” So does adoption.”=
People who adopt are not responsible for the failure of the original family. Same sex couples intentionally deny a child one of their biological parents. That’s a critically important difference.
=”You do realize, don’t you, that you’re defining parenthood in terms of biology rather than relationship?”=
Certainly biology is important. You aren’t cruel enough to suggest that any child can thrive in whatever type of “relationship” they are thrown into, do you?
=”Biological parenthood is not at all the same thing as loving, nurturing relations with children.”=
Biology is intimately related to loving nurturing relations with a child. Statistically, children raised by both biological parents fare better then average then any other arrangement.
=”I don’t know about you, but I’d rather see children living in homes with gay parents who love them than with heterosexual parents who neglect or abuse them.”=
Why do you assume biological parents are going to abuse their child? Abuse and neglect occurs at higher rates in single parent households and households with stepparents in them.
In my opinion, endorsing and encouraging new family structures has seemed to mostly benefit the adults involved, I don’t see much evidence where it has benefitted children.
Charles “In my opinion, endorsing and encouraging new family structures has seemed to mostly benefit the adults involved, I don’t see much evidence where it has benefitted children.”
Neutral studies (or studies that attempt to be objective) indicate that they’re fractionally better or the same as or as good as the regular kind of parents. It’s not a ringing endorsment, but it’s not the end of the world, either. “Their” kids end up just as messed up as “our” kids, which reduces this fight to a ”tu quoque”.
So, why not let gay couples adopt children, if you’re looking out for the interest of the children? Would it be better for those children to be in a home with two loving parents than in an orphanage? And yet, I see people screaming even louder when homosexuals are given the right to adopt children.
Oh yeah, and this point you brought up:
It’s not that, it’s that SSM supporters are out of step with fellow Americans.
So it’s okay to discriminate as long as the group that’s being discriminated against is in the minority. Got that. Maybe we should start denying rights to other minority groups, well, as long as they don’t have anyone to help them out. Tyranny of the majority is what America was founded on, right?
Ordinary Girl “So, why not let gay couples adopt children, if you’re looking out for the interest of the children?”
But didn’t you know that only gay people raise gay kids? Outrage!
“Tyranny of the majority is what America was founded on, right?”
With unfortunate exceptions like Dredd Scott, “corporate personhood” (which I’m sure made sense at the time), and the decision that pretty much all trade fell under Interstate Trade rules (I can’t remember the decision, but it was a power grab, if memory serves), thank God for the courts.
Across the street and one door up from me is a lesbian couple. Both were formerly married, both have children.
Strangely (at least to many of the ‘traditional values’ crowd), these children (two are teenagers) these kids are smart, motivated, happy (or as happy as teenagers can be), respectful, achievers, generous, responsible, and have a strong interest in the opposite gender. Nope, not gay.
Is their family life an idyll? Hell, no! Anyone who’s been in a family knows about the friction in any group, they’re the same. Just a family.
Sometimes I think that the hating of “the other” is a rejection of the notion that they are like oneself. We are our predjudices, and if “they” are so much like “me”, what doest that say about “me” deep down? And my assumptions about the world?
Charles:
Where are you getting these “rights” that children supposedly have? Show us where they’ve been codified. I don’t find them in any of the founding documents of the United States, do you? The “right to be raised by both of one’s parents” seems to be strangely absent.
The reality is, no such right exists. Kids that are put up for adoption apparently don’t have that right, neither are kids of a divorced family, which constitutes more than 50% of all heterosexual marriages in this country. Whatever happened to their “rights”?
The reality is, a parent is what you do, it’s not who you are. Absentee fathers are not parents, they’re sperm-donors. Given a choice, I doubt you could find any adoptive child in this country who wouldn’t jump at the chance to have a family, *ANY* family. How dare you suggest they shouldn’t have one that doesn’t fit into your mold.
Forgive me, but in trying to address all of Charles’ points I started thinking about all the other ridiculous points I’ve had to address in the past and before long I had something quite long and therefore made a blog post. I’ll quickly add here some of what I wrote which directly address Charles:
I don’t see much evidence where same sex parenting has benefitted children.
Research shows that families headed by gay and lesbian parents are as healthy as traditional families.
The majority of Americans are simply not ready for same sex marriage.
• At the time of the Revolution, perhaps a third of the people wanted Independence.
