Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

There are just as many "burdensome" straight family structures as there are homosexual. Sexuality is not, to me, a factor in parenting.

Incorrect. The nuclear family is "least burdensome" and maximally efficient for society as a whole. For a homosexual "family," they must acquire a child in a way that requires intervention from the state in some form or another, in order to transfer custody. It is in society's interest to minimize the NEED for adoptions, and a successful nuclear marriage accomplishes this task whereas a homosexual marriage will always be a second-tier solution, i.e. a back-up plan. Thus, in any consideration of the merits of homosexual marriage, they will always start at a disadvantage in that a transfer of custody is an automatic burden to society. All homosexual couples carry that distinction, not all heterosexual couples do.

That is one obvious reason why nuclear marriages between straight couples have more "value" to society, on average.

[Matts]

Quote by: Dirty Name For a homosexual "family," they must acquire a child in a way that requires intervention from the state in some form or another, in order to transfer custody.

It is a surprisingly little-known fact that in order for a man and a woman to have a child together, they are not required, as far as reproductive biology is concerned, to be heterosexual. They do not need to have a heterosexual identity, they do not need to establish a nuclear family, in fact, they do not even need to have sex together. What is more, they do not even need to "acquire a child in a way that requires intervention from the state in some form or another." No, I am not talking about parthenogenetic reproduction (i.e. reproduction not involving the infusion of male and female reproductive cells), I am talking about bringing male and female reproductive cells into contact with one another in a way that requires neither copulation nor intervention from a third party. Reproduction biology turns out to be a surprisingly technical procedure when deprived of the usual heteronormative penetration mystique.

There was a most interesting exchange in the readers' column of Helsingin Sanomat, the biggest daily newspaper in Finland, in September last year. A woman living in a same-sex relationship replied to another reader who had previously written to the paper expressing her opinion that doctors should be prohibited by law to minister assisted conception treatments for single women and women living in a same-sex relationship. Her message was quite straightforward: I have no use for assisted conception treatments, thank you, I am a homosexual woman and mother of a child whose father is also homosexual. She then proceeded to explain that the father's sperm cells had been introduced to her ovum in a way that did not involve sexual intercourse and, this is important, without any intervention from a government-funded third party.

As could be expected, there was a surge of responses from outraged readers. Readers, many of them clearly distraugh by this unexpected turn in the debate, wrote that this kind of unassisted non-heterosexual conception is unacceptable and must, also, be prohibited. Many of them resorted to the common argument against homosexual parenting according to which a child has the right to know his or her mothet and father, although they could not specify how this should be impossible for a child of homosexual parents of opposite sexes. Some readers were more flabbergasted than outraged at the face of this new information; all their lives they had been conditioned to think that homosexuals cannot have children, and that reproduction is in fact a matter more of heterosexual identity and family model than of biology.

One person even snapped that homosexuals should not be allowed to reproduce because this would be "unnatural." This is probably the clearest example of the ideological underpinnigs of the notion of natural law, or "naturalness," which so condition our thinking about biology, that I have personally encountered. The stunningly perverse logic of the argument is that "homosexuals cannot reproduce" and, hence, "homosexuals must be prevented from reproducing". So, it is with nature as it is with God: while apparently all-wise and all-powerful, it still needs human intervention in order to maintain its conceptual integrity. The actual motivation behind all the huffing and puffing against homosexual parenting is the need to maintain the heteronormative spectacle of a natural or divinely decreed order of things. This is immediately apparent from the fact that gay people, who only a moment ago were subjected to righteous finger-wagging for not reproducing, are now scolded for doing precisely that.

