Authorized Personnel Only

In the last commentary I responded to an op-ed piece from Rich Benjamin on NYTimes.com in which he made his case for boycotting the weddings of his heterosexual family and friends.  I argued that his reasons for his protest are empty in content, since what he suggested the homosexual community wanted was already legal and permissible.  Benjamin said:

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.

I am inclined to think Benjamin has one thing correct, that homosexual’s primary reasons why they wish to legalize same-sex marriage is for the reasons he gave.  As I said above, this is all currently legal:

  • 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.

But the same-sex marriage supporters mantra is “equal rights”.  However, the advocates for same-sex marriage already have equal rights.  Even in States where same-sex marriage or civil unions are not legal, homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. What same-sex marriage advocates do not like is that they also have the same restrictions.  Rights aren’t the issue.

So what are the restrictions in States in which same-sex marriage or civil unions are not legal?  Broadly speaking anyone who is not currently married can marry:

one person, of the opposite sex, who is not of close relation (as defined by the individual State), who is currently free to marry (i.e. not currently married).

So what is the disparity of rights?  That standard applies to everyone, heterosexual and homosexual alike.  If the standard is equally applied, then no rights have been violated.  Let me briefly address three of the most offered complaints I have heard over the years.

Heterosexuals can marry the person they love/anyone they want

If we are speaking about equity in law, whether heterosexual couples are in love is of no concern to the State.  The marriage licence application does not ask if the two individuals to be wed are romantically in love or sexually attracted to one another.  Though love and attraction is often the reason people get married, love is not a prerequisite for marriage.

Second, heterosexuals cannot marry the person they love if they do not meet the requirements listed in the marriage laws.  Same goes for homosexuals.

Homosexuals do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex

And they don’t have to.  No one is required by any Local, State, or Federal government to get married.  But should someone desire to be married, they must do so in accordance to the laws of the State, which apply to every citizen equally.

There could exist a scenario where two heterosexual men could want to marry for purposes of convenience: tax incentives, health insurance incentives, distribution of assets upon death, etc. The film I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry highlights this very concept.

The issue is not who you want to marry, the issue is equal rights.  Is the law applied equally to all?  Yes, it is.

Homosexuals want to be allowed to: visit their partner in hospitals/make medical decisions/discuss medical information

In my opinion, each State ought to have a provision for any person to arrange for anyone of their choice hospital visitation in situations where only immediate family is permitted.  This could be done through waivers and consent forms or power of attorney.  The same goes for medical decisions in case of incapacitation, or the ability to discuss medical information with hospitals and physicians.

That being said, even if I have been dating a woman for a number of years, if we are not married she cannot visit in these limited circumstances no matter how much we are in love.  She could not make medical decisions for me, or discuss my medical information.  This applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals alike.

So the issue is not about equal rights.  The issue is one of equal restrictions.  In States where same-sex marriage or civil unions are not legal, all the same rights and restrictions apply to everyone equally.  As noted above, if the issue were truly about the ability to make a loving, life-long commitment to a member of the same-sex, in a religiously contextualized setting, by clergy, in the presence of family and friends, and called a wedding, there is nothing preventing that from happening anywhere in America.  This is about social acceptance and endorsement.

Question for readers:

Is there any restriction for homosexuals concerning marriage which also does not apply to heterosexuals?

Comments

  1. I don’t like when I hear people calling for the legalization of gay marriage. It makes it sound like homosexual marriage is illegal, which, as you pointed out, is not. People aren’t handcuffed for having a gay wedding.

    As for the social issue, people can do as they please as far as I’m concerned.

  2. I’m glad you have decided to take this tack John, because this is exactly the argument that is going to make Gay Marriage legal everywhere eventually.

    I will concede that it is not about equal rights but equal restrictions.
    Please show me one other area of contract law that allows a person to be discounted from entering into a contract solely on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
    If we are talking about contract law, we should only be concerned with the abilities of both parties to willfully enter a contract and whether those parties can reasonably honor the contract.
    Unless you claim that natural conception is a necessary prerequisite for the contract of marriage, then the contract legally must be extended to everyone who meets the consensual requirements and can reasonably be expected to fulfill the contract.