• At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln was still hesitant to outlaw slavery because there was not enough support in the North when that would mean reconciliation was impossible. It was only later, after the North was resolved to see the war through to the end and, more importantly, to ensure the British would not support the South, that he then made the Emancipation Proclamation.
• It took “activist judges” in 1954 to “legislate from the bench” against the majority opinion of the people to rule segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, and federal troops and the National Guard to ensure 9 black students could go to high school in Little Rock in 1957, again, against the overwhelming opinion of the people in AK, and probably beyond.
• “Activist judges” once again, in 1967, made bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional, against the opinion of the people of at least 16 states.
Right is right, whether you’re ready for it or not has no bearing.
Marriage (female/male), has persisted across all cultures of the world for thousands of years.
So has arranged marriage. So has polygamy. So what? Also, considering how long heterosexual marriage has persisted, I would think that it will probably continue to do so, regardless of the existence of same sex marriage. How can something that has existed for so long be so fragile? The assertion undermines the argument.
The main advantage of traditional marriage is that it gives a child a mother and a father. Where a child comes from is very important to a child.
As someone who was adopted, I can say that “where I came from” really doesn’t mean shit to me, especially compared to knowing that I had a home and a family that loved me. Sadly, there are some kids who weren’t adopted and can’t say that. The point though is having a loving family, even if that means just one parent, is what’s important for a child. There’s nothing barring a same sex couple from providing that to a child.
Thanks chappy. Great post. Being a gay atheist I can correct MikeinTN about the gay agenda. If we had a gay agenda Prop #8 would not have passed. If Californian gays had an agenda we would have been organized enough to have voted against it! A lesbian friend of mine lives in SF, she didn’t even know that Prop #8 was an issue on the ballot.
== Re: Post #33 by bitchspot ==
==”Where are you getting these “rights” that children supposedly have?”==
You approve of denying a child the opportunity to be raised by their mother and father? How cruel.
==”The “right to be raised by both of one’s parents” seems to be strangely absent.”==
So children have no rights?
==”The reality is, no such right exists.”==
But the right to SSM does??
==”Kids that are put up for adoption apparently don’t have that right”==
One should never intentionally deny a child the right to their mother and father.
Adoptees never interfere in, nor caused, the failure of the original family.
==”neither are kids of a divorced family, which constitutes more than 50% of all heterosexual marriages in this country. Whatever happened to their “rights”?”==
Due to adult-centric no-fault divorce laws, children’s rights are often violated in those situations.
==”The reality is, a parent is what you do, it’s not who you are.”==
Sure. And kids are just fashion accessories meant to adjust to any lifestyle we want.
==”Absentee fathers are not parents, they’re sperm-donors.”==
Agreed. And what are surrogate parents? Or sperm purchased from fertility clinics?
==”Given a choice, I doubt you could find any adoptive child in this country who wouldn’t jump at the chance to have a family, *ANY* family.”==
But that’s not what we’re talking about. We are talking about creating a child with a surrogate, removing that child immediately from one of its natural parents, and then placing the child in another family arrangement.
In this case, it is the new family which has denied the child the right to either their mother or their father.
==”How dare you suggest they shouldn’t have one that doesn’t fit into your mold.”==
You mean, how dare I say a word in defense of the rights of the child.
Great post Chappy. Sorry I am late to the party! You are right though, throughout US history conservatives have been on the wrong side of issues regarding race, gender, and suffrage. I have no reason to think they got this one right especilly since they (people like Charles) are using the exact same arguments people used against inter-racial marriage and the such.
Any argument against gay marriage using “the children” as an example is complete bullshit when the divorce rate is near (or is it above) 50%. The only reason to be against gay marriage is because of hate. Or the Bible. Yes, I know, same thing..
Chuckie
Are you really that ignorant? Your last comment was so full of straw men, I don’t know where to start, but it seems your objection to SSM is on behalf of children’s rights, so let’s start there.
Where do you get the idea that children will lose rights in Same Sex Marriages? You keep saying “They have a right to be raised by a mother and father”
In all – that’s 100% – of those SS marriages, if they are raising children, it’s because those children don’t HAVE either a father or a mother. They are forced by biology to adopt, or do an in vitro fertilization. Are you saying gay couples should not get sperm from sperm bank? Save them for the heterosexuals? Or maybe you think, the state’s going into the business of snatching children from intact families to give to queers?
