In a NYTimes op-ed piece titled Not Going to the Chapel, Rich Benjamin presents his case defending his recent decision to boycott the weddings of his heterosexual friends and family.
It’s true. I’m boycotting all heterosexual weddings. How utterly absurd to celebrate an institution that I am banned from in most of the country. It puzzles me, truth be told, that wedding invitations deluge me. Does a vegan frequent summer pig roasts? Do devout evangelicals crash couple-swapping parties? Do undocumented immigrants march in Minuteman rallies?
From the tone I would tend to believe Benjamin when he says he isn’t an activist, not in the traditional sense anyway. The article lacks the vociferous accusations of bigotry and hatred espoused by most homosexuals writing about same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, he “call[s] on all gay people to join [his] boycott of straight weddings this summer, regardless of where their straight loved ones stand. Yes, our boycott may bruise some feelings. But then again, our inability to participate in this institution is hurtful and bruising, too.”
What does he say is his driving motivation?
When I ask my gay friends why they wish to marry, they don’t mention tax benefits. They seek marriage for the same personal reasons that straight people do: to share life’s triumphs and trials with their beloved, to start a family, to have the ability to protect that family, and to celebrate their loving commitment with a wedding.
Unfortunately for Benjamin, the reasons he lists are uncompelling. What he describes above is legal in all 50 States. Regardless of same-sex marriage and civil union laws:
- It is nowhere prohibited for two consenting adults to make life-long commitments to each other.
- It is nowhere prohibited for two consenting adults to make their commitment before family and friends.
- It is nowhere prohibited to make that commitment in a religiously contextualized ceremony. (There is no shortage of clergy who would be willing to perform a wedding ceremony for homosexuals)
- It is nowhere prohibited to describe the ceremony as a wedding.
- It is nowhere prohibited for same-sex partners to refer to each other as “husband” or “wife” regardless of their gender.
From what on the list above is Benjamin or any homosexual banned? Usually, those making a case for same-sex marriage are not content with the above. They demand State recognition and endorsement. But this is not what Benjamin is asking for. If Benjamin is legally permitted to enjoy everything he claims to desire, what is it he is asking for?
His decision to boycott heterosexual weddings will do nothing but alienate himself from his to-be-wedded family and friends. People take seriously when those they invite to their wedding do not show up. It is usually something they do not soon forget (My wife remembers everyone who was invited to but did not attend our wedding!). Not only is Benjamin not attending weddings, his absence is a protest, and it appears that he is informing his family and friends that they are the unfortunate casualties of his endeavour.
I have little doubt this kind of boycott would be well received from Benjamin or other homosexuals seeking to wed. There is a thriving double standard when it comes to the issue of the morality of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage. Benjamin’s actions belie his claim that he is not an activist with this veiled attempt to make a political stand. He is just an activist without a bullhorn and sign. Would Benjamin graciously accept a loved one’s refusal to visit his wedding? Or would it be interpreted as an anti-homosexual bias? I can’t say. But I do not think it would be received with the same charity he expects from others.
Protests such as this serves only to further the divide between proponents on either side of the same-sex marriage debate. Those who might support same-sex marriage may feel resentment and alienation from people like Benjamin who protest their nuptials for vacuous reasons. Some people may view this boycott as nothing more than a tantrum thrown by a grown-up. What’s worse, he is using his loved ones as pawns.
I don’t want to attend every wedding I am invited to, but for the love and respect for my family and friends, I attend. Perhaps Benjamin will reconsider, and reciprocate the same love and respect his loved ones are extending toward him. Mr. Benjamin, by attending your loved one’s wedding ceremonies, you are not celebrating an institution, you are celebrating your friends and family as they “share life’s triumphs and trials with their beloved, to start a family, to have the ability to protect that family, and to celebrate their loving commitment with a wedding.” Do you see this glaring double standard?
Sifting Reality 
Oh noes! Wedding attendance will drop by a maximum of 2%!
You made excellent points about all the things gays can do. Yet they incessantly whine because we don’t make the government recognize square circles — oops, I mean “same-sex unions of a man and a woman.”
I know one thing: I won’t be writing about homosexual marriage anytime soon. Over 100 comments the last time! Too much to keep track of, especially when debating halfwits who do, in fact, moan bigotry despite all evidence to the contrary.
It’s a red herring. If they can succesfully paint us as bigots and knuckle-draggers, what fencesitter would listen to us? Someone unsure of their position might just join their side, their fight.
It’s an interesting tactic, but successful thus far. I heard support for gay marriage is higher than it has ever been.
You have to figure there are some people who will vocalize supoort for S-SM whether they suppit or not. S-SM activists have done a good job at silencing opposition. People don’t like being labeled bigots. Its the homosexual version of ‘white guilt’.
They are very good marketers, I’ll grant them that.
Good John.
I had a comment, then said “No. That’s not fair. You can’t draw that comparison.”
Then you just did. So, fair game…no?
Why should we have ended segregation? I mean, just like the list you made above:
>>blacks had there own fountains
>>blacks had there own bus seats
>>blacks had there own restaurants
>>blacks had there own schools
There really was nothing to worry about, right? They were “separate but equal”. They had just about every convenience they could ask for, save being considered human.
I don’t like that opponents of S-SM get labelled as bigots either. You have every right to feel uncomfortable with the prospect of S-SM. You just don’t have a right to have your baseless fears enshrined in legislation at the expense of basic rights.
But George, what this guy says he wants, he can already have. He said he wasn’t asking for the tax breaks or other statutory benefits, which is why it is such a poor argument on his part. Everything he is asking for is already legal in every state.
Nothing more than a bunch of liberal cliches, George.
Nobody is prohibiting homosexuals from marrying. They can marry any one of the opposite sex they want.