    What other area of contract law do you draw this parallel from?

    To answer your question then I would say that the restriction itself is unfair, whether applied to heterosexual or homosexuals. To use your logic, I’m a straight man and I consider it an undue restriction that I cannot marry another man if I choose.
    Would you support a law that said that no-one was allowed to make more than 45,000 dollars a year? I mean, everyone has the same restriction, right?

    • John Barron says:

      Gdeorge, no one is prevented from entering any contract due to their sexual orientation. That is what is lost on you.

      Homosexuals are just not permitted to rewrite the contract as they see fit. States offer parameters for marriage, anyone at all may enter it under the guidelines set. Homosexuals simply want to change the guidelines. I was not asked on the licence application if I was a heterosexual or if I was in love or if I was sexually attracted to the person I was going to enter the contract with.

      If no one was allowed to make more than $45K, the law would not be discriminatory and no ones rights are violated, since the restriction would apply to everyone. But lets apply this to marriage laws. If the government said doctors are allowed to make 100K but everyone else had to make 45K, the law is still not discriminatory as long as people were not prevented from being doctors. “But I don’t want to be a doctor!” you might say. Thats not the state’s problem, if you want to make 100K, you must be a doctor.

  3. It is not lost on me John. What I am saying is that if we look at it from a perfectly legal standpoint, which you seem to agree is best, then you are required to have reasonable grounds to prevent any single person from entering into a contract with any single person.

    In the case of marriage, you need to prove that the disqualification of a person based on their sex is not just evenly enforced, but fair. If the issue was marrying “Joe”, you need to show me why “Gail” can enter into that contract, but not “Garry”, given all other variables other than sex are equal. It seems to me that expecting Garry to change his sex seems an awfully onerous concession to make.

  4. John…

    Is there any restriction for homosexuals concerning marriage which also does not apply to heterosexuals?

    As I said yesterday: There is the very real restriction that gay folk can’t marry as they wish within their orientation and heterosexual folk CAN. Nothing you’ve said here changes that.

    And, as George rightly notes, your reasoning on this is the very reason that marriage equity will soon be realized at least in our nation. People increasingly recognize the whimsical nature of the discriminatory practice of allowing one group to marry as they wish but not another group.

    Imagine this, John: What if a law were created that said you can marry anyone you wish, AS LONG AS they are not from the same faith tradition as you? That is, you were “free” to marry ANYONE, as long as they weren’t Christian (if you were a Christian). Christians would be free to marry Muslims or Jews or atheists, even. They just couldn’t marry another Christian.

    I’m certain you would be outraged at such a law. WHAT BUSINESS is it of the state to say who I can and can’t marry?! As long as I’m not harming/taking advantage of anyone in my marriage (ie, trying to marry a child or a dog), then I should be free to choose who I wish to marry!

    And you’d be right to think that. It’s sort of self-evident. It’s the same reason that miscegenation laws went away: They were fundamentally unjust and, quite frankly, none of the gov’t’s business.

    The good news is that this discrimination will soon be a thing of the past. Opposition to it will remain with an ever-decreasing number of soreheads, who will insist the world is going to hell in a handbasket. And they’ll be free to think that until they totally die out.

  5. John…

    States offer parameters for marriage, anyone at all may enter it under the guidelines set.

    And yet, sometimes the state has set unjust, discriminatory boundaries, such as in the case of miscegenation laws. We did away with those parameters because they were unjust and discriminatory for no good reason. We’ll get rid of these current parameters, too, and for the same reason.

  6. Laws restricting marriage based on race have no foundation except Darwinian racism; skin color is morally neutral. To compare the two issues is totally illogical.

    As for who can visit who in the hospital or make medical decisions, a contract can be made for that. My wife and I have given such legal authorization to a couple who are very good friends and are almost like family. So any homophile couple could do the same.

