Ten Reasons Same-Sex Marriage Is Wrong
| January 15th, 2006This has been going around… I got it from Shades of Grey.
1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
January 15th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
It originates from GatorGSA, Valentine’s Day 2004. From my journal.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
When I took American Government in high school, I was assigned to research a controversial issue and list fifty pros and fifty cons. I choose legalization of gay marriage, and had a hard time finding cons. My list ended up being pathetically undersized and resembling the above, although the quotes I found were in all seriousness.
This comment was written by Lake Desire.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
11. Gay marriage is a privilege. Gays are already allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and advocates of gay marriage would ban heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex.
;)
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Thing is, there are people who could read down the list nodding along and thinking ‘that’s right’ and ‘that’s the way it *should* be . . .”
This comment was written by Dan S..Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Re #10: Well, since you mention it, we really haven’t adapted very well to cars; we’ve let them foul our air and deform our cities. But I don’t think same-sex marriage would have a similar effect.
This comment was written by Q. Pheevr.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I found it via LabKat. It would be the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages, if it weren’t that some people actually believe that sh…stuff.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
LOL!!
This comment was written by Rachel S.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
12. It would lead to polygamy, which is expressly forbidden by the Bible.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
#13. Gay marriage would lead to an increased number of divorces, which is bad, because gay men and lesbians can’t stay married forever, just like straight couples can’t stay married forever.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
#14. It says gays are bad in an ambiguous passage from Leviticus. And the book of Leviticus is the source of all laws. That’s why it’s illegal to eat geckos.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 6:31 am
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
This one makes me laugh every time I see it. The ‘destruction of the sanctity of marriage’ is one of the most commonly spouted claims. While intended to be totally humorous, this point is actually devastatingly effective in countering that argument.
This comment was written by Le Driver.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 6:34 am
OMG, and I just had a gecko for breakfast…
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 6:42 am
1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people […]Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 2:15 pm at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Good humor. I agree with Le Driver - the “Britiny Spears” reason was especially funny. I also like additional reason #13 from FurryCatHerder - we straight right-wing religious zealot republicans sure don’t have any kind of monopoly on “good” marriages. What’s the divorce rate in the church these days?
I suppose I have to at least take a token exception to one of these considering my particular bent. OK, here goes.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
I would never say never of course, but I still would contend that generically the best environment for the development of a child is one with both a male and female role model. Of course, the best best is one where daddy goes to work 8 hours a day and mommy stays home to raise jr. Oops, did I say that out loud?
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Gengwall, if you didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent you.
Why? Seriously. Why is that better, and what evidence do you adduce that it’s better, than one where mommy and daddy work in the fields all day while grandma watches the kids? Or one where daddy works days and mommy works nights (or vice versa) and each parent cares for the kids while the other is working? Or one where daddy and mommy run a small business together downstairs and the kids are either helping in the store or upstairs doing their homework and watching the younger ones?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Forgot to add: feel free to substitute “mommy and mommy” or “daddy and daddy” for “mommy and daddy” in any of the above scenarios.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Good grief Lu, it was tongue in cheek. Just pushing some buttons. Iguess it worked. But, since you brought it up, I will comment on one of your scenarios:
My wife and I had this situation for a while. It sucked. It was certainly not a very good way to bring up baby and it was especially detrimental to “mommy and daddy alone time”.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
I suppose it’s just as well I’m not American.
This comment was written by Nigel A. Gunn.I can do all of those things, if I choose, without fear of guilt or recrimination.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I didn’t argue that any of the above was an ideal scenario. It does seem to me, though, that they would all do a great job of modeling the message that everyone pitches in and when life gives you lemons you make the best lemonade you can.
Since your assertion that kids do better with one parent of each sex (for a total of two) does seem to be serious, can you offer arguments and/or evidence for that?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
It was serious but not meant to start an argument
I’m am surprised that anyone would think otherwise. Certainly a dual sex perspective on the world has more to offer a developing child than a single sex perspective.
Oh, I forgot, feminists think there is no fundimental difference between the sexes (other than anatomical ones) and everything we “perceive” as being differences is merely environmental. Well, if that’s true, then I see your point. Any child would only need one of these uinisex beings and they would have everything they need for proper social and psychological development.
You know, I really didn’t want to get into a heavy discussion on this. I thought the piece was funny, That was really my only point.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
um..
There are two sides to every story and on the liberal side, it’s always how the other side is stupid and evil…. right?
Oh how funny…
“Britteny Spears” Hardy Har Har.. How clever.
For everything in this world you can find an example of what you need to find an example of… that is a very transparent one.
I USED to be against gay marriage.