And I would argue that this is no different from an argument forwarded during the civil rights movement.
“Separate but equal.”
Why would the proponents of segregation have used this term if they were not trying to imply the exact same thing you are now?
Also, you are playing semantics when you say that no one prohibits people from calling their ceremony a wedding, or calling each other husband and wife. Could that person make that claim under oath? No. Could they see their spouse in the hospital if only “family” were permitted outside public visiting hours? Could they have a voice in the care or treatment of their loved one in deference to the wishes of a “family” that might choose against the interests of the person in need of care?
Your whole argument is a stretch. I’m perfectly alright with your personal feelings on homosexuality, I don’t judge you or question your right to believe something that your religion requires of you. I question whether or not your argument is sound concerning rights as they are presently understood. I question whether people have any business withholding freedoms based on a purely religious prohibition.
George, yes under oath a homosexual who has gone through a marriage ceremony by whatever definition, can claim to be married, and can refer to their partner as ‘husband’ or ‘wife’. Benjamin was not making a case or protesting for legal rights, ie hospital visits, medical decisions, etc. (Which it might surprise you to know I would support extending those rights to whomever an individual chooses). Benjamin was arguing for the ceremonial and relational aspect of marriage, which is why his protest is empty of content since his “demands” are already legal and available.
How is it separate but equal? You are arguing your case from a default position whereby you assume sexual orientation is the same as race. People were being told they couldn’t use that bathroom or this bathroom because they were black. That isn’t happening here. Homosexuals can marry; they just can’t marry someone of the same sex. I can’t either. No discrimination; just the definition of marriage.
Yep. They can say it alright. You sure got me there.
Benjamin was asking for legal rights. He was also asking for human rights. That you want to minimize and conflate the two is beside the point. Let’s look at your quote from Ben:
>>share life’s triumphs and trails- like our hospital scenario, there are legal consequences to non-recognized partnership.
>>start a family- Do gays have the same options as non-fertile straight couples from a legal standpoint?
>>To have the ability to protect that family- Again, do S-SC have the same legal recourse to do this?
>>To celebrate their loving commitment with a wedding.-So long as it is not recognized by the state. So long as it is not equal to a “traditional” marriage.
There is not a comparison here, John. It is not “Separate yet equal” it is “Separate”. I’m not asking to give homosexuals special rights, I’m asking you to give them the same rights. I promise that if Gay Marriage is legal you too will be able to marry a same-sex partner.
Terrence,
Come on.
If my daughter asks me why people get married, I don’t say “When a man and a woman need to enter into a legal union for the sake of social convention, that is marriage”
You can marry the person you love and you want to share your life with. You can have that marriage recognized by society and have certain privileges afforded along with it. Homosexuals cannot. The sex of your partner is not the most important or overriding factor in why people marry.
Though judging from the current divorce rate, it appears to be a common misconception.
Don’t worry Terry, when Same-Sex Marriage is legal, you too will be permitted to marry that hunk at the office, if he will have you.
The definition of marriage in Western society has always been a union between one man and one woman. We didn’t allow the polygamists to change that, so why should we allow the homosexuals to change it?
It’s about definitions and the fundamental purpose marriage was, and continues to be, sanctioned by the government. It’s purpose is to promote stability and provide a healthy environment to raise children.
It’s interesting that someone who purports to care about the civil rights of homosexuals would approach the issue with levity.
That is an interesting argument. The definition of a “voter” in Western society was always a white male, and a white male property owner before that. The traditional definition in Western society of a “full human being” was extended to white males (at least Negros got to be 2/3 of one for some legal purposes).
Female circumcision is defended on traditional grounds in some countries. I don’t think tradition is the best argument for subverting human rights. If you do, well….
Now we are getting to the heart of your argument. You must agree then, Terrence, that people past child-bearing age should be forbidden to marry? They obviously fall short of your criteria after all.
I would rather purport to care about civil rights and have my rhetoric accused of levity than be squarely against civil rights and have ideas loaded with levity. Just sayin’….
Ill address the bulk of this later when I have time. But if you are going to play the 3/5 human card for blacks in early America you should at least be historically accurate.
That was for their own protection. The southern states wanted them considered to be a full person, but this was for selfish reasons. They wanted to boost the population numbers so they could gain more pro-slavery congressional seats, which would have made it even harder to end slavery. Had they not been declared fractionally persons it would have been another 100 years of slavery for America, if not in just the south.
Lets not play the subhuman card, it is very unbecomming, no one is claiming homosexuals are subhuman. Stop it.
I’m not saying it is the same thing, John. I’m saying it is analogous. It is analogous when someone appeals to traditional mores to defend an outdated law.
I think that given the history lesson you just gave me, it is an even better analogy. What could be more fitting than a law that subverts peoples rights in an attempt to benefit society, only to find its utility outdated by changing social attitudes?
Fitting indeed.
Its not even analogous in that respect. The reason it was white men who owned land was not an arbitrary bigotted reason. First blacks didn’t have rights, so it was limited to whites in that respect. It wasn’t like someone sat down and decided blacks couldn’t vote, it just wasn’t something slaves as property could do.
Second, the reason it was men is because men represented the household. It was intended to be one household one vote, as the head, the man voted for the family.
The reason it was a property owner is because taxes and agriculture laws effectes them significantly more than others. As land owners and predominantly farmers or other goods producers they were to have a say in the policies.
It was hardly arbitrary, and neither is heterosexual marriage sanctioned and encouraged by the state.
If you plan on being inane, attempting to woo us with vapidity, then I see no reason to continue this discussion.
The two are not equivalent.The right to vote is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The “right” to marry someone of the same sex, or anyone at all, is not. They’re not analogous.