    Marriage “equality” is a misnomer, because as John already noted, everyone has an equal right to marry within the confines of the restrictions to marriage. If you remove the restriction of same-sex, then there is no reason not to remove the restriction on incest or polygamy or any other conglomeration of people or animals which someone wants to call “marriage.” And don’t give me that “animals aren’t consenting adults,” because once you have thrown out a moral standard which eliminates same-sex couples from marrying, you have no moral leg to stand on to make any moral judgment about what is right or wrong.

  7. Glenn…

    If you remove the restriction of same-sex, then there is no reason not to remove the restriction on incest or polygamy or any other conglomeration of people or animals which someone wants to call “marriage.” And don’t give me that “animals aren’t consenting adults,” because once you have thrown out a moral standard which eliminates same-sex couples from marrying, you have no moral leg to stand on to make any moral judgment about what is right or wrong.

    I would disagree. We have the “do no harm” measure, if nothing else. Even if I were an atheist who did not believe in God, I can see the inherent, self-evident objective WRONG in doing harm to someone else. For instance, I could not just kill off a family and save the ten year old girl-child to be my bride (as I believe you, Glenn, would suggest God has sometimes commanded). That is self-evidently wrong because I’m doing harm to innocents.

    Just because SOME RELIGIONS believe behavior x,y or z are wrong, does not mean that we ought to implement their religious hunches as civic law. We have different standards for civic law, and rightly so. As a Christian who comes from a tradition that values religious liberty, I stand opposed to those who’d try to implement whimsical religious tenets by force of law. Just because, “I THINK behavior x is something that God opposes,” is not sufficient reason to implement it as law.

    On the other hand, we CAN rightly outlaw discrimination because objective harm is done. Especially when IT’S NONE OF THE GOV’T’S BUSINESS to say who I can and can’t marry, as long as no harm is done to others.

    Glenn, I’m curious: Where would you draw the line as to religiously-based laws? You obviously think that being a Muslim or an atheist is wrong; would you feel justified in outlawing those “wrongs” because your religion tells you so?

    You seem to be going down a slippery slope towards an awfully big gov’t/big brother swamp.

  8. Dan, by what moral standard can you say “do no harm”? Just your opinion. I can say harm doesn’t matter. Not only that, who determines what harm is? What if it harms me financially to have to feed my wife and children – why shouldn’t I then be allowed to exterminate them?

    You bring in what God has commanded, so if you believe in the God of the Bible you have to believe what he says about homosexuality being a sin, and that marriage is limited to one man and one woman. But I know you disagree with that. So why even bring in God if you don’t accept what he says?

    There is a moral standard which applies no matter what other religions say is right or wrong, and that moral standard is what the true God of the Bible has given us.

    And marriage in the US is not based on any religious law – it is based on the definition of the word, which never in history has been applied to same-sex unions except in isolated perverse situations with perverse leaders like Nero!

  9. Glenn…

    by what moral standard can you say “do no harm”? Just your opinion.

    Loss of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness? You know, those self-evident truths some fella once spoke of?

    If someone kills my child, if they beat me up and take something that is mine, there is objective harm done. IF we allow privileges to one group and discriminate against another by not allowing the same, harm is done.

    Not too complicated.

    Glenn…

    What if it harms me financially to have to feed my wife and children – why shouldn’t I then be allowed to exterminate them?

    Umm, because that is causing harm? I don’t think this is all that difficult, do you?

    I know you disagree with that. So why even bring in God if you don’t accept what he says?

    Your error here is in conflating your opinions with God’s. Not everyone agrees that Glenn speaks for God. Which is why it’s important for religious liberty for all that we NOT allow people to set up arbitrary religious rules. Not everyone agrees with Glenn, nor with Dan, on what God does and doesn’t think.

    Again, I don’t think this is all that difficult.

  10. Glenn, I’m STILL curious: Where would you draw the line as to religiously-based laws? You obviously think that being a Muslim or an atheist is wrong; would you feel justified in outlawing those “wrongs” because your religion tells you so?

  11. Dan,
    You didn’t respond to my question – by what standard can you decide harm is done. Who says killing someone is harmful?