Get you head out of you ass, and use your brain. Children have a right to be raised in a happy, healthy home. No more than that. There is no guarantee that they will even get that in man/women households either. The state takes children away from mothers and father who neglect them, not because of their gender, but because of the way the children are being treated.
The best interest of the children is not automatically presumed by the gender of their parents. Its the way children are treated, not by whom, that determines a good parent.
== Re: Post # 37 by Spanish Inquistaro ==
==”Are you saying gay couples should not get sperm from sperm bank?”==
I’m saying that there are consequences to the action that affect the rights of the child.
==”Children have a right to be raised in a happy, healthy home. No more than that.”==
“No more than that”? They don’t have a right to the most fundamental of childrens needs, a mother and a father??
==”The best interest of the children is not automatically presumed by the gender of their parents.”==
Again, you put the wants of the parents ahead of the needs of the child.
==”Its the way children are treated, not by whom, that determines a good parent.”==
What nonsense. A mother and father are the most important thing for a child. To wantonly and casually disregard any significance to this belies an astounding ignorance about the wellbeing of a child.
Sorry about spelling mistake; S/B “Spanish Inquisitor”.
== Re: Post #37 by DB ==
==” . . . throughout US history conservatives have been on the wrong side of issues regarding race, gender, and suffrage.”==
Sounds more like you’re rewriting history.
First off, Republicans were the anti-slavery party.
And in the mid 20th century, it was often Southern Democrats, called Dixiecrats who impeded the progress of black rights for decades.
1. I discount your assertion that having a mother and father is a fundamental need.
2. There’s no such thing as a right to have two parents, let alone that they be man and woman.
Fundamental needs would include food, shelter, and a loving, nurturing environment.
Again, you make the unsupported assertion that children need a mother and father, discrediting every single parent household in America AND, again, ignoring the research that shows; families headed by gay and lesbian parents are as healthy as traditional families.
I’d also say it’s people like you who are putting YOUR wants ahead of the needs of children. Your want to denigrate, discriminate against and strip the rights of gays is what you put first, way ahead of any sincere interest for the needs of children, which makes you all the more despicable. Not only do you seek to legitimize your bigotry and throw children under the bus to do so, but you have the gall to assert you’re doing it for the sake of the children! Utterly despicable.
Charles said:
I find it laughable that you equate the Republican party of the 1860s and the Democratic party of the 1960s with the parties that wear those labels now. In case you hadn’t noticed, both parties have evolved. The majority of what the current parties share with their predecessors is the labels, not their ideals.
Also, neither I nor the previous commenters ever used the labels Republican and Democratic – you introduced those into the discussion. I’m not surprised that you did so, as it’s just another ploy (a red herring that matches your children’s rights red herring and complements your numerous straw men and misrepresentations of views you don’t agree with) to divert the discussion away from the topic of the post; to refresh your memory, I posted about gay rights.
PhillyChief “It was only later, after the North was resolved to see the war through to the end and, more importantly, to ensure the British would not support the South, that he then made the Emancipation Proclamation.”
It should be noted, too, that the Proclamation only effected States that no longer accepted his authority.
DB “…throughout US history conservatives have been on the wrong side of issues regarding race, gender, and suffrage.”
Yes. That’s what conservative means. The Argument from Tradition is a logical fallacy for a reason. That’s not to say, however, that liberality is always right. It just means that the A.f.T. is cursed by its own obsolescence.
Charles “What nonsense. A mother and father are the most important thing for a child. To wantonly and casually disregard any significance to this belies an astounding ignorance about the wellbeing of a child.”
Goddamn! Loving parents are the most important thing, not the relationship of their genitals.
“Sounds more like you’re rewriting history.”
It sounds more like you’re misinterpreting what he said.
“First off, Republicans were the anti-slavery party.”
First off, he didn’t say “Republicans”. He said “conservatives”. The two parties, up until recently, were far less homogenous. For example William Jennings Bryan, a self-described conservative, populist anti-intellectual and (at least) quasi-biblical literalist belonged to the Democratic party (which would be a tough gig to pull off now). It wasn’t until the 60’s (Civil Rights movement/Southern strategy) & 70’s (rise of the Christian Right) that the rainbow really shifted to black and white.
Fantastic post. I came here after the comment you left at athinkingman.