Mostly because to me it is unnatural and disgusting (just my opinion, dont get all ruffled)
My mind has changed however, since recent “partner” benefits have become law.
These benefits like full health insurance (important) and hospital visitation (not as important) are “free” for anyone who just needs to claim to be gay.
Example:
I am married, but if I just had a “girlfiend”, she would be eligible for ZERO of my work related benefits, while the “boyfriend” of a gay man would be eligible for ALL work related benefits. (by law)
Is that “fair”?
Just claiming to be gay enables your “partner” to have full benefits?
So, screw it I say, let them get married and divorced and lead miserable lives just like the straight people.
In the process of getting “equal treatment” the Gay agenda has succeeded in getting unequal treatment (to their favor)
Why does everyone have to tell everyone else their sexual preference anyway? Why is so important for a gay person to tell everyone else they are gay?
This comment was written by eric.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Why am I suddenly reminded of all the Christians who argue that the US constitution/laws are based upon the 10 commandments?
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
gengwall, all (serious) research has shown that there are no real difference between kids brought up in a heterosexual or a homosexual household, all other things being equal.
What’s important is how well functioning the household is - a stable household is better for the kid than an unstable household. Single parent households seems to be less good than a household with two adults in parent-roles, but again, the important part is how dysfunctional the household is. A stable single parent is much better than a dysfunctional two parent household.
Communities doesn’t seem to hold any specific advantages, but this might be due to the fact that such households are often quite dysfunctional, or at least somewhat unstable.
All this research has been publicly debated in Denmark, during the debate about wether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, which they can’t so far (sinlge adults can, on the other hand, adopt).
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I am saddened by how much time and energy is spent attacking and trying to prevent two people from being together. It is as if the world has some equilibrium that if a gay couple is happy, then some straight couple might suffer somehow. Dont we have better things to do???!?!?!
To the guy who said it is better for daddy to work and mommy to stay at him:
Gender does not determine parenting skills. Good parenting makes someone a good parent, whether they are female, male, gay, straight, liberal, or *gulp* republican. (although I still have my doubts about the last one.)
This comment was written by will.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
That it is disgusting is certainly your opinion, but stating that something is ‘unnatural’ is not just an opinion. It’s a statement of fact, which in this case is quite incorrect. I have in the past linked to a study that shows that homosexuality, and bisexuality, is quite widespread among any species of animals.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
You really didn’t want to start an argument, gengwall, by making an unsupported assertion that you knew most people here would disagree with? OK, whatever you say. Just in case anyone else is interested, however…
Your assertion seems reasonable, even likely. Certainly if all my kids’ primary caregivers were women I would try to make sure they had good men in their lives. I think my husband would seek out female role models for them in the reverse case. But just because I (or he, or you, or anyone) would do that based on a reasonable assumption doesn’t mean that the assumption is valid. All the studies I’ve seen say that the sex of the parent(s) is less important than the quality of the upbringing.
Just for the record, I am a woman, born that way, and I don’t count myself as a feminist. And I thought the piece was funny.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Geez, how did this one get through?
I’m not ruffled, but I’m afraid you are banned.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
From Alas, a blog
This comment was written by Eldgie in Phila.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
When you can’t handle the truth…
Barry at Alas has grown increasingly frustrated at his inability to rationally defend his views on s-s”m” … I offer an easy to comprehend rebuttal to each punch and jab of their shadow-boxing routine:
This comment was written by The Opine Editorials.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Lu - We have a phrase up here in Minnesota. I don’t know if it’s universal or not. It goes “I was just giving you the needle”. It means I was taking a little verbal jab but did not really have any serious intent. That was the spirit in which I gave my initial post. As I pointed out, I think the list is very funny. I agree that right wingers have committed plenty of errors to justify the “needling” that the list intended and so I thought I’d just “needle” back alittle. That’s all.
Aside from that I still think (this is more for Kristjan Wager than Lu since you seem to agree) that it is only common sense that a dual sex perspective is better for a developing child. I have a natural tendency to distrust “studies” (especially ones from Denmark for cryin-out-load) but this goes beyond research to me. How can it NOT be true that, as you said, all things being equal, that a man/woman combo provides a more rounded upbringing - especially socially. Still, I can certainly agree on a case by case basis that “What’s important is how well functioning the household is - a stable household is better for the kid than an unstable household.” This also seems common sense to me. I go back to your “all things being equal” though. If household stability is equal, wouldn’t you agree that dual sex is better than single sex?
And Will - I’m not talking parenting skill I’m talking developmental environment. See above. If parenting skill is equal then wouldn’t a dual sex environment be better than a single sex environment?