    You must have an objective standard, and without God you have none. You have decided God did not say homosexuality is wrong, and then you say I’ve conflated my opinion with God’s when I say homosexuality is wrong. It isn’t my opinion, Dan; it’s God “opinion.” God said homosexual behavior is an abomination – it is a sin. We’ve been over this ground before and your false teachings of liberal “Christianity” is what got you banned from other sites as well as my own.

    Again, marriage isn’t about “religious rules.” It is about the historical definition of a word.

    Our laws aren’t “religiously based,” except for the fact that they happen to agree with the Judeo-Christian God’s commands as to what is right and wrong. Laws should be based on an objective moral standard, and we have to choose whose standard is best. The Judeo-Christian God is the only true God and that is why we don’t follow the standards of false belief systems with bad moral standards. I don’t think this is all that difficult!

  12. You didn’t respond to my question – by what standard can you decide harm is done. Who says killing someone is harmful?

    I DID answer your question: It is self-evident. Harm is Harm. If you swing your fist and it hits noone, no harm is done. If you swing your fist and someone innocently walking by gets hit and loses a tooth, HARM has been done. Objectively so.

    Harm: Physical or mental damage.

    Merriam Webster

    When I say “Harm,” I mean just the standard English definition. If someone swings their fist and knocks out your tooth, then there HAS been physical damage to you.

    That IS an objective standard.

    So, by what “objective standard” do you find “harm” in marriage equity?

    You can cite the Bible, but then you are speaking of YOUR SUBJECTIVE standard, since I read the Bible and don’t come to the same conclusion you do.

    So, here we have one group – marriage equity supporters – doing so based on OBJECTIVE standards and in support of just and rational laws. On the other hand, we have another group – marriage equity opponents – who have a SUBJECTIVE standard (based upon THEIR interpretation of a religious text) where NO OBJECTIVE HARM has been done.

    It is for these sorts of reasons that you have already lost this argument.

    You DO understand and agree, don’t you, that my opinion about what the Bible means IS BY DEFINITION subjective, just as your hunch about what the Bible means is subjective?

    So, I would return to the questions:

    1. Do you have any OBJECTIVE measure to support your hunches? (The answer appears quite clearly to be No)

    2. Where do you draw the line? You obviously think that being a Muslim or an atheist is wrong; would you feel justified in outlawing those “wrongs” because your religion tells you so?

    • John Barron says:

      So then on your definition of harm, if someone could show that homosexual sexual relationships are disproportionately more physically, mentally, and emotionally harmful than heterosexual sexual relationships, you will aptly abandon your support for encouraging homosexual sexual relationships?

  13. Dan,
    If you say “harm” is self-evident, then I must point out that it is also self-evident by human design that homosexual behavior is wrong.

    BUT, harm really is subjective; how do you determine what harm is worse? What if I say it is worse to be bankrupt than it is to eradicate my family? By what moral standard do you make such judgement? Just your opinion!

    I don’t have hunches, I have an objective moral standard of the Bible, which you have interpreted to support homosexual behavior as right and proper – something no one found in Scripture four thousand years!

    Not all “wrongs” are illegal, nor necessarily should be. But I think it would be fine to outlaw Islam and any other violent belief system! And it isn’t because my religion says so, it is because it is an objective fact that Islam promotes violence against all but Islam and history proves it. But that is a red herring, which is usual for you.

  14. My, the hostility.

    Well, there you go, Glenn would outlaw Islam, that tells us all a little something about Glenn.

    Glenn, you DO realize that ANYONE’S interpretation of a book is THEIR INTERPRETATION and, by definition, subjective.

    I study the Bible and try to understand it, apply it to my life, as do you. And yet, we come to different conclusions on at least some topics.

    Can you tell me what makes YOUR hunches about what the Bible means “objective” and not “subjective,” while mine are, I suppose, “subjective,” according to you?

    • John Barron says:

      We are not turning this into a discussion of biblical interpretation. This is not a discussion of Islam.

      This is a topic on equity in marriage laws between homo and heterosexuals. Are the marriage laws in states which SSM is not legal applied equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation? This is the topic.