I found myself in a bar in London with a group of right-wing individuals the other day who were absolutely convinced that gay marriage would undermine traditional marriage and that a gay male couple should definitely never be left in charge of children, let alone adopt. I have to say I was horrified. I had no idea such bigotted views still existed amongst educated people. Several of these people were American. I stood no chance of changing their viewpoint (although I did try) and left the bar feeling thoroughly depressed – a feeling it has taken me days to shake off.
Reluctant Blogger: Unfortunately there’s a group in the “Backlash” worldview that believes that all gay men are pedophiles. Repeating the lie, for them, makes it true (much like “Saddam, 9/11″, “athiest, immoral”, “Darwin, Hitler” et al does). Oddly, they don’t carry this out to its logical conclusion, and go after left-handers, who are statistically more likely of deviance of all kinds (ask a group of accountants how many of them are lefties, then do the same for a group of artists. Spooky!), up to and including the craziness of insanity! Plus they have trouble with scissors.
Philly and MO: You’ve both provided links to studies that undermine Charles’s
assertionsbeliefs.Charles: have you read the studies to which Philly and MO directed you?
Reluctant: thanks for joining the discussion. I hope to see you here more often. I always enjoy reading your comments at athinkingman’s blog. The claim that homosexual marriage will undermine traditional marriage is incredible.
Firstly, if the deacon and I are taking care of business in our home, what others are doing in their homes will not have any effect on us. Secondly, people who are not gay are not going to suddenly run and contract gay marriages just for the hell of it. Gay people will marry other gay people and straight people will marry other straight people. That’s just the way sexual attraction works. Pretty cool, huh?
As for the remark about leaving gay men in charge of children, gay people are not statistically more likely to molest children than straight people are. It’s just more crap that wingnuts use to scare people into hating gays.
Charles:
“You approve of denying a child the opportunity to be raised by their mother and father? How cruel.”
I recognize the reality that says some children will not be raised by their biological parents and in fact, sometimes that’s a good thing when talking about alcoholic, abusive parents. You seem to be under the bizarre delusion that the ability to donate genetic material somehow automatically qualifies you to be a good parent.
“So children have no rights?”
They have the rights that society guarantees them, just like everyone else. Society has not guaranteed them the right to be raised by their biological parents.
“But the right to SSM does??”
Actually, yes. Equal treatment under the law is guaranteed.
“One should never intentionally deny a child the right to their mother and father.”
Oh yes, we should make sure we leave children in physically abusive, sexually abusive homes, that makes wonderful sense, thanks for clearing that up for us, Charles.
“But that’s not what we’re talking about. We are talking about creating a child with a surrogate, removing that child immediately from one of its natural parents, and then placing the child in another family arrangement.”
Actually, that’s not what we’re talking about at all. There are many ways to have a child, one can have one from a previous relationship, one can adopt one, and yes, one can be artificially inseminated. And you know something? It happens all the time to HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS as well! I don’t hear you whining about that.
“In this case, it is the new family which has denied the child the right to either their mother or their father.”
By all means, let’s stop those evil adoptions, they deny children the non-existent right to their biological parents.
“You mean, how dare I say a word in defense of the rights of the child.”
Since you’re just making them up, yes. You’re just inventing these supposed rights out of whole cloth as a way to justify your irrational hatred of homosexuality, which, I might add, is mighty pathetic on your part. Your arguments only make sense if you’re going to utterly eliminate things like divorce, adoption, foster parenting, surrogate parenthood and artificial insemination from all heterosexual marriages as well. I don’t see you crying about that, you bloody hypocrite.
In the US marriage is a fundamental right (see Loving v Virginia), subject to the “privileges or immunity clause” of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (see P-R clause). That effectively protects marriage between consenting adults (with evidence-bases reasons, of course, against the generally oppressive and corrosive “institution” of polygamy. Take that, Joseph Smith, Jr.!), no matter whether their crotches complement one another (“Oh, my. I love how the moonlight catches the delicate folds of your labia minora.” “Why thank you. Your nymphae are quite breathtaking as well.”. On a side note: I’m the worst at phone sex. The worst!).
Eventually, this will hit SCOTUS (and it will), and those “activist liberal” judges should vote with the Constitution (outrage!).
Wups. I forgot to close that link. Damn you, lack of Preview!
Also * (from the California ruling that annoyed the cabal behind the heterosexual agenda):
Basically Prop 8, because it didn’t like the Courts using California’s Constitution as a basis of Law, changed the Constitution to disenfranchise the recently, um, franchised. This (and amendments like the 18th & 21st, federally) illustrate the weakness and strength of a, um, mutable Constitution. Amending the US Constitution, thankfully, is much tougher than a simple plebiscite.