Amp - sorry. I know this was just a fun piece. I hope I haven’t put a damper on it.
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Oi - way to go to the people proving my earlier comment true.
I would say that having two parents (regardless of gender) is likely to be more beneficial to a child than one, all other things being equal. Note that this does not include unhappy, abusive, or otherwise unhealthy partner situations. Having more perspectives and role models is likely healthier than having fewer. I’m unaware of any study saying that the sex of the role models in question has a significant effect.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Can we eat eels (vertebrates), or does Leviticus consider them creepy-crawly and not fish? I don’t need a prohibition to not eat geckos, but eels I like.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Denmark is a good place for social and medical studies, since the population doesn’t move a lot (easier to trace), the demographic and medical records are computerized nationwide, and people don’t seem to mind answering questions that would leave Americans surly.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Well said, Tapetum. I would not want to try to raise kids by myself, simply because of the amount of work involved. If (heaven forfend) I had to raise them without my husband, though, and I were lucky enough to have a choice among potential stepparents, I don’t know that I’d necessarily consider the sex of the other parent/caregiver more important than, or even close to as important as, responsible parenting and ability to balance my strengths and weaknesses. (I’m a better disciplinarian; my husband is a better nurturer.)
Likewise, a variety of perspectives is probably good — but no one ever seriously recommends that parents should be of different races, or from different countries.
The most common condition isn’t necessarily the only good one. Something that some (or even most) people find icky isn’t therefore morally wrong.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
I think eels would probably be considered creepy-crawlies, but I’m not sure. The rule is that you can eat any water critter that has both fins and scales. That eliminates shark, skate, and cephalopods in addition to the better-known prohibition of shellfish.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
NancyP, eels are not Kosher. Make of that what you will.
[alsis39 envisions a huge market for Pareve mock-eels made of Tofu. Stumbles while trying to think up a snappy brandname for same. Realizes that she really needs to get out more…]
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Well Nancy, your eating preferences are up in the air biblically
Leviticus 11:9-11
9 “As for marine animals, you may eat whatever has both fins and scales, whether taken from fresh water or salt water. 10 You may not, however, eat marine animals that do not have both fins and scales. You are to detest them, 11 and they will always be forbidden to you. You must never eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies. (NLT)
From library.thinkquest.org and others
Eels with scales (have at it Nancy)
Freshwater
Conger
Gulper (deep-sea)
Eels without scales (”detest, I say!”)
This comment was written by gengwall.Moray
Snake
Worm
Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
My two basic issues with SSM:
(1) I oppose redistributing money from single to married people by granting benefits to those who are married. This is a general objection to the modern institution of marriage. But, while there’s little prospect of getting rid of this aspect of opposite-sex marriage, it’s still possible to stop SSM.
(2) I’m sympathetic to the argument that SSM will change the nature of marriage. Marriage is currently a hetrosexual institution to do with having and raising children - hence things like consumation and the presumption of legitimacy. I can’t see how it can be extended to same-sex couples without either changing these, or warping current law. I have no idea how countries which allow SSM have gotten around this problem (please enlighten me if you know).
If you think I’m wrong feel free to explain why.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Yes, weird that a Dane would refer to Danish studies. But actually, what I said was that those studies were brought up in the Danish debate. For some reason, Danes don’t discount studies from outside Denmark (though US studies are viewed sceptically, as too many of them have turned out to be tainted financially).
And as NancyP said, Denmark is actually a pretty good place to make such studies, not only for the reasons NancyP mentions, but also because of the fact that civil partnerships have been allowed for longer time in Denmark than anywhere else.
Why should it be true? Households don’t exist in a vacum - there are plenty of male/female people around the kids, even if they live in a same-sex household. As I said, all studies show that there are no detectable difference when all other factors are factored out.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
No. Marriage has nothing to do with having children and raising children - where does it state so in the marriage vows/laws? Does the state go in and annul childless marriages? Are marriages between people past the childbearing age forbidden?
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Kristjan;
I feel part of the justification for marriage (and perhaps the only justification which I have have sympathy with) is that it is an institution to do with having and raising children.
It’s very easy to answer your question. There are plenty of places in marriage law (the presumption of legitimacy, parental obligations) where marriage changes peoples’ relationship to the legitimate children of the marriage. Marriages where people don’t do things that can result in children (those which aren’t consumated) can be annuled. Marriage is all tied up with children. I think it’s slightly odd to say it has nothing to do with them.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Ok, I am being a bit to cathegorical in my dismissal of your statement, but it is really not an institution with the purpose of getting and raising children. It would be as easy to argue that marriage is an institution with the purpose of allowing sex between two adults of different sexes, or with the purpose of limiting two peoples’ sex with one and another.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
What i am trying to get across, is that there are many purposes for marriages, some of which are related to children, but many more which are related to inheritage and benifits.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
No. Marriage has nothing to do with having children and raising children - where does it state so in the marriage vows/laws? Does the state go in and annul childless marriages? Are marriages between people past the childbearing age forbidden?