  15. John…

    if someone could show that homosexual sexual relationships are disproportionately more physically, mentally, and emotionally harmful than heterosexual sexual relationships, you will aptly abandon your support for encouraging homosexual sexual relationships?

    No, because you have misunderstood my position. My position is NOT that the gov’t ought to outlaw any behavior which some people might think is harmful. It is that gov’t has an obligation to outlaw behavior by one person/group that harms ANOTHER. It isn’t – and shouldn’t be – against the law for you to swing your fist and hit yourself. It IS against the law to swing your fist and hit someone else.

    Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else’s nose. That you have a hunch that my swinging my fist is not sufficient reason to outlaw fist-swinging.

    Can you agree with that concept? Or do you think that gov’t ought to be in the business of outlawing all behavior that might be harmful to people?

    Beyond that, I can’t prove that being homosexual or marriage equity for all folk is harmful. You’d probably point to studies that suggest that gay folk are more promiscuous and thus perhaps more prone to disease, but that would be an argument IN FAVOR of marriage equity, not contrary to it.

  16. John…

    Are the marriage laws… applied equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation?

    On topic, then, I’d repeat…

    Straight folk can legally marry within their orientation. Gay folk can’t. Separate. Not equal. Discriminatory. Wrong.

    John, do you have any non-religious reasons for opposing marriage equity?

    • John Barron says:

      Perhaps you’ll take a gander through my site, you will find no religious argument made against SSM or abortion.

      Additionally, a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman. So, like I said yesterday, your assertion is false.

  17. Dan,

    Not outlawing violent belief systems tells me more about you!

    Nevertheless, as John has pointed out, you as usual have changed the topic with red herrings.

    You said, “that gov’t has an obligation to outlaw behavior by one person/group that harms ANOTHER.” Homosexual behavior does indeed harm the other person and the adoption of it harms society. Therefore, by your own standard, it should be outlawed.

    Same-sex marriage is not about equality, it is about neutering marriage and redefining the word. This harms society as a whole, as does any abuse of human sexuality.

  18. Glenn…

    Homosexual behavior does indeed harm the other person and the adoption of it harms society.

    It’s like pulling teeth with you, Glenn.

    How so? You are totally losing this argument (not between you and me, I mean culturally), but IF you could make a cogent, rational, non-whimsical case that people are being harmed by marriage equity, you might be able to turn the tide.

    But first, you’d have to provide a cogent, rational, non-whimsical case.

    HOW are other people harmed by marriage equity?

  19. Dan, no one is harmed by marriage equity. Society is harmed when people want to redefine what marriage is and then claim THAT is marriage equity. You don’t accept rational, cogent arguments.

  20. Really? Are you going to play with semantics, John?

    So, if you have some non-religious argument in opposition to marriage equity, make it.

    Glenn, same for you: SHOW the harm being done and you will have begun to make an actual case. In the meantime, we just have whimsical religious hunches that are becoming increasingly marginalized because of their obvious starting point of discrimination and injustice.

    Make a case if you want to actually change minds. Playing word games and making empty accusations don’t help.

    • John Barron says:

      If love and sexual attraction is not a prerequisite or requirement for marriage, then it is not semantics and no one is being discriminated against

  21. Dan, you have been shown many times on other sites that homosexual behavior is harmful medically, emotionally, and spiritually. But you continue to deny the facts. It is you who have whimsical religious ideas and hunches.

  22. No, what I have been shown is that sexual promiscuity can be harmful medically, emotionally, etc. But (and read closely so you can get it), I’M NOT PROMOTING SEXUAL PROMISCUITY. I’m not talking about it.

    Instead, I’m speaking of marriage. Monogamy. Fidelity. Respect. Love.

    THAT is what you have to make your case against if you want people to believe you’re not just being harshly discriminatory based on whimsical religious beliefs.

    Make the case that COMMITTED FAITHFUL LOVING marriage is somehow harmful if the participants happen to be gay rather than straight.

    When you begin to make that case, you begin to have an actual argument. You have not even begun to make that case, but should you begin, I’m willing to listen. I’ve demonstrated that I have an open mind and am able to change my position, given rational, moral reasons to do so.