* Note: many thanks to Joshua Rosenau, and many other bloggers and news organizations, of repute both good and ill, for being real smartlike and knowing things about stuff.
@ MO #50: I fixed the link for you.
== Re: Post # 42 by Philly ==
==”1. I discount your assertion that having a mother and father is a fundamental need.”==
That’s insane.
==”2. There’s no such thing as a right to have two parents, let alone that they be man and woman.”==
You confirm my belief that this all about the adults. Children and their needs and rights, come dead last.
==”Fundamental needs would include food, shelter, and a loving, nurturing environment.”==
For a minute there, I though you were talking about a plant. My bad.
==”Again, you make the unsupported assertion that children need a mother and father,”==
And here I was hoping you had come to your senses.
==” . . . discrediting every single parent household in America AND, again, ignoring the research that shows; families headed by gay and lesbian parents are as healthy as traditional families.”==
Those studies are of poor quality. They are small sample sizes, lack proper randomness in the sample selection and the studies themselves were done by advocates of same sex parenting. Lastly, they contain almost no data about parenting by gay males.
Let’s see some proper, scientifically done studies.
==”Not only do you seek to legitimize your bigotry . . .”==
Very good. I had expected to be called a bigot in your first sentence.
==” . . . and throw children under the bus to do so, but you have the gall to assert you’re doing it for the sake of the children!”==
And this criticism from a person who denies children have a right to a mother and father. The irony.
Whatever.
Charles said: Those studies are of poor quality. They are small sample sizes, lack proper randomness in the sample selection and the studies themselves were done by advocates of same sex parenting. Lastly, they contain almost no data about parenting by gay males.
Uh, not quite accurate. One of the studies MO cited was a mega-study that pulled together the findings of 240 separate studies. First, 240 studies is not a small sample size for a mega-study. Second, mega-studies are valuable tools for organizing vast amounts of data. Mega-study is a relatively new methodology, made possible primarily by the tools of information technology, but it’s certainly not a method that lacks utility. Other researchers will be able to test this study and are probably doing so already.
Moving on, the author of the study with the small sample size admitted that further studies need to be done. That’s how real scientists work: the findings of one scientist are tested by other scientists and confirmed, modified or rejected outright in light of additional testing. Moreover, the sample size and randomness (or lack thereof) may not be issues, depending on the specific methodology used. It would be a small sample for a quantitative study (and lack of randomness would be a serious drawback), but a rather good sized sample for a qualitative study (in which randomness is often not a necessary or desirable feature). Finally, the researchers themselves admitted that they needed to investigate gay male parenting. In short, the weaknesses that you pointed out were recognized by the researchers themselves so that further research can address those weaknesses. Again, that’s how real scientists work: good scientists cite their findings, then suggest questions that arose from their findings and require further examination. They never assume that they’ve said the last, definitive word on a topic. Contrary to your assertion, these studies were neither unscientific nor poorly conducted.
Since you’re ready to toss out these studies because of the alleged biases of the researchers, may I assume that you are equally skeptical of studies of white males that have been (and continue to be) conducted by white males? You know the kind I mean, the ones that permeated most research throughout the twentieth century and generalized findings from that group to all of humankind. Or are those studies miraculously bias-free and completely objective?
== Re: Post # 54 by chaplain =
==”One of the studies MO cited was a mega-study that pulled together the findings of 240 separate studies. First, 240 studies is not a small sample size for a mega-study.”==
Do you have a link to this particular study?
==”Moving on, the author of the study with the small sample size admitted that further studies need to be done before drawing firm conclusions.”==
So we have no firm data yet.
==”Also, the researchers themselves admitted that they needed to investigate gay male parenting.”==
So we have no reliable data on gay male parenting. Great.
Charles:
As far as I can tell, Hasting’s study is not available online. It was commissioned by the Canadian government, so he may not have control over its distribution. MO and I both provided links to the news report of the study.
There are very few things about which anyone actually has “firm data;” all findings are probabilistic. Some findings have much higher probabilities than others, but absolute certainty is a myth. At the very least, the findings so far suggest that fear of gay parenting is unwarranted. As for reliable data on gay male parenting, I suspect that your fears in that area are also poorly founded. Why have you jumped to the conclusion that gays will automatically be worse parents than straights?