No, they aren’t, for the same reason that elderly grandmothers who drive 20 MPH aren’t forbidden to buy Porsches. That doesn’t mean the the Porsche 911 was created with elderly slow grandmothers in mind.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Geez, how did this one get through?
*raises hand sheepishly*
I thought there was a somewhat muddled argument in the comment somewhere about partnership benefits and rights of unmarried couples that deserved to be looked at. I didn’t read the whole thing carefully enough.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Certainly a dual sex perspective on the world has more to offer a developing child than a single sex perspective.
The fascinating thing about this line of argument is the way it treats the sexes as monolithic blocks. Yeah, there are differences between men and women on average, but some individual women are a lot like the majority of men and vice versa. If I was trying to get a “dual sex perspective” for raising Andrea, I’d probably be better off looking for a woman.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Lu,
I also read gengwall’s comments as tongue in cheek. I doubt that my “rule” could be subjected to strict scrutiny by someone who wasn’t inclined to see it as humour.
The way I read it, which now takes all the humour out of it, was “The religious wrong claims that children needs two parents, one of whom must work outside the house all day long, and other the other of whom must be solely responsible for child rearing.”
Deconstructing that, the religious wrong is essentially saying that children need a mother and a money.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
“Playing with loaded dice” is quite universal, I think. You provided a straightforward criticism to the point 9 in the list, and because the original post and the thread is humor, you can defend your claim by simply saying you were taking a little verbal jab and trying to be funny. Accept the statement = win (everyone agrees with me, good.)
Criticize the statement = win (just kidding, don’t be so serious, what’s the matter with you?)
If you throw jabs, don’t complain if someone thinks your intent is to have a boxing match. That is, I was quite sure you were just kidding, but you still need to take responsibility for your claims. Defend them seriously or take them back.
As for the question whether dual sex parenthood would be better than same sex one, all other things being equal. This is difficult thing to answer, since the “all other things being equal” is a pretty tall order (number of siblings the child would have? Grandparental involvement? Money? Location? Race of parents? Etc.)! All is a quite strong word, and it is difficult (if not completely impossible) for two sets of parents two be completely equal in all things, as every man and woman is an invidual. That said, it is my opinion that two good but different parents are generally better than one or two similar (different parental roles etc.). I’m just not sure how this opinion automatically would mean that opposite-sex parenthood is superior.
Personally I believe there are some “trends” and averages in men and women that differ. Biologically too. More men are physically competitive than women, for example. There are differences on hormonal level (that do affect personality somewhat for both sexes). From these observations some claim that “Men are x, women are y!”, but this does not follow, IMO. What about the numerous people who are on some level atypical for their gender’s average (and most are, on some level)? Especially when talking about things like personality and method of parenting.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I cross-posted with couple of people (Nick Kiddle and FCH. Yeah, I wrote slowly.) I agree with Nick Kiddle’s position on gender: The monolithic “male personality” vs. “female personality” is stupid. As if all women were the same, and all men were the same! It is interesting that criticism of this is so often straw-manned as “feminists think men and women are the same!”.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I agree with everyone else who says that although being raised by two diverse views is probably a good thing, it’s hardly as if the only way to get two diverse personalities is to have one of each sex. I doubt, for instance, that any SSM opponents would argue that only cross-race marriages should be allowed, although doubtless that would also provide children with a diversity of viewpoints.
The truth is, just as there can be vastly more important differences between two personalities than what race each is, there can be vastly more important differences between two personalities than what sex each is. To focus on sex as the only source of diversity in marriage, as if two women or two men cannot be significantly different people, is a mistaken and sexist view.
* * *
I do agree that part of the reason for marriage is to provide a stable, healthy environment for raising children. This isnt the only justification for marriage (which is why non-childbearing couples are allowed to marry), but it is one important justification. However, since many same-sex parents do have and raise children, the advantages that come to children from marriage is a strong reason in support of legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
* * *
Nick, no biggie. Glad to have it explained, though - I was thinking that I must have approved it and been too sleepy to recall! :-P
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
FCH et al., I did take the original comment to be (semi) (sort of) humorous, but I still wanted to challenge the “of course mom-and-dad families are better” presumption therein. I should have seen “you people have no sense of humor” coming a mile away.
What Amp and Nick said about “male” and “female” perspectives.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
nik:
I’m suprised that no one has thus pointed out that gay people already do have children. One in six gay male couples have children and one in three gay female couples have children. These numbers are expected to double in the next 10 years. Legalizing same sex marriage won’t make the homos start having children, they’ve been having them outside of marriage for a while now.
Speaking from my own experiance as a bisexual whose social circle is predominantly gay, most people I know want kids. I know one lesbian who doesn’t want children and a handful of gay boys, but overwhelmingly, my friends discuss long term plans with children in the future. I even know one lesbian couple whose son was fathered by a gay male friend, so the kid has three gay parents. The ones who don’t want kids are (generalization based on my friends) ones who are not ok with their sexuality yet or had a really crummy childhood and don’t want to be parents because they’re not sure they would be any good at it. Marriage really isn’t a factor in wanting kids.
Often the real question is how many kids we can afford, not if we should have them at all. For example, my girlfriend and I would ideally like two or three children, but we might not be able to afford that many since second parent adoption is costly, medical care for the child will be costly, and basically everything from the morgage to our taxes will cost twice as much as for straight people.
So I don’t understand how somone can oppose gay marriage because marriage is for the raising of children.
This comment was written by SarahS.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 2:48 am
In my opinion, marriage is a societal stabilizer, full stop. The states role and agreement in giving perks to couples is to encourage adults to care for one another and their offspring so the state has less of a chance of having to. Society in general encourages familial networks because ultimately things just run smoother, which is of course a HUGE benefit to the state, when these networks are in place. The narcissistic notion that it’s a gold star for being a breeder is ridiculous.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 4:04 am
So I don’t understand how somone can oppose gay marriage because marriage is for the raising of children.
I get the impression that most opposition to gay marriage is, like eric’s, based on a feeling that gays are icky and shouldn’t be encouraged. But unlike eric, most opponents don’t want to state that outright, so we get pseudo-justifications about sexual complementarity and child-raising.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 5:09 am
Right, Nick, the yuck factor. There’s a tendency to think that anything I don’t like must be bad and unnatural, and if most people agree with me that reinforces that belief.
To take a totally non-sex-related example, I cannot stand the music of Bela Bartok, and I find that a lot of people feel the same way. Should we therefore ban listening to it or performing it, passing laws against unnatural musical acts? Prevent known Bartok aficionados from marrying lest they pass the vile predilection to their offspring? Heaven knows we shouldn’t allow them to be teachers, especially (be still my heart) music teachers.
Well… no. Just don’t make me listen to it. (My DH adores Bartok, and — you see what dreadful things can happen — our DD seems to like it too. This is not a bad thing, since it means that in a few years he can take her to the damned concerts.)
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 7:18 am
Lots of people have said this, but Amp said it the clearest:
We’re talking about two different conceptions of the relationship between marriage and children. It’s important that we untangle them.
(1) When I say that marriage is an institution built around having and raising children I don’t mean any particular children, I mean the legitimate children of the marriage. In this sense marriage is a contract with children you have with your spouse now and with potential future children.
(2) Some SSMers (including - I think - Amp above) see things differently. Marriage is for raising children, but it doesn’t particularly matter whose biological children the marriage raises. Marriage is equally an institution for two people raising a child that’s only biologically related to one of them, or none of them.
I can’t support view (2). If you agree with it I think you’re also wedded to supporting things like people gaining parental authority over their spouses child by virtue of marriage, people being obligated to support other people’s children by virtue of the fact they were married to them, and so on. I don’t think that’s a theoretical complaint either, there are SSM proponents who would support those positions.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Tuomas - you are giving me way more print than I deserve, especially since I’m out of the conversation. Besides, I think Lu and Kristjan Wager and I had quite a nice talk about it and it’s all good. They and the others have carried on it I think it is a very good discussion. So, I’m not so sure why you paid any attention to me when nobody else was (which was just fine by me).
This comment was written by gengwall.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Nik,
It sounds like you’re arguing against reproductive technologies and adoption. While I can understand some (theologically-based) arguments against the use of reproductive technologies, I’m unaware of any argument presented by any group of people, against adoption.
Could you please clarify what you mean because I can’t imagine you’re actually arguing against all adoptions, regardless of the number and/or gender of parents.