You people have marketed your product brilliantly. You conjure up nostalgic images of civil rights’ leaders marching in spite of the fire hoses and nightsticks, taking hits for racial justice.
It’s brilliant. But it’s also an insolent ploy that cheapens the significance of slavery, racial inequality, and everything the civil rights movement fought against. It’s sickening.
Female circumcision is harmful; the Western definition of marriage is not. So, epic fail.
In principle. a man and a woman can always reproduce. Individual situations aside, it is impossible, in principle, for two people of the same sex to reproduce. Furthermore, the government attempting to decide who is and is not able to reproduce would constitute the biggest invasion of privacy ever to occur. It would be utterly unconstitutional.
At least your rhetoric is unchanging in that none of it makes sense.
John,
People like George aren’t interested in facts. They will demean people and cheapen African-American struggles as long as they get their way. With them, the end justifies the means. They are utterly pathetic, cheap individuals.
You can argue with him, but I’ve got more important things to do. Like, say, have sex with my female wife.
When did I say arbitrary, John?
I conceded to your expertise in the subject that it was done for a good reason at the time. That is the very definition of non-arbitrary. Where you and I seem to disagree is that unlike other outdated laws that were defended on tradition, you believe our marriage laws should be protected from changing social norms and attitudes.
I’m sure you are right, John, there is nothing analogous about defenders of the status quo thinking that their position deserves special privilege. Never in our history has anyone defended an outdated law on the grounds of tradition.
I apologize Terrence, you seem to be missing the whole point. I blame myself.
I should have been more clear when I pointed out that though I consider the two issues to be quite analogous, I don’t consider it rhetorically fair to harp on the fact precisely for the kind of reasons you clearly exhibit in your defensive responses. I thought I mentioned that in my first comment when I told John I only argue on this point because he brought it up, not because I would normally take that tack.
If you don’t want to have people compare the hardships of blacks in America to S-SM, perhaps the first step would be to not draw the comparison yourself. John made this fair game, then chose to cry foul when someone followed his own analogy.
In principle, a 65 year old woman can never reproduce. Individual situations aside, it is impossible, in principle, for either women over 65 or two people of the same sex to reproduce. Furthermore, the government attempting to decide who is and is not able to reproduce would constitute the biggest invasion of privacy ever to occur. It would be utterly unconstitutional. Therefor women over 65 must be prohibited to marry.
I’m a completely reasonable man, Terrence. You can’t produce a reasonable defense of current marriage laws. That is not my fault. I honestly was willing to let the race analogy slide. Your side brought it up.
You might as well Terrence, because I already did.
http://truthinreligionandpolitics.com/2011/05/23/repondez-sil-vous-plait/#comment-1765
Here is where you introduced the idea George.
If you just go one comment back from there John, you will find your comment ends with two words…..
WHITE
GUILT
You’re right. I brought up the race analogy first. Seriously?
If you go back to he comment you’ll see I was not making a comparison to race, I was making a comparison to the tactics used by race activists. With white guilt as the result.
Excellent! So then you accept my position that I wasn’t comparing it to race, I was making a comparison to the tactics used by race segregationists.
Your apology is accepted. See? That wasn’t so hard….
70-Year-Old Woman Gives Birth
John, a perfect example of the vapidity I was talking about. These people have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.
In human society adoption is a normal part of life. Adoption by homosexuals has not been an issue because homosexuality has been condemned accordign to some magical reasons in holy books. Homosexuals have however existed all the time and adopted kids. It has been a shamefull secret. So, if the main reason for marriage would be to raise children, then simply give homosexuals the right to adopt at the same time as you give them the right to marry. Problem solved, and the idea in the actual definition of marriage remains as the same.
The definition of homosexuality has changed during centuries. Romans for example did not think it was a homosexual act that a man penetrated his male slave. Other way around it was condemnable, because it demeaned the legal and social rights of a free man. That is the foundation of western civilization. If we are to take ancient cultural models as a base for morals, why not Roman? It is a lot more “western” culture than anything from the Near-East. The US has a senate like in Rome, not theocracy and king like in Judea.
Priesthood (who define what gods want) is often condemning towards all kinds of sexuality, since they see that the sexual desire undermines our morality. But sex is natural, and in the modern world it does not have to be just for reproductive purposes. Actually if sex was ever again seen only as means of reproduction, that would be very harmfull. You see, that would lead us into overpopulation even faster than we are approaching it now. It also would gravely hinder the emancipation of women. We do agree that the emancipation of women is a good thing?
There was once a very good reason to think it is impossible to go to the moon. But no more. There once was a very true reason to think sex is only for the reproduction of children. But hooray! No more!
The issue is not simply reproduction. It’s also serves a unitive function for the family.
In Western society, the only reason marriage became under the purview of the government was to promote stability, general welfare, prevent bigamy, and legitimize children.
It does serve a procreative function, but that is only part of the equation.
I see no reason to change the definition of marriage simply to make two-percent of the population happy. Why should the government promote homosexuality even by acceptance? There are no good reasons, so defending our “archaic laws” is not something I have to do. The onus is on those who support same-sex marriage, not on those who believe things should stay the same way they have been for centuries.
Cornell University Law School
That’s really what this issue boils down to. Homosexuality marriages pervert that basis, so I see no reason to sanction them.
I have no problem with homosexuals. My best friend is in fact gay and he is well aware of my stance on this issue. He thinks I’m wrong, obviously, but it’s disagreement between friends. I simply see no good reason to change it.
“homosexuality has been condemned accordign to some magical reasons in holy books.”
Homosexuals can never provide a mother and a father to a child, so they are obviously not a standard we’d want to support. Anyone who can’t see that is blinded by their perverted worldview and/or lacking critical thinking skills.