May I suggest that you put aside all your rhetoric about the children for a moment and examine what other reasons you have for opposing gay marriage? I suspect that your concerns for the children are only part of the issue.
And here I thought you were completely delusional. My bad. At least you’re not self unaware and you know you’re a bigot. Too bad you embrace that bigotry though, and unscrupulously use children as shields to hide it behind. It can’t be said enough, that’s despicable.
I notice you continue to avoid single parents. Are children in those households having their “fundamental right to a mother and father” violated? Should unwed, pregnant women be compelled to marry prior to childbirth or else have the state seize their child? Should a widowed parent be compelled to remarry or have his child seized by the state to ensure the child’s “fundamental right” isn’t violated? Come on pal, let’s hear it.
Charles, all of the arguments you use against homosexual marriage can be used against heterosexual marriage. Adoption, single parents, artificial insemination, and surrogate pregnancies are scenarios that heterosexual couples can find themselves in. I think you should rally against those issues if you find them deplorable, whether they occur with homosexual or heterosexual couples.
So, apart from those issues, which are not SSM-only issues, what is your reasoning for denying SSM?
“And this criticism from a person who denies children have a right to a mother and father. The irony.”
I once knew a guy named Chuck
Who was having some very bad luck
Finding the tome
Saying childr’n should live at home
When their parents had been hit by a truck!
They need their parents, he said.
Though I’m not sure they’d stay in bed
When Dad shuffled in
To tuck them in
And they realized that he’s undead.
So what fits in this set
To make sure children’s needs are met?
Do we bring back the dead?
Force the unloving to wed?
Or have queer folk assist with the debt?
OG:
Irrational religious bigotry, of course. Anyone surprised?
Love the poetry
Glad you liked it, Philly. I need to work on my meter before I’m up to Cuttlefish’s level, but beers and praise always make me feel good, even if I supplied the beers myself.
== Re: Post 356 by the chaplain ==
==”As far as I can tell, Hasting’s study is not available online.”==
Not having seen the study, nor having read it, why would you vouch for its veracity?
——————————————-
== Re: Post # 57 by Philly Chief ==
==” At least you’re not self unaware and you know you’re a bigot.”==
LOL. Liberals toss the bigot word around anywhere and everywhere at anyone who doesn’t adhere to their “more tolerant” opinions.
==”Too bad you embrace that bigotry though, and unscrupulously use children as shields to hide it behind. It can’t be said enough, that’s despicable.”==
How speaking up for the basic rights and basic needs of children is something “despicable” escapes me. Denigrating the concerns of children is what I consider deplorable.
==”I notice you continue to avoid single parents. Are children in those households having their “fundamental right to a mother and father” violated? Should unwed, pregnant women be compelled to marry prior to childbirth or else have the state seize their child?”==
I thought the issue was SSM. Statistically, single parenthood provides dramatically poorer results for the wellbeing of children. People are free to choose it, but society need not endorse it.
——————————————
== Re: Post # by bitchspot ==
==”Irrational religious bigotry, of course. Anyone surprised?”==
No surprise to me.
Liberals see bigots EVERYWHERE. Quick, look. I think there are some hiding under your bed!
——————————————-
== Re: Post # 59 by 2-D Man: ==
I’ll give you a couple of beers too if you don’t write any more bad poetry. Please.
Charles – Fair question. I’ll accept the veracity of the study for three reasons:
a) what I understand about research methods
b) the fact that it was commissioned, accepted and publicized by the Canadian government
c) most research findings are not widely distributed to the public in raw form; they are interpreted by experts so that ordinary people can understand the gist of the findings. The general public relies on the experts to screen the data for us. That’s often the best we can do in a world of professional specialization. It’s a system that has generally worked well for us in the West. How many research studies have you read personally before accepting their findings?
Now, back at you: if you haven’t read the study, why did you assume it was poorly done?
Charles:
In #64, I asked, Now, back at you: if you haven’t read the study, why did you assume it was poorly done?
If you want to answer the question, go ahead. But, I really don’t care what your answer is. I’ve grown bored with arguing minutiae with you.
Note to all: Given the nature of Charles’ comments and his refusal to actually answer questions – he simply quotes a question, then responds with either another question or some snark, I’m issuing a troll alert. As you can see, I’m not going to feed the troll anymore. I’d prefer that you don’t do so either, but what you do is entirely up to you.