Absent marital rights when an adopted child is being raised I don’t see how the financial rights of the child are protected. One of the advantages I see (and this is called “an opinion”, so if anyone disagrees, that’s fine. I’m not going to change my opinion, however …) of community property law is that spouses have a set of rules which govern the use of assets within that relationship. And, when children are present, there is some (however inaccurate it might be based on all kinds of crud) expectation about what assets will be available to raise ones children.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 10:17 am
A male and a female parent are best to raise their biological children only? You realize that this is a very recent idea? Most people who ever lived would think that is a terrible way to raise children. You really need as many grandparents as are alive, as many aunts and uncles as you can find, cousins, and family friends, adopted relatives, and maybe the people down the street, if not the whole hunting and gathering band you’re a member of.
If you’re going to argue that a child needs a male and female parent because it gives some kind of diversity of views you should really think it through, and not only in a narrow Judeo-Christian way, because Christianity is also a very recent construct.
This comment was written by ErikaGillian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 10:20 am
I think Nik gives a very good formula for why I resist SSM: it is assimilationist at its core. His arguments here and the other comments by supporters of SSM swing heavily into the arena of children and “social contracts” without ever addressing the lack of civil rights that gay and lesbains experience in the here and now. Marriage is a selfish institution, driven by centuries of male ownership of their wives and offspring. I am ashamed to think that the future of my civil rights is being formed by an institution so rigid in its inequalities and heteronormativity.
As for you two guys here that find homosexuality to be gross or unnatural: 10% of the population is homosexual; 25% of all women are raped by, presumably, heterosexual men. I would dare to say that is heterosexuality that is gross and unnatural. But that’s why we need marriage in the first place: to normatize that which is unnatural.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Whoa, there, Q Grrl! Speaking as a heterosexual female (sorry, I can’t help it, I can’t deny these urges), I don’t think heterosexuality per se is gross and unnatural (but see my earlier comment about whatever feels that way to a given person). I agree that rape and rape culture are gross and unnatural.
I have to think some more about your point about marriage, about its being part of the same package as rape culture. I’ve been married for 25 years to a man who couldn’t rape me if he tried, and it feels quite natural to me. It’s possible that our relationship is not normal.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Yes, I don’t dispute that. Despite the bad start, the conversation is good. People did pay you attention - didn’t you just say that yourself?
If you don’t want to carry on, that is fine, you made your position clear and I made my position clear. Half of my post was not actually directed to you only, but you provided a start.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Damn, poor kids born outside marriages, in former marriages, and who are adopted. It seems that by Nik’s definition of marriage, they are left out of the institution built around having and raising children. nik, can you see how ridicullous this is?
Marriage is, eccentially, a legal cotnract between two people, which also covers children born by those people, while they are married (and presumably children born by them before and after, and children being adopted by them).
BTW, I have commented upon it before, what is it with Americans’ focus on legitimaty of children? This is a leftover from the times of inheritage (the eldest takes all), and should by no means be relevant now.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I realize that Eric was banned, but I still have to respond to this piece of crap:
Where to begin?
First, in many companies that offer domestic partner benefits (including my own), unmarried heterosexual couples are also eligible. So Eric’s girlfriend WOULD be eligible…if Eric is willing to sign an affadavit, get it notarized, and provide “proof” of his relationship. That is, provide some HR person he’s never met with the joint checking account statements he has with this girlfriend, or maybe paperwork proving that they have a mortgage together, that sort of thing. The sort of thing that married couples NEVER need to provide when signing up for benefits.
Oh, you don’t have a joint checking account? The mortgage is all in your name? Guess you’re out of luck then. Make yourselves financially interdependent and apply again next year. Even though a legal spouse is eligible 5 minutes after the wedding, the evidence of your relationship must be dated at least one year ago.
Also, Eric might decide it isn’t really worth signing his girlfriend up for benefits once they tell him that the benefits will be taxed differently. All the contributions he makes for his own coverage will come out pre-tax and lower his tax overall burden. The contributions he makes to cover his girlfriend will come out post-tax.
And then, of course, when his employer prepares his W2, they will conveniently take the amount of money they’ve paid towards the girlfriend’s coverage and report it to the IRS as Eric’s income, thus incresing his tax liability! Which of course they DON’T do for married couples.
After looking over all this, Eric will probably decide it makes more sense to just marry the girlfriend, in which case all these extra hassles and extra costs magically melt away.
I’m not sure what Eric’s “by law” comment even means — DP benefits are offered by companies that choose to offer them. They are not mandated by law. In fact, they are against the law in certain states.
Finally, in companies that only offer DP benefits for same-sex couples, there is no law preventing heterosexuals from lobbying management to cover their significant others. It was likely ordinary gay employees who first made the case for the coverage (in my company, it was ME, so I have direct knowledge of this) - if you want to change the policy, stop whining, get off your butt and do the work! Make the case for why it is good business! That’s what we did!