“We do agree that the emancipation of women is a good thing?”
We agree on the goal, but not that the Bible oppresses women. And I can give rational reasons for the fair treatment of women. In an atheistic worldview there is no grounding for any morality.
@Terrance
I see no reason why you insist on using the procreative aspect of the argument at all. Unless you are willing to address the argument which was first brought up by George (i.e. women over 65 cannot marry, men who are infertile and will remain so cannot marry, women who cannot bear children due to some biological complication cannot marry, etc.), then please refrain from using this argument as it is quite tiring.
Did you seriously just write this? If this is simply a mis-typing(?), then I am willing to forgive. However, if this is how you actually feel, then I do believe that you have no place in even being in a conversation about human rights as it is quite apparent that you care not for the rights of those who are not very well represented demographically. Honestly, this was the most shocking, and truly appalling, thing I have read in this entire thread.
I have yet to read from you, or anyone else for that matter, how/why a homosexual couple denigrates the concept of a family. Are you arguing that only a male father and female mother are the only reasonable familial structures? I suppose those who are raised in single-parent homes are out of luck. Or myself, where I was the only male in my family (all the rest abandoned the family) until the birth of my cousin a few years ago. I was raised in a familial structure completely comprised of women…my mental stability must be askew, somehow. You do not provide empirical data that shows that homosexual parents are unfit for raising children. Instead, everyone merely gives their impression of how it would turn out. The sad thing is, where I was raised, my family was the norm of how a typical family looked. If you are going to argue that a child needs both a male and a female to raise the child, then I’m afraid you are grossly out of touch with how ‘under-privileged’ live.
@Neil
*sigh* Read above.
I’m not sure you’ve thought through this reply. By your mere confession, the Bible oppresses women, yet you decided to…ignore the Bible? Surely you simply mis-typed, also.
Where do you buy your fish? Because it seems to have an abundant amount of red herrings and a store with that many red herrings must have low prices. Geez, that contrived talking-point never gets old, does it?
Terrance H, are the homosexuals not closer to 10% of population in the US? To be honest, you have to see that politically we are not talking just about them, but their friends and families who love and understand them also. And all the other people who have no connections to them and, yet find nothing ethically wrong about their right to marry and adopt kids. About all the people who find it ethically and morally lacking these people actually do not have equal rights. Yet, in a just society, even the 2% would be entiteled equal rights to everybody else.
You see no reason to defend your archaic laws, neither do I. You see, we agree.
Neil, in addition to what and how Oscar Rivera very well put it, who said anything about the Bible oppressing women? You did, and as you know it does, but that is a nother topic. I meant that sex only in reproductive purposes either means most women have no other career options than motherhood, or optionally (and additionally) there is going to be very little sex for anyone. How could that be a good thing?
It is completely of topic to claim atheist world view has no grounding for morality, but since you brought it up, yes it has. See, my statement is just as profoundly based as yours?
Morality is based on ethics, not on magical commandments of imaginary spritual entities. And further more, rules given in old books do not qualify as bases for any morality. People have done so much evil while basing their morals on those books, it proves they are lacking.
John Barron Jr, homosexuals are asking equal rights to marry whom they love. Did you not marry your wife for love? If that was your right, why would it not be the right of other adults?
By the way, you have of course every right to write about anything you like in your own blog, but would it not be more according to your headline, if you actually for a change wrote about other politics than homosexual rights and abortion? Though they allways bring up a fun conversation. Or do you feel these are the only political subjects that need the truth to be brought out? Just asking.
““Homosexuals can never provide a mother and a father to a child, so they are obviously not a standard we’d want to support. Anyone who can’t see that is blinded by their perverted worldview and/or lacking critical thinking skills.”
*sigh* Read above.”
I did read above, and you said nothing qualifying as an argument. Your straw men about us denigrating single parenthood demonstrates that you have no valid points and must resort to making something up to change the subject. Ruatakyy’s echoes of your non-argument further prove his lack of arguments.
Again, the ideal is a mother and a father. Anyone who can’t see that is blinded by their perverted worldview and/or lacking critical thinking skills. Arguments that it is better to have one good parent rather than two abusive parents is an exercise in stating the obvious. It does nothing to change the ideal that society should support.
Homosexual couples can never provide a mother and a father to a child. It is child abuse to put someone with a gay couple.
““We agree on the goal, but not that the Bible oppresses women.”
I’m not sure you’ve thought through this reply. By your mere confession, the Bible oppresses women, yet you decided to…ignore the Bible? Surely you simply mis-typed, also.”
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking today, Oscar. Your critique is garbled.
““In an atheistic worldview there is no grounding for any morality.”
Where do you buy your fish? Because it seems to have an abundant amount of red herrings and a store with that many red herrings must have low prices. Geez, that contrived talking-point never gets old, does it?”
You sure spent a lot of time typing to say nothing.
“Morality is based on ethics,”
Gee, since you shifted the goal posts I guess your argument is valid. Oh, wait, no it isn’t. That proves nothing.
” not on magical commandments of imaginary spritual entities. ”
Oh noes! He called the Bible magic and God imaginary! I guess he wins the debate.
“And further more, rules given in old books do not qualify as bases for any morality.”
I didn’t realize time diluted moral truths. Using that logic, his rationalization of sexual perversions have aged so they are no longer true. In fact, anything R says with respect to morals has aged so I can use his logic and pre-ignore them.
“People have done so much evil while basing their morals on those books, it proves they are lacking.”
But again, you have no grounding to call anything evil. And people do evil without those books, so . . . what? And you don’t judge an ideology by those who violate its tenets.
“John Barron Jr, homosexuals are asking equal rights to marry whom they love”
Three fallacies in one short sentence. You are very productive today! 1. They don’t have rights to a square circle, and they don’t have rights to a “same-sex union of a man and a woman.” 2. We aren’t keeping them from loving each other. 3. They can get “married” in many apostate churches. We just oppose the government getting involved in their unions, which by nature and design do not produce the next generation, and which can never provide a mother and a father to a child, the ideal which only the most perverse and illogical people can ignore.
“Terrance H, are the homosexuals not closer to 10% of population in the US?”
I see that you are a victim of the lie begun by Alfred Kinsey, one of the greatest moral monsters ever, and perpetuated by the gay lobby. The real figure is 2-3%. It is illuminating that your research and pontificating on gay rights hasn’t led you to that well known fact yet.
I’m glad to see I livened things up around here!
I’m glad that we can all agree on a few points.
1. Fertility is unimportant, since it is not the overriding consideration in a marriage. Both Neil and Terrence agree to this, and it is logically possible for couples to pursue other fertility options.
2. It is better to have two stable parents. Neil seems really concerned about the particular sex of those parents, but agrees that two parents are better than one. Good.
3. Homosexuals are generally good human beings. They have their faults, as we all do, but since all parents (save, I guess, Jesus’ dad)are sinners, we need to see them as generally good, law-abiding citizens.
So given these things we all agree on, I guess where we differ is:
1. We should extend human rights to groups <=2-3% of the population, and not just large minorities.
2. Marriage is primarily about love and commitment, and as such people willing to make a singular, consensual, loving, stable commitment should be the "ideal" of marriage.
3. The bible can't make something wrong by fiat. Prohibitions must be grounded in logic and reason.
I think each of these problems is solvable, with a little work. We're making progress here folks!
I addressed George’s inane response already. Women over 65 can in fact become pregnant. It’s not likely, but it is possible in principle. A man and a woman procreating is always possible in principle, whereas it is impossible, in principle, for a homosexual couple to become pregnant. Individual situations aside, in principle it is always possible for a man and woman to reproduce.
The purpose of mentioning the procreative function of marriage wasn’t to justify current law, but to explain why marriage became under the purview of the government in the first place. It’s one reason.
I don’t care what you find appalling. I find your attempts to deracinate society with your perversions appalling. I find the cheapening of African-American history appalling. I find appalling this idiotic notion that marriage is a civil right on par with voting. And that if it is, people should be allowed to marry whoever and whatever they want.
If it’s a civil right, then so be it. Homosexuals are allowed to marry – any adult person of the opposite sex they want. It’s about the DEFINITION of marriage. There is no reason to change it. No good reason anyway.
If you accept – as any reasonable person would – that marriage is the “basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization,” then you cannot support same-sex marriage.
It has already been established that the procreative function cannot be served. (Strike One.)
It should be known that promiscuity is rampant in the gay community. (Strike Two).
If you allow same-sex marriage, what is to stop polygamists? What is to stop people from marrying objects and animals? If you change the definition of marriage for one group, you have to change it for all groups. (Strike Three).
While the third strike may be the classic slippery-slope argument, it’s justified in this particular case. You guys are busy moaning about civil rights. Well, what about the civil rights of the FLDS members?
I don’t have any interest in arguing religion or its role in the United States. John and Neil can do that if they so choose. But let me ask you this: What is ethical about a government sanctioning something that would undermine the very purpose of marriage as it has existed in the English Common Law tradition?
I do not agree that marriage is a human right. I think that idea has been co-opted in order to parse opponents of SSM as hatful bigots.
Second, homosexual relationships which are stable are the exception, not the rule.
“While among heterosexual relationships studies show that that 75-81% of married men and 85-88% of married women had never broken their marriage vows (1).
However studies also confirm that fidelity among homosexual males is dismal in comparison. Studies have repeatedly shown 43% of white homosexual men had sex with at least 500 partners and 28% had sex with at least 1000 partners (2). The Journal of Sex Research reported most homosexuals have between 100 and 500 sexual partners within their lifetime. 10.2% had between 501 and 1,000 sex partners, 15.7% had more than 1000 sex partners within their lifetime (3). Studies conducted by pro-homosexual groups corroborated these findings, 24% of those homosexuals surveyed admitted having had more than 100 sex partners in their lifetime. And many of those had more than 1000 sex partners (4).
According to Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam”, AIDS 17, 2003, homosexuals considering themselves monogamous admitted to having up to eight additional partners per year. Other studies confirm this phenomenon: Ryan Lee, “Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows”, Washington Blade, August 22, 2003; David H. Demo, et al., editors, “Handbook of Family Diversity”, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop”, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1984. One report showed that only 2.7% of homosexual men had only one partner during their life time, (5).
Monogamy among homosexual male couples is virtually non-existent. It is the exception, not the rule. Putting aside the monogamy of same sex couples, what about the duration of the relationship itself. The commitment to the partner regardless of extra-relational partners. The facts on the duration of the relationships fare no better. A study conducted in 2001 revealed 66% of first marriages last ten years or more, and 50% last twenty years or longer, (6). Another study in 2002 discovered 70.7% of women married between 1970 and 1974 stayed married for at least 10 years, 57.7% stayed married for at least 20 years (7).
A study done not long ago, a 2003/2004 survey of homosexual lifestyles by a homosexual organization no less, reported 15% of same sex relationships lasted longer than 12 years and only 5% of those lasted longer than 20 years (8). Homosexual men exceedingly less likely to be in monogamous long term relationships, in fact the average length of a homosexual partnership is approximately 1.5 years (9).