    Have any?

  23. Homosexual behavior as homosexual behavior is harmful without promiscuity for all the same reasons. That has been conclusively proven. You refuse to accept it. If one wants to believe 2+2=7 no matter how many times he’s been shown it equals 4, then there is no point continuing a discussion.

  24. I’m not the only one here, Glenn. If you want to make your case, you have to actually make at least SOME case. So far, you have not begun to even make a case.

    Beyond that, no matter what hunches you might have, you have never made this case to me as of yet, either.

    Where is the harm? Make a case or be considered irrelevant (I’m not trying to sound harsh in saying that, just stating a truism: If you argue against something but make no case for it, your case is wholly irrelevant and will be ignored).

  25. The case has been prove before and you deny harm exists. There is no point throwing pearls to be trampled again.

  26. John…

    then it is not semantics and no one is being discriminated against

    There is the very real restriction that gay folk can’t marry as they wish within their orientation and heterosexual folk CAN.

    Nothing you’ve said here changes that.

    And, in case you’re not following my words, “within their orientation” does NOT mean that a gay guy can marry a lesbian. It means, they can’t marry according to their natural, God-given attraction base, while straight folk can.

    That is a restriction against one set of people that is not against another set of people. It is unjust and, UNLESS you all have some real-world reasons (some actual evidence that harm is being done), then people will just be outraged at the immorality of your position and eventually, ignore you into irrelevancy.

    And again, that isn’t meant to sound harsh or mean-spirited, it’s just an accurate reflection of how people increasingly ignore people who have inherited bad ideas from a previous generation. Miscegenation-supporters are just laughed at today and recognized as a shameful throwback to a more backward, less moral, less just time. Ten-twenty years from now, marriage equity opponents will be on their way to that same ashbin.

  27. Dan, you still bring in red herrings such as miscegenation. Skin color is morally neutral and has nothing to do with the issue of marriage other than to say people were racists.

  28. Glenn…

    The case has been prove before and you deny harm exists.

    Yes, I know that you said that already. And yet, not one whit of support.

    Look, it shouldn’t be that hard. “Allowing gay folk to be faithfully wed, loving and respecting a beloved partner will cause harm because…”

    and then you just state the reasons. A reason. ANY reasons.

    Like this:

    “To criminalize their belief system based on the behavior of a small subset is WRONG because it is WRONG to punish a whole group for the behavior of a few. Will we throw the law-abiding, hard-working, respectful citizens in jail because OTHERS in their faith tradition have behaved badly? No.”

    Boom! Just like that, I showed in one sentence why it is rationally wrong to engage in a behavior. I offered an example to support it.

    You can do it, Glenn. Or you could, IF there were any rational reasons to support your thus-far unsupported claim.

  29. Glenn…

    Skin color is morally neutral and has nothing to do with the issue of marriage

    Orientation is morally neutral and there is no harm done by supporting marriage equity.

    UNLESS you have some evidence to support your position? But no, apparently (obviously) you don’t.

    Which is why your position is increasingly being dismissed.

  30. Very nicely done: You’ve documented the health hazards of a promiscuous lifestyle. But that only supports MY position and undermines yours.

    What about the topic at hand – faithful, monogamous, loving relationships? Where’s the harm?

    Seriously, Glenn, just fill in the blank:

    “Gay folk being faithfully married, monogamous, loving and respectful will cause harm to others by…”

    And just FILL IN THE BLANK.

    What is it you think will happen when “the gays” are marrying? What do you fear, Glenn? Just offer anything…

    Are you afraid that they’ll force you to be gay, too? That there’ll be gay rape going on in churches? That they’ll recruit the kids?

    What are you afraid of?

  31. ?

    So, wouldn’t the smart thing to do would be to ENCOURAGE monogamy? Even if you think gay behavior is wrong, isn’t monogamy better than polyamory?

    And isn’t perhaps the BEST way to encourage monogamy is through a community supported MARRIAGE?

    The arguments I’m hearing from you all seem to be making the pro-marriage equity case stronger and your position weaker, from where I sit.