I realize there’s no point in arguing with someone like Eric, but still…even pro-gay people are often sadly misinformed about how DP benefits work and how they differ from benefits offered to married couples.
Sara
This comment was written by SaraS.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Lu, I think what Qgrrrl is saying is that heterosexuality is as socially constructed as homosexuality. Neither of these concepts existed before the late 19th century (I think. Until that time, someone might engage in heterosexual or homosexual acts, but people didn’t think of sexual identity as something related to identity. Heterosexuality as an idea or norm was created to distinguish “normal” people from homosexuals, who were pathologized and criminalized. This is called compulsory heterosexuality, which is the assumption that men and women are innately attracted to each other, making heterosexuality natural and universal. Compulsory heterosexuality not only leads to (and reinforces) instiutionalized inequalities between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but men and women.
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:10 am
Compulsory heterosexuality
What an interesting and woefully far too appropriate expression. I’ve never heard normative sexuality referred to this way, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t true.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 4:17 am
For those who think that the definition of marriage should be changed, how would you change it and where would you draw the line?
This comment was written by quidam.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Kristjan;
I’m trying to make a serious point. Two people get married, and one of them has kids with someone else. Should the step parent liable to support their spouses children? Should they gain parental rights over them?
Either these kids are included in the marriage contract, in the same way that legitimate children are, or they’re not. We could choose either form of marriage contract (for a biological or affective definition of children). But I’m pointing out that it can plausably be claimed that including illegitimate children would be unjust. Some people would object to being compelled to support some elses children after a divorce.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Last I checked, legitimate children are children born during marriage, while illegitimate children are born outside marriage - so by your definition, a child born before a marriage would not be covered by the marriage.
Well, perhaps not, but since there are some obligations to children by both parents, no matter if they were married or not, it shows that marriage is not about breeding and raising children. A marriage can also be a tool in such things, but it’s not what it really is about.
Historically speaking marriage was more about showing who the woman belonged to, as well as making sure that the woman would have certain rights/privileges (such as inheritage) - this was necessary because of the different structure of society back then, but it is hardly what marriage is about these days.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Take a look at the old marriage laws, and you’ll find little stuff about children.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Nik: I hate to point it out, but your point loses all seriousness when we’re talking about same-sex marriage. Or rather gay and lesbian civil rights. Screw children and whether they have both a mommy and a daddy. Lots of children lose their mommy and daddy when mommy and daddy would rather pander to their homophobia than provide” appropriate male and female role-models.” Or maybe homophobia IS part and parcel of “appropriate” male and female parenting, eh? Which I’m sure you’re aware of with your aversion to gays and lesbians. Fine, you take marriage; define it as you like. I say keep grief where it already is. As a social structure, marriage is crap. I don’t need the state to recognize my romantic relationships. I need the state to afford me the exact same civil rights/liberties that my heterosexual peers have. I don’t need to assimilate my lesbianism just so I can get a pat on the back by the rest of ya’ll and be told that I make a mighty fine “house nigger.”
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Kristjan;
I think you’re mistaken about the inside/outside marriage distinction. If a child’s (biological) parents marry, the child is legitimised by the marriage. I think the point of dispute is whether a similar process should apply to step-children.
Q Grrl;
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Nik: I know you don’t. Which lets me know that you probably don’t know jack shit about what gays and lesbians want, so why are you trying to pretend that you do?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Q Grrl;
I think your posts are incoherent (and also offensive, to be perfectly honest). I’ll give you that I’m not interested in what gays and lesbians want, though I suspect they don’t all want the same thing, I’m interested in what I think is a defensible marriage policy.
I’m not sure SSM can be justified on the basis of childraising, because that entails what I feel is an indefensible position on the relationship between marriage and children. And I’m not sure that outside childraising there’s any other justifiable reason for marriage - unless children come into it marriage is just state-sanctions discrimination against the single.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
You should keep in mind that the moderation policies of this blog should encourage you to be less perfectly honest.
In an earlier post, you wrote:
Suppose that Dick and Jane, a married couple, adopt a child from an orphanage. Do you consider that child to be a “legitimate” child of the marriage?
Now, suppose that Dick is infertile, and so Jane uses sperm from a sperm bank to get pregnant. Do you consider the resulting child to be a “legitimate” child of the marriage?
If you say those children are legitimate children of marriage, then you’re in accord with American law and also with what most Americans seem to believe; however, you’re also leaving yourself, imo, with no consistant reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples, some of whom adopt, and some of whom use sperm from sperm banks.