(1) Michael W. Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey”, Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997; E. O. Laumann et al., “The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; and “Sexual Habits of Americans Have Changed Dramatically in Ten Years: New National Survey Finds Both Men and Women More Committed and Caring”, PR Newswire, August 4, 1994
(2) A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978, pp. 308, 309; and A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, “Sexual Preference”, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981
(3) Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men”, Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997
(4) “Sex Survey Results”, Genre, October 1996, as quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners”, Lambda Report, January 1998
(5) Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile”, The Journal of Sex Research, Volume 34, 1997
(6) Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, “First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States,” Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics – May 31, 2001
(7) Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, “Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996″ Current Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. February 2002
(8) “Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships,” GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, http://www.glcensus.org/
(9) Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 – 2003
http://truthinreligionandpolitics.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-struck-down/
Okay.
I thought we agreed and now you’re changing things up.
Terrence, let’s examine your “Three Strikes”:
Strike 1: Gays can and do raise children. Lesbian can be artificially inseminated, Gays can have surrogate mothers. Procreation is still available in the same way it is for any infertile couple.
Strike 2: I thought you argued earlier that marriage was primarily about stability and vital for the preservation of morals? So if you argue that marriage has that effect on heterosexual partnership, you concede that it would have that effect on homosexual partnerships, correct? So you want to prevent a minority from having the tools you yourself admit would create stability and morality, a Catch-22?
Strike 3-How about I give you my definition of marriage. Let’s consider if your argument still stands:
Marriage is an exclusive union between two consensual partners, forsaking all others, in accordance with promoting a committed family unit, with all the rights and responsibilities that this contract entails.
I don’t see an in for polygamy, bestiality, marrying objects, or anything else for that matter.
So if you throw one more pitch off the mark, does S-SM get a walk?
Oy vey! You suffer from the delusion that you can gravel us with your pretension and outright lunancy.
Procreation is a blanket term for the ability to produce a child and raise him or her in a healthy environment. We already know promiscuity is rampant in the gay community, so one can deduce that infidelity would be higher in same-sex marriages. For obvious reasons, that isn’t good for children.
We also know that mental illness is much higher in the gay community. Substance abuse; suicide; drug use; you name it. All higher in the gay community. None of that is good for children.
Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56, 876-880.
Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.
Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.
Valleroy, L. A.; Secura, G.; Mackellor, D.; Behel,S. (2001): High HIV and risk behavior prevalence among 23- to 29- year-old men who have sex with men in 6 U.S. Cities. Poster 211 at 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic
Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991): The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In: Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. (Eds: Gonsiorek,J.; Weinrich, J.D.) Sage, 115-136.
Undoubtedly, you will reject those and the 40 other studies I could produce and quote the ideological American Psychological Association. Please do. You’ll have fun watching me destroy them and their utter nonsense.
So, why should the government endorse a scenario that isn’t healthy for children? They shouldn’t.
Now, please issue the typical response by providing a list of professions and ethnic backgrounds where an increased risk of mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide have been witnessed, asking why the government endorses their marragies, and watch it destroyed. It should be fun.
Did you ignore the part about promiscuity being rampant in the gay community? Obviously you did, otherwise you wouldn’t have issued yet more inanity. Studies have shown that infidelity is way higher in same-sex marriages than heterosexual marriages. Given that, I see no reason for the government to endorse a facet of an institution that would undermine the institution itself. It makes zero sense.
The world doesn’t operate according to George. That isn’t the definition, so quit arguing from a default position. Explain to us all why that definition should be changed.
You want to change the definition of marriage to mean a union between two people, blah, blah, blah. You want to do this to satisfy a very small percentage of the population. You want to give them their civil rights. Fine. We changed the definition for you guys, so why should the polygamist family not expect us to change it for them? We did it for you guys. Civil Rights, remember?
Marriage is not a civil right and never has been. It’s a contract between two people and the government. Obligations must be met. Two people of the same-sex do not meet that obligation. Simple.
I’m supposed to throw them over the plate, not way out in Left field.
@John
I would like to read through those studies before I reply so it might take me some time.
@Terrence
Regarding the procreation, I think George has a legitimate response. So, I’ll just leave it at that.
Firstly, I wasn’t in the conversation regarding the antebellum south, nor did I say that marriage was a civil right. In any case, I think you missed the point to why I said what I did. My concern was that you stated that there was no reason to change something simply because those it would benefit are a very small minority. My point was, it doesn’t matter if a law unjustly persecuted (I know we’re not talking about persecution) just one person in the U.S. It would still be a law that needed rectifying.
@Neil
Wow. Honestly, I’m not sure if you always reply in this manner, or if it’s just with me (do you not like my profile pic?), but I see no reason why you are so dismissive of me. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply mis-typed your reply (or perhaps wrote something that was not indicative of your actual position). Anyway…
I never said that you denigrated single-parent households, so there’s no need for you to get so defensive. You still did not give me a reason why two loving same-sex parents would be unfit for raising a child. Instead, you simply chose to say I engaged in straw-men arguments and dismissed me, as usual. Yes, two parents are ideally better than one. My point was that there are many functioning, happy, loving households with just one parent and that it is possible for a family structure to work without having a father and mother. So please, instead of just dismissing me like you always do, explain to me why is two loving same-sex parents who want to raise a child considered “child abuse.”
Again, I said that you surely mis-typed. I was only informing you of what you actually wrote. I was providing you an opportunity to explain, or even rectify, this statement. Honestly, I’m not as dumb as you think I am.
It took me 30 seconds to type that. Relax. My point was that your red herring had no place in this conversation.
Wow, Terrence. Just Wow.
I’m not going to do much with your comment, mainly because it really didn’t have anything to do with my post.
If you wish to continue to argue that homosexuals are more promiscuous, or less moral, or both- you need to disavow yourself of the argument that marriage is designed to promote stability, and vital for the preservation of morals.
If marriage does have the effect of stabilizing relationships and preserving morality, then you ought to be arguing that those who live in immoral and unstable ways should be marrying in order to afford them the obvious benefits of marriage.
You can’t say that without marriage we lose stability and morality and then bemoan that those who don’t have marriage rights are unstable and immoral. There is a clever way to fix that problem.
Your right in one respect, the world doesn’t bend to my whims. I guess my legal definition is based more on the concept that love and consensual commitment is more important than gender when deciding what makes a healthy marriage. You prefer to just define marriage as a legal contract with the first vagina that would have you. Fair enough.
I guess we disagree on what the primary consideration ought to be in a marriage. No wonder the heterosexual divorce rate is so high.
George,
Outside of shatter your post, no, mine did nothing.
Government ENDORSED marriage because it wanted to promote the family unit and morals. I never said marriage magically makes immoral people moral.
Government has an obligation, still, “to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children.” That’s what the marriage law of Michigan states. By endorsing marriage, or making it a legal contract, the government is endorsing the healthy family unit.
Studies have also shown that the divorce rate is higher among homosexual couples who marry, simply because the level of promiscuity and mental instability. It is not an idyllic family unite, so the government should not be endorsing it. Simple.
You want to redefine marriage, but can’t produce a single, solitary good reason to do so.
See Terrence, when I read words like “vital”, I understand them to mean something. Did you know that words have meaning? Neat fact! Here’s a definition for you:
So I’m a little confused now. Are you saying marriage is vital (ie. NECESSARY or ESSENTIAL)to preservation of morals, and therefor are a “reasonable person”(your words); or are you now claiming marriage is not vital, but just endorsed to promote, the preservation of morals, and therefor being “unreasonable”?
Are you disavowing prior statements?
Sure it’s necessary. But it’s not the only component. Pity you didn’t understand that. I guess your “wit” got in the way.
On average, heterosexual marriage is the best unit to promote. Individual situations aside. The government should not be promoting a unit that is unhealthy on average, like the homosexual marriage.
I’m still waiting for that good reason to redefine marriage.
Neil, I am sorry you did not understand what Oscar Rivera wrote. It was not that complicated. Terrance H sure understood, though disagreed. You actually seem to be making a lot of typos here, my name among others. No, matter I also mistype from time to time, though mostly when I am writing in english, since it is not my native tongue.
What are you saying about goalposts? I stated my view on what you seemed to be grounding your position in this matter, and you start talking football???
Time does not dilude moral truths, but before we accept something as moral, we have to run it thruogh an ethical process. That is how morals are formed and that is how I base my morals. The fact that any book simply states something, does not qualify for us to blindly set our morals on it, if we do not understand what makes it right or wrong, that the book demands us. That would be called moralism. Notice the difference here?
Yes, ideologies should be answerable to the actions by people who solemnly believed they were following the tenets of the ideology, while committing atrocities. Nobody can take nazism today and claim, what Hitler did was wrong, but the true tenets of nazism are just to stop communism, good civil order and taking care of the nation. And that on those grounds Hitlers original plan to send all the german jews live in Madagasgar was actually a humane thought.
John Barron Jr, what are your statistics showing? That it is very hard to be a homosexual in a society that rejects your kind. Do you think the emotional and psychic problems are a result of these people being homosexuals, or the result of how surrounding society treats them? Now, which is more propable? Honestly?
Terrance H, you are married, right? Did you marry your wife for love, or did you have a nother purpose?
Well I’m glad, Terrence, that we got that out of the way. So if it is necessary, then it is either integral, or a precondition, to stability and morality. So my point stands. If you believe that marriage is necessary for the stability and morality of a culture, then you agree that if homosexuals were extended marriage, it would necessarily make their relationships more stable and their actions more moral.
So you can’t really harp on studies that show any failing in the morality or stability of a group; if you prevent them from having the integral part or precondition to change the very behavior you claim disqualifies them from having access to stability and moral betterment.
Since you have conceded so many points in your argument, I can understand why you are begging me for one good reason to extend marriage to the LGBT community. It only seems logical that disproving your thesis does not prove my own. So here are my reasons, though we must agree on terms:
1. The primary purpose of getting married is the desire to be in some sense “one person”, that you bond with and love someone enough to make them part of you. I think this should be a necessary precondition for marriage, though concede it is idealistic. I think that marriage has at its core something that transcends religion, race, and physical plumbing. The necessary precondition for marriage is a willingness to commit your life to someone, not complementary plumbing.
2.Many people are disqualified from contracts based on their ability to consent, or because they have broken a law. Since homosexuality does not prevent people from proper consent, nor is homosexuality illegal, there appears to be no reasonable grounds to deny them the right to enter into a contract with each other.
3. The state affords the privilege of marriage to people who have both religious and irreligious ceremonies, there is no grounds to claim that the word or institution is purely religious.
4. There is nothing inherently wrong about homosexuality. If there were, I would expect there to be laws that restrict and/or regulate it that went beyond those laws applying to heterosexuals. We would expect that “sexual orientation” would not be part of human rights legislation. This is not the case.
5. Given (4), it appears the only argument against homosexuality is a religious one, one that recuses itself from secular reason. The ban on gay marriage is a tacit rejection of our freedom of and from religion.
I’m sure you have more to add.
This is an interesting discussion. But id like to see if we could steer it back to Benjamins reasons for his nonprotest protest. Given that what he cites as hos reasons for protest all being permitted in every state, does his protest hold water?
George,
Your childish nonsense doesn’t fool anyone. I explained this already. Marriage would do homosexual couples no good, because of underlying problems that run rampant in their community. Period. End Of Story.
On average, a healthy environment for children is not something the homosexual marriage can provide, even if they can somehow manage to bring a child into the world.
That alone should end this discussion. Since a fundamental reason for marriage would be ignored in the homosexual marriage, nothing else really needs discussing.
But, why not?
Studies have shown that even homosexual couples who are married experience more marital problems and higher divorce rates. In such cases – which are incredibly common – the government, by changing the definition of marriage, succeeded in promoting an unhealthy situation. And of course far-left loons like George welcome this.
I’m still waiting for that good reason to redefine marriage, given the fundamental purpose marriage became a government contract in the first place.
Sooner or later, George, you’ll get tired of being taken to the woodshed…Or, will you? Given your comments, I’m sure you might quite like that.
Lets not let this get so heated that our passion gets the better of us. lets not use personal attacks.
‘Eh, my bad. You and Neil can have it now. I’ve said my piece and he can’t refute it, so instead he’ll attempt to diminish its significance. They always do.
I definitely feel your frustration. The pro-ssm argument is “make it legal because it hurts my feelings” and that’s a terrible reason to enact legislation.
John, actually the marriage equity argument is, “make it legal because MARRIAGE IS A GOOD THING, while injustice is a bad thing.” It has nothing to do with feelings.
Terrance…
I’m still waiting for that good reason to redefine marriage, given the fundamental purpose marriage became a government contract in the first place.
How about a whole list of reasons…
1. Marriage is good (for all folk, not just straight folk) because marriage promotes fidelity.
2. Marriage is good because it involves the community in the support of a family unit (at least marriage at my church does that – the community is making covenant alongside the married couple to support them in their marriage).
3. Marriage is good because it promotes respect.
4. Marriage is good because it reduces harmful sexual acting out.
5. Marriage is good because faithful, wholesome LOVE is an objective good.
For starters. In other words, ALL the qualities that marriage good for straight folk make it also good for gay folk. Love, respect, fidelity, community, family, etc… these are ALL objectively good for societies.
As even some in the conservative community have said, “Hey, we won. People are clamoring for marriage and fidelity… this is a GOOD thing!”
You think not legalizing SSM is not equitable? What is unequitable about it that does not also apply to heterosexuals?
As to the fella’s protest you speak of: that’s certainly one way to help bring attention to the problem. What we’ve done at our church is try to promote the notion that we won’t legally marry straight folk until all folk can marry. So we still hold marriage ceremonies, we just don’t jump through the legal hoops to get it certified by the state as “legal.”
I’m pretty sure that others have documented quite well, already, that giving Group 1 the option to marry the adult of their choice, to have a family with that person, to be able to visit the hospital and all the legal rights that go along with being married… to acknowledge those rights for Group 1 and NOT for Group 2 is not equitable. It is unjust. It’s wrong.
Beyond that, it’s just stupid, IF you believe that values such as fidelity, monogamy, family, love, respect are good values. IF you believe that (and we all do) then why try to discourage one group from holding to those same sacred, wonderful values?
EVEN IF you think “the gays” are wrong to be gay, rational consideration would tell us that the fidelity and monogamy that are part of marriage would be LESS BAD than the alternatives of NO fidelity and polyamory.
No, I am asking, regarding the issue of marriage, what are homosexuals prohibited from that heterosexuals are not also prohibited?
Marrying the person of their choice, someone within their realm of orientation.
Straight folk can marry the adult of their choice within the realm of their orientation and gay folk are not.
But you know that, right?
That’s not true, but I’m actually going to continue engaging my question, I’ve decided to make a new post on it. Thanks for indulging me even for just that brief moment though.
I’m not at all sure what you mean. What’s not true?
It’s simply factual that gay folk can’t marry/wed/be married to the individuals of their choice within their orientation and straight folk can. I’m not sure what you think isn’t true about any of that, since them’s just facts.
Like I said, its not true, but I no longer want to persue my question becaude I am going to make a new post out of it. We can pick it up there, I should have it written tonight.
John,
I’m actually taken aback and more than a little disappointed that the only terms you can seem to find to rephrase my argument is “make it legal because it hurts my feelings”.
It is hardly becoming of the respect you have previously earned in the past.
Terrence,
I will assume that since I have responded and reproved every point you have made thus far that your argument has run it’s course. This is witnessed by the fact that you are now just asserting baseless accusations by fiat. Period. End of Story. You have stopped defending your argument and instead resort to insults. I get it.
You can’t and won’t address my argument because to do so would force you to prove my argument for me.
George,
I’m not disrespecting you or other SSM advocates when I say that. What I mean (and I should have been clear, I apologize) is that the laws are set up where they apply equally to all regardless of orientation. No one gets to marry just anyone they want. What we have is, “I don’t like that the rules are equally applied” as the reason driving the issue. It is claimed that equal rights are desired, but in fact there is nothing unequal about everyone having the same rights and the same restrictions regardless of orientation.
So, if the law would require marriage to be something between the members of the same sex, you would just quietly abide and marry some guy?
Seriously John…
Seriously, rautakyy, lets say the situation were completely reversed. The state only permitted samesex marriage and endorsed it with the financial insentives. Say the general law was that any unamrried person could marry one person of the same sex who is not close relation, and who is also not married, then the law would not be discriminatory. IF I wanted to get “married” as far as the state was concerned, I would need to abide by the parameters set in the law. If I wanted to get married to a woman I could do so the way laid out in bullet points, just as homosexuals can today.
Same-sex restrictions do not prohibit homosexuals from getting married, the restrictions prohibit two people of the same sex from getting married regardless of their emotional status or sexual attraction. Meaning even if I wanted to marry my friend who is a man for the tax, health insurance, and financial benefits I could not. The state is disinterested in why two people of the same sex want to get married.
You keep using that word, “discriminatory.” I do not think it means mean what you think it means…