[BWRoberts221]

When Thomas Jefferson wrote “We hold these truths to be sacred ….” into the Constitution, Ben Franklin suggested he change ‘sacred’ to ‘self-evident’. This, after all, is nation founded on reason and tolerance, not religious superstition. They were careful in their wording and made it clear that this country was not to be run by religious zealots who would deny rational thinking in favor of guilt-driven religious fanaticism. Given this simple fact about the intent of our founding fathers, I find it hard to believe they would even consider a ban on same-sex marriage in order to protect the “sanctity of marriage”. To have the “sanctity of marriage” any where on the list of important current domestic policy issues is completely irrational. But to disguise it as an attempt to protect American values or improve the economy is insulting. Everyone knows it is nothing more than yet another projection of the medieval value systems and witch-hunter mentality of the current Republican Party. It has its roots firmly in religious Fundamentalism and has no place in American politics, much less the Constitution. These people seek to eliminate the separation of church and state. To allow religious fanatics to etch their bigotry into the foundation of a country founded on rational thinking is a disgrace.
We must not underestimate the importance of identifying political action spawned from preposterous religious beliefs. We now have bible literalists in their collective insanity trying desperately to justify a childish world-view with half-baked theories like “intelligent design”. The Bush administration has successfully used the guilt mechanisms of this Fundamentalist thinking as a means of manipulation. These people don’t realize the cynical trap of their social conditioning. We should reserve some sympathy for the victims of a social control system that has its roots in Roman Imperialism and still serves to keep the “peasants” in line. We shouldn’t underestimate the ignorance of people who really believe George Bush is a Born-Again Christian and speaks directly to God. But we should be concerned when these people try to make decisions for us. They are acting on irrational fears, not a genuine desire to make America a better place. There are millions of gay Americans and to alienate them and discredit our Constitution by polluting it with something as misguided as a gay-marriage ban would be a huge mistake.

[PatrickHenry]

Mr Jaggers and BWRoberts, may I ask you to vote in the poll?

And to you Matts: this thread is about homosexual marriage, not homosexual reproduction. Let's try to keep on the topic so we don't wander all over the countryside with controversy...

[Matts]

Quote by: PatrickHenry And to you Matts: this thread is about homosexual marriage, not homosexual reproduction. Let's try to keep on the topic so we don't wander all over the countryside with controversy...

I would indeed wish to maintain the original topic of this thread myself, and not be forced to wander into areas that do not belong to it. However, I am currently forced to deal with the heteronormative myth of reproduction because there are other people writing in this thread who use it in order to legitimize the heterosexual monopoly on the legal and economic benefits brought on by marriage.

But if you wish to know why I voted "private matter" in the poll, it is because I am of the opinion that all relationships, whether sexual, platonic, or variably both sexual and platonic, should be equal and not enjoy any benefits whatever based on the perceived relationship model. Society should not support people on the basis of sexual orientation or relationship model.

However, if a person with a child is to be supported, the same benefits should apply equally to all parents. That is, the admission of a benefit based on a legal responsibility to attend to the well-being of a minor should not be based on any additional circumstance, such as the type of relationship, or lack thereof, between the legal guardians. There is no reason why, for example, a bisexual father currently living in a homosexual relationship should be denied the benefits he received when he was still having sex with the child's mother.

[persephone]

I think its clear from the majority of posts that this is a debate that will never be resolved satisfactorily for anyone concerned. I think that the key issue here is that if no one is being harmed why worry about it. If you have a great marriage good for you. Why get so hung up on the definition of "marraige". Its like you don't want anyone else to share in the happiness that you do. The government has no legal standing to deny anyones rights in this matter in my opnion. I can understand your idea about tradionalism and I think that this is where the churches come in. A church should not be made to marry a gay couple if that is not a part of there religous beliefs. However a new definition for marriage is a little farfetched if you ask me. I mean traditionally before women had the right to vote only a man would be termed a "citizen". Well I have the right to vote now and I am currently termed a citizen. They didnt come up with a new definition for a woman to be considered a "citizen". Tradition is just another black and white view of shutting out others that were unlucky enough to be historically denied a right they are just now deserving and demanding. The only outrage here is that it took so long.

[Dirty Name]

It is a surprisingly little-known fact that in order for a man and a woman to have a child together, they are not required, as far as reproductive biology is concerned, to be heterosexual. They do not need to have a heterosexual identity, they do not need to establish a nuclear family, in fact, they do not even need to have sex together. What is more, they do not even need to "acquire a child in a way that requires intervention from the state in some form or another."

Matts has posted another ill-informed and/or poorly thought-out "exception" to the logical anti-same-sex marriage position I have been arguing for the past year.

He claims that "no intervention from a third party is necessary" if a homosexual woman and a homosexual man wish to work together to conceive a child.

Regardless of the method, such a claim ignores the rather obvious and important question of parental custody. Does the sperm donor have parenting rights and responsibilities? Of course. There are a number of legal hoops that the biological parents must jump through in order to conceive and raise a child in this manner. To claim that there is no burden to the state is nonsense.

Further, even if it were no burden to the state, I ask you, is it really in the state's best interest to offer incentives to homosexual couples to conceive children in this manner? Of course not. Conception does not need to be encouraged in the least, but where it does happen (naturally, no less), the state has an interest in encouraging stable relationships above and beyond any interest in non-procreative unions...

[Dirty Name]

I think that the key issue here is that if no one is being harmed why worry about it.

The argument is that the very institution of marriage itself is harmed by altering the legal definition.

Why get so hung up on the definition of "marraige". Its like you don't want anyone else to share in the happiness that you do.

Please share with us just exactly where you would draw the line when it comes to the legal recognition of marriage. After all, that's what we are talking about here. It's not as though gay people can't have a "wedding ceremony" and pretend to be husband and husband if they want. What we are talking about is whether or not the government should offer legal incentives to encourage such behavior.

It is my contention that the government currently recognizes heterosexual, traditional marrage because it is in society's interest to do so, while there is no compelling interest to recognize a non-procreative union. Further, extending such recognition to homosexuals opens the door to "anything goes" marriage, unless you are willing to discriminate against other types of relationships... and the plot thickens.

So, where do you draw the line? And why?

[Dirty Name]

I can understand your idea about tradionalism and I think that this is where the churches come in.

The Church has no place in the "Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." I've pointed out repeatedly that there is an obvious logical argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religion.

[Dirty Name]

We must not underestimate the importance of identifying political action spawned from preposterous religious beliefs.

Nor should we be so quick to dismiss a good idea just because it has roots in religion.

[persephone]

I don't see how the very institution of marriage is harmed by two people of the same sex marrying. As long as they are both consenting adults, no one is being harmed. I mean you could say that that abusive relationships harm the institution of marriage. After all if two people love each other and abide by the marriage contract but happen to be of the same sex, how is that more harmful than two people of the opposite sex that don't abide by the marriage contract. If two people decide to legally join their lives together in order to have the same benefits and rights as other couples what is the harm? I don't think this opens the door to other anything goes marriages. I am not even sure what other marriages you are insinuating could exist here. As far as the government goes, why wouldn't they want gays to be able to marry. This way they can squeeze more tax out of them like they do the rest of us.

[Dirty Name]

I don't see how the very institution of marriage is harmed by two people of the same sex marrying.

The institution isn't harmed by "two people of the same sex marrying." It's harmed a generation or so after the point when the government elevates same-sex marriage to equal status with traditional marriage, when there are obvious and important differences. Everyone is looking for the immediate impact, and they refuse to look 10 or 20 years down the road.

I don't think this opens the door to other anything goes marriages. I am not even sure what other marriages you are insinuating could exist here.

OK, would you allow a male to marry his own sister? How about his own brother?

I'll be happy to educate you on how the institution will be harmed long term by recognizing bizarre and useless forms of marriage, but first you should tell me where you would "draw the line" in terms of what forms of marriage you would be willing to recognize.

While you're at it, tell me on what basis you believe same-sex marriage is worthy of recognition in the first place. After all, our society doesn't recognize traditional marriage because it's "cool" or "trendy." Our government recognizes the institution, encourages it, and strengthens it via benefits, etc. and it does so for good reason: because the institution of traditional marriage is good for society.

In a year on these message boards, one thing no one has been able to do is argue that same-sex marriage is EQUALLY beneficial to society compared with traditional marriage.

So why on earth would we treat is as such?

[Marilyn Monroe]

http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/homosexuality/maf/

[BWRoberts221]

The fact that the Evangelic Republicans are still fighting over this issue is appalling. Like most people, they are dissatisfied with the Bush Administration. Not because he is allowing genocide to happen in Dafur or because he is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Their only gripe with him is that he hasn't done enough to circumvent the seperation of church and state. Apprently, in their view, every ethinic person in the world is doomed to an eternity in hell for being born in the wrong place (the only right place is the American bible belt in the last 200 years). That being the case, issues like immigration and genocide are unimportnant because all foreigners are heathens doomed to an eternity in hell. The only thing that matters to them is imposing laws that reflect their "religious" beliefs. I really want to understand their logic but it's not easy. I'm sure they teach their children that logic is the devil. Afterall, if they think too much, they might realize how misguided Evangelical Christianity is. This country was NOT founded on Christian beleifs. Our founding fathers were Freemasons, there is a huge difference. They never intended for religious bigots to run this country and we shouldn't let them harm our soveregnty with their hate-filled doctrine.

[BWRoberts221]

You would think that since the vicims of the Dafur massacre are Christians, the Evangelics would be pressing hard to save them from death and put Gay Marriage lower on the list of priorities. But then, the victims in Dafur are black. Black people can't be real Christians. Not white, Southern, Confederate-flag-waving Christians anyway. But even if they were, their deaths are a blessing because now they get to be Martyrs. Yay! Onward Christian Soldiers. Keep making the world a better place and protect us from the spectre of progress.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: BWRoberts221 This country was NOT founded on Christian beleifs.

It was.

[persephone]

I think that any consenting adult no matter what their sexual orientation has the right to marry. Any law that exists should exist for a logical reason, and mainly for the protection of the masses. I don't see how a law against gay marriage protects anything or anyone. A law against incest I understand. It is scientifically documented how that could be harmful. I don't think you can say we should not allow one law to pass for fear that it may spawn others. We are a logical people and can turn down or approve each law or issue as it comes up. As far as saying that the government approves of heterosexual marriage for procreational reasons, not everyone that gets married has or can have children. Everything that people fear about gay marriage such as the adopting and raising of children, is going to happen and is happening regardless of their right to marry. If the government legalized their right to marry it would just promote a more stable homelife for their children and lessen discrimnation 20 years down the road as people became more understanding. Marriage is what two people make of it, the state of anyone elses marriage will not affect my own. I doubt that people will become gay just because the government decided to allow gay marriage. It would not encourage or cause an increase in gay couples. Therefore I just don't see how gay couples being able to marry will damage anything or hurt anyone. I think it just comes down to human rights. What right do we have to deny them the rights that we enjoy. I would like to hear specific problems caused by allowing gay couples to marry, if they do indeed exist.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: BWRoberts221 Black people can't be real Christians. Not white, Southern, Confederate-flag-waving Christians anyway.

You are welcome to your beliefs.

[Rive]

vern, do you ever actually add anything to this debate?

[Dirty Name]

A law against incest I understand. It is scientifically documented how that could be harmful.

Let's start here. Would you allow same-sex incestuous marriage? What about incestuous marriage between siblings, parent/child, etc. if the parties have been sterilized?

At some point, you have to discriminate against someone. Discrimination is perfectly legal.

Everything that people fear about gay marriage such as the adopting and raising of children, is going to happen and is happening regardless of their right to marry.

But there is a difference between allowing it and encouraging it, don't you think?