    Again, where’s the harm?

  32. If they aren’t monogamous in their own unions now, they aren’t going to be any more so just because they put a tag on it. Those who are “married” in the states that permit it have a high rate of “divorce.”

  33. Is that true for Straight folk, too, Glenn? Since straight folk aren’t monogamous now, having marriage available for them isn’t going to make them monogamous? Are you saying that marriage is of no benefit to monogamy?

    I believe in marriage more than you do, apparently.

    For what it’s worth: The married gay folk at my church are as monogamous and faithful as the straight folk at my church – which is to say, pretty danged monogamous and faithful. The thing is, if you build up a culture that values marriage and all that comes with it, then marriage can flourish. Marriage is only as strong as the community and people involved in it, seems to me.

    • John Barron says:

      Again, homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals on an exponentially grand scale. For some reason you dismiss the health risks which are exponentially more prevalent, and the promiscuity which is exponentially more prevalent, as if those facts are meaningless or in dispute.

      You argue as if you have some stake in legal SSM? Why is that?

  34. John…

    For some reason you dismiss the health risks which are exponentially more prevalent, and the promiscuity which is exponentially more prevalent, as if those facts are meaningless or in dispute.

    Dismiss the health risks? Where did I do that? I think you have missed my point. I BELIEVE IN MARRIAGE. I think that polyamory (and certainly not licentiousness) is NOT as healthy as faithful, loving, respectful, committed relationships. So, BECAUSE I believe that marriage is healthier than promiscuity, I believe it to be a valid, good, wonderful answer for all folk.

    Are you suggesting that gay folk are, by nature, more evil, more promiscuous than straight folk? That they are innately unable to NOT be promiscuous?

    Where do you get any support for that?

    You argue as if you have some stake in legal SSM? Why is that?

    Because I believe your position is not a morally tenable one – that the anti-marriage equity position causes objective HARM (by discouraging fidelity and monogamy, for instance, by its discriminatory practices for another) and thus, is NOT a good civic policy to support.

    The difference is that MY position is speaking of objective, measurable harm. Your position, well, you still have offered no reasons that I see why all folk shouldn’t be encouraged to be faithful, loving, respectful and monogamous in their relationships, instead of just straight folk.

    Once again: Where’s the harm?

    • John Barron says:

      We are beating a dead horse with you. I doubt I will respond any longer to your comments on this particular article. Every response which has been given to you has been answered over and again to no avail.

      Perhaps you will be a regular reader and we can engage on other and future posts. Have a great rest of the day.

  35. You argue as if you have some stake in legal SSM? Why is that?

    If you’re suggesting I’m supporting marriage equity because I’m perhaps gay, you should know that there are many straight folk out there who are capable of seeing the immorality and injustice of the anti-marriage equity position. My wife and I have been married (faithfully) for 26 years now. Marriage is a good thing. I want others to be able to enjoy the joyful, gracious benefits of a good marriage.

    Just because I’m straight and Christian doesn’t mean that I can’t recognize injustice when I see it… (ha!)

  36. Dan Trabue says:

    Beating a dead horse? Every response has been answered over and over??

    You have not answered yet for the first time: What is the harm of fidelity, love, commitment and respect in the context of a monogamous marriage? You DO understand that when you answer, “the harm is that ‘the gays’ are not good at monogamy” is NOT an answer to “What harm is done?”

    I’m seriously asking you that question: You DO understand that this is not a serious response to the question being asked?

  37. John,
    It’s not “beating a dead horse” if you never competently respond to Dan’s argument.

    Terrence claimed in the last post that marriage is NECESSARY to stability and moral behavior in a society. I assume you agree.
    If this is the case, you are arguing that people who lack the necessary precondition for stability and morality are unstable and immoral, and thus should be disallowed the necessary precondition.
    You are not answering the fundamental question: Are the differences in the sexual health of homosexuals necessarily a result of an innate property of homosexuality or the result of societies responses, attitudes and laws regarding homosexuals?
    I know what you think the answer is, but you lack any ability to demonstrate it.
    Your own arguments contradict your argument.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: