Once again, a person posted a long, badly-researched and misleading article about gay marriage to a public e-mail list. So once again I ended up having to respond to it.
The author of the work I'm replying to,
His response to this paper can be effectively summed up as "You suck! You're a liberal wacko!"
==== Begin Preface ====
I realize the following is longish; I would ask all who are still following
this debate (on either side) to read the whole before responding or making up
their minds. Especially if you agreed with the article "It's About the
Children".
Large parts of this are excerpted from a rebuttal paper I wrote on this subject
back in 1998 entitled "Here Comes the Groom".
The links in question shall be, by and large, dealt with later, as I'm writing
this during lunch at work and do not have internet access here. Likewise, I am
forced to rely on citations I have saved to disk. Sourcing is in footnotes at
the bottom of this post. The text of the article has not been changed other
than reformatting for readability when linewrapping occurred in my mail client.
I follow the convention of marking the original article with a > as the first
character of each quoted line. As a note, "marriage" implies a civil marriage
unless otherwise specified.
==== end of prefacing commentation ====
> The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled that
> homosexuals have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals. The
> big problem is that the court disregarded the definition of marriage
> according the U.S. law, which reads, "The word `marriage' means only
> a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife
> (1USC7)."
U.S. law has also decreed other things regarding marriage - and the civil
rights of various minorities in marriage. There is no inherent problem in
this, as U.S. law (or for that matter, all civil law) is fluid, adapting to the
issues of the times, as evidenced in the change of law regarding those who may
own property, or may vote. The purpose of the courts is to interpret and judge
the constitutionality of law; therefore, the judgement of the courts
supercedes what existant law may decree.
Asserting that such is not the role of the courts would imply that such j
judgements should be rolled back, including, say, those which desegregated
schools.
> I believe homosexual couples are entitled to the same
> legal benefits as heterosexual couples, except when it comes to
> children.
Marriage does not expressly imply children. Infertile couples, or those past
child-bearing age, or those who simply do not wish to have children are
permitted to marry. Claiming, therefore, that marriage should be denied to
homosexuals because of "the children" is a non sequitur.
As you otherwise agree that homosexuals should have the same civil rights, I
don't see what your objection to civil marriages is, but we shall continue.
> Civil unions, as they are called, are a simple way to
> treat everyone equally under the law without changing the meaning of
> one of our most precious societal institutions.
As has been mentioned here previously, "separate but equal" has been found to
be inherently discriminatory (by a court, no less), both intellectually and in
fact. Further, the new construct of "civil unions" are *not* inherently equal
to marriage, if for no other reason than the lack of portability between states
(e.g. - a civil union in VT need not be recognized in any other state).
> Why is the definition of marriage so important?
The civil, legal definition is important for the reasons mentioned immediately
above, as well as elsewhere in this forum.
> Once we change the definition of marriage, then we will have to change the
> concept of a family.
While one can define "family" in many different ways, I shall assume that you
mean a so-called "nuclear family". Quite simply, homosexuals have been known -
and documented - throughout history [1] without affecting marriage or the
family unit in the slightest.
What about the "legitimizing" of homosexual marriage affecting heterosexuals?
Homosexuals make up a small minority of the population. Some various figures
given are:
These differences may seem problematic, but nearly all of them can
be attributed to the difficulties of assessing sexual behavior - especially
ones morally condemned by much of society. [9] While the numbers change
dramatically between studies, it's clear that we are speaking of a very
small minority of the population.
Since that is the case, one has to ask how permitting homosexual marriage
would have any significant effect upon the heterosexual population. The
majority of "straight" individuals would still (presumably) desire a
heterosexual marriage, and permitting homosexuals to marry in no way implies
that heterosexuals can no longer marry or raise a family.
> Family forms, social norms, household arrangements all must be
> wound, unwound and rewound so the adults get what they need. Kids?
> Oh, they adjust." However, study after study has shown that kids
> don't adjust very well. Researcher Paul Amato reported
> that "children who experience parental divorce, compared with
One has to wonder what divorce has to do with homosexuals marrying. The
strength and viability of one's marriage has nothing to do with the marriages
of others.
If we wish to bring children obliquely into it, though, we find that "studies
comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents
find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their
intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with
friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual
orientation."
> The sexual revolution and the concept of free love were
> rooted in The Communist Manifesto, which Karl Marx co-authored in
> 1848.
Firstly, the equation of the sexual revolution with homosexuality is
questionable at best. While "homosexuality" as a category may have enjoyed
greater notoriety and increasing, though grudging, acceptance beginning in the
late 1960's, the view of homosexuality as at a category at all is a century
old.
The term itself first appeared in German in a pamphlet published in Leipzig in
1869; it entered the English language two decades later [3]. Prior to that,
the concentration was upon the act itself, not upon the participants as a
separate group, regardless of the speaker's opinion of such acts [4]. Hence,
the "identity" of homosexuality as a distinct sexual category rather than a
behavior has been around for a century; arguing that homosexuality is an
identity in and of itself cannot be held responsible for events that have
occurred only in the last thirty years.
However, GSS research (as opposed to editorials) indicates that attitudes
regarding homosexual relationships have been stable since 1973 (when the GSS
began), with a small shift toward disapproval, not approval. A Gallup series
on legalizing homosexual relations between consenting adults shows a more
dramatic shift against homosexuality between 1977 and 1991. [4] The closest we
can come to finding homosexuality making any inroads is in the arena of non-
sexual civil liberties, with intolerance decreasing between 1973 and 1991 by -
0.43 points, with the decline in intolerance being greater among those who
thought that homosexuality was always wrong.[4] Overall, the data shows that
the increased exposure to homosexuality during the last thirty years has not
increased homosexual behavior's "acceptability" among the general population;
in fact, it has done the opposite. Further, it shows that a willingness to
permit civil liberties to homosexuals has no correlation to approval of
homosexual acts.
> Marriage is a religious institution. It is inseparable from the idea of God.
This is blatantly untrue, as evidenced by the fact that civil marriages can be
performed by a justice of the peace with the exact same rights as when
performed by a religious minister. However, the concept of marriage as a
sacred institution is *parallelled* in many faiths, and thus creates a
confusion of terms.
> Churches should refuse to conduct homosexual marriages.
I agree completely with this statement - assuming that such is the teaching of
that church (which, FWIW, includes mine). The issue on the table is the civil
marriage of individuals, not the religious ceremony or sacrament of marriage.
While the two are often conducted simultaneously, this does not make them
synonymous - if one is married in a religious ceremony without a wedding
license, the couple is not considered married by the state, regardless of the
views of the church.
> The Massachusetts Supreme Court exposed their radical
> liberal agenda. It is the same agenda shared by gay activists and
> all licentious leftists. It seeks to remove all guilt from sex by
> normalizing all forms of human sexuality. Despite the self-evident
> fact that only heterosexuals can create children, these loony
> liberals are trying to convince us that heterosexuals are no more
> normal than homosexuals. Most people disagree with this viewpoint,
The above paragraph consists solely of three logical fallacies:
Non sequitur: An argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which
aren't logically connected with it. It is above in the implication that those
who cannot bear children are less normal.
Argumentum ad hominem, abusive: A personal attack isn't a valid argument,
because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person
asserting it. It is above in the inflammatory adjectives describing groups of
people, including "looney", "radical", and "licentious".
Argumentum ad numerum, which consists of asserting that the more people who
support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition
is correct. It is above in "Most people disagree..."
Is there anything in the body of the paper that I missed?
Back to Bought Love is a Salaried Position