So ultimately it comes down to this, that Charles will simply:
• Make unsubstantiated assertions
• Dismiss substantiated claims which counter his unsubstantiated assertions
• Fail to apply his unsubstantiated assertions to anything except what will aid in attacking gays
• Repeatedly claim all of this unscrupulous behavior is for the children
Right. I think we’re done here.
Charles “LOL. Liberals toss the bigot word around anywhere and everywhere at anyone who doesn’t adhere to their “more tolerant” opinions.”
And conservatives claim oppression when their intolerance is exposed by fact-based studies, logic and empathy. But this isn’t about you. This is about gay marriage.
“Statistically, single parenthood provides dramatically poorer results for the wellbeing of children.”
And two (gay) parents, provisionally, are as good as two (hetero) parents, but you’re arguing against the former as though it was single-parenting (which is worse than dual-parenting, and is a whole other issue). This puts you on the losing end of logic, history, and humanity. Kudos.
“Liberals see bigots EVERYWHERE.”
That’s because bigots are generally unashamed of being so, and therefore see little reason to hide.
the chaplain “I’ve grown bored with arguing minutiae with you”
This conversation bores me. Now’s the time on Sprockets when we dance!
Philly said: “I think we’re done here.” Good choice. I don’t see any reason for you to continue casting pearls before swine.
MO: I’m sorry the conversation grew boring. I hope you’ll be back for other conversations. In the meantime, dance away!
@modusoperandi – oops I am not only gay but also left-handed! No hope for me then! Statistically left-handed people are more likely to be gay (yes, and insane) than right-handed people. I am fine with scissors though!! Probably just as well!
@chaplain – thanks. And yes, I will definitely be back. This is the liveliest comment box I have come across. You actually have discussions here. It’s great.
It didn’t bore me. This is the internet. It’s the place for combat between the reality-centric and the backlash mindsets. It is tough, though, when your evidence isn’t considered evidence (because things that don’t support the backlash mentality are obviously biased against them). It’s impossible to reach anything resembling consensus when both sides disagree on what the definition of “fact” is.
Reluctant Blogger: I’m just left-handed. The scissor thing always bugged me. It’s the exact same damn action, but it doesn’t work as well with the “wrong” hand. It’s a conspiracy by Big Paper, I tell you.
Yeah, I’m done. There’s really no point in trying to polish shit, although granted, the Mythbusters did prove it can be done if you try hard enough.
I think I’m done here too. It seems kids have no rights, maybe some food, water and a blanket. The only one with fundamental rights appears to be adults.
Yes, we should defer to experts. Especially experts we’ve never heard off, from another country, and for a study that no one has ever seen. Sounds sensible to me.
The saddest statement I read here remains;
“Again, you make the unsupported assertion that children need a mother and father.”
Please, won’t somebody think of the children? :O
Yes, because everyone knows children who are raised without a mother and a father, like say children raised by single parents, are emotionally scarred, underachieving, and likely to to enter lives of crime and abuse, especially in light of all that research you’ve provided Charles.
The gall of single parents putting THEIR wants before the needs of their children! Will anyone consider the chiiildren?
Also, if you were raised by a mother and father Charles, I’d say that’s evidence enough that such a household is no guarantee that a child from such a household is better off. I think a better “fundamental right” for a child is to not be indoctrinated with hate.
-”The reason for that is of course that it is perverted, they know it is sick and rather than admit to that, homosexuals want everyone else to accept it whether they like it or not. In other words, to say to the perverts that their lifestyle is acceptable. Well, it is not.”
Thank you so much for saying this, it is absolutely true. I believe the same thing, and you know what? For a population where 98% of the world does not recognize gay marriage its hard to find people who will speak there mind on this issue (especially if they are against it), thank you again for saying this I deeply appreciate someone else sharing this opinion with me.
Lmao if you can’t see it then you have problems, it should be obvious.
Well lets try for starters the fact that most people who are “gay” are either doing it because they were abused sexually as children and it has skewed them, or because of all the media hype which has turned being “gay” into a fad, the popular thing to do.
Hate on me all you want but obviously some of us have a better moral codes than others Natalie.
P.S.
Oh and another thing if you want to pull that “it happens in nature” crap all the deviants (of which gays are a part) they get killed by the normal memebers of the race. I’m not saying its right for people to kill gays but I am saying that the urge to do so is totally normal.