If you say those children are not legitimate children of marriage, then you’re putting yourself firmly outside mainstream American conceptions of the parent-child relationship, which has long acknowledged that child-parent relationships between adopted children, donor-created children, and their parents are legitimate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Q Grrl writes:
But one of the civil rights/liberties your hetero peers have, is the right to have the state recognize their romantic relationships. So if you should have the exact same rights (and I agree you should), doesn’t that by definition include the right to civil recognition of marriage?
Or are you saying heterosexuals should no longer have those rights? I’d have a lot of sympathy with that in principle - I think that Martha Fineman’s argument that the central legal family relationship should be changed to caretaker/cared for, rather than romantic partners, makes a lot of sense - but I also worry that such a reform is centuries away at best, whereas the less perfect equality of SSM might be achievable in a much shorter time scale.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Nik: you say *my* posts are offensive?! But yet you don’t call out the posters above me that put in their $.02 about the offensiveness and unnaturalness of homosexuality… even the ones that later claimed they were just joking? Very, very odd. Your offensiveness is quite selective. The only thing that I’ve said that they didn’t is that I replaced “homosexual” with “heterosexual”. How telling that *I’m* offensive. … and yet you blather on about children and marriage and contracts and nonesense. All nonsense.
Are you gay? Do you live in a state that protects homosexuals against discrimination in housing, jobs, etc? Or are you straight? And do you only perk up your ears when you hear “marriage”? Your concern for children that haven’t even been born, conceived, thought out, or planned in any manner is nauseating when we’ve got grown adults living as second class citizens in the good ol’ USofA. I’m sorry if you find my saying that “offensive”. You have oddly thin skin if you do. And you’re willing to play strange theorectical chess about things that haven’t even come to fruition yet: all those poor children in single sex households.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Amp, this is a little disengenuous. There is not a single heterosexual person out there that has gained the right to work or the right to houseing (among some issues) through their marital status. I refuse to go down that narrow road the equates the good queer with the married queer. That is assimilation; and I happen to think that assimilation into a white, middle-class, patriarchal norm is a very, very dangerous thing to desire. If I want the state to recognize anything, it isn’t my romantic interests, but my basic humanity — which other forms of the state other than a marriage lisence can address, redress, or protect. Marriage is an institution with a horrid history and a horrid track record, the last thing I want to do is write a chapter into its history entitled “The Great Queer Migration to Assimilation.”
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
No, honestly, it’s not. I may be misunderstanding your point, but I’m doing it sincerely.
No, but there are plenty of heterosexuals who have gained other rights - such as the right to inheret, the right to a deceased life partner’s social security, the right to have their life partner move to this country, the right not to be forced to testify against their life partner, and the right to direct their comotose life partner’s medical care - through their marital status.
Especially for people at lower income levels, issues like social security inheritance can be life or death. These are not minor issues.
(And no, I’m not being disengenuous - I sincerely believe that these are important rights, and that it’s a terrible injustice that my queer peers don’t have equal access to these rights.)
I’m not saying that to be good, people (including queers) must marry (I’m not married in the conventional sense, and I don’t expect I ever will be). And I think it’s fine for queers (or non-queers) to choose not to assimilate or concede to white, middle-class, patriarchal norms. But I’m bothered by the fact that, under our current laws, not getting married isn’t a choice for queers; it’s a fact imposed by discriminatory marriage laws.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Amp, most lower income queers could give a rat’s ass less about marriage. Honestly. It is a white, middle-class ideal, especially a normative one that implies a healthy adult lifestyle and indeed, “goodness”. You might not make the connection between normative behavior and relative goodness, but I sure do. Its something that you really can’t miss once you’ve lived any real time as the “other”. You might not be married in the conventional sense, but your whole concept of conventional and non-conventional is firmly rooted in you being fully normative (i.e., heterosexual). I’m not married in the conventional heterosexual sense, but my relationship with my girlfriend is entirely conventional in relation to gay/lesbian society. That is why I can say with confidence that marriage, in accordance with heterosexual norms and conventionality, is assimilation when gays and lesbians partake in it.
But, I want to get back to this:
And? You kind of throw lower income queers in there as a selling point, but I’m not buying it, quite frankly. If young, lower income (and especially racial minority) gays and lesbians can be refused housing and jobs based on their homosexuality, aren’t those life and death issues too? I mean, who are we kidding here? How ’bout all those young, lower income gays/lesbians that got fired, legally, from Cracker Barrell? How in heaven’s name is marriage going to help that?
As to the first paragraph of this quote, why are those rights contingent for queers on the ability to marry? Why are you putting those things out there for my review? Are you saying that I should willingly assimilate in order to have these things? Because if you are, and you do sound like it, you’re saying “the only good queer is a married queer.” It smells like a trap to me.
How well do you think the civil rights movement would have gone over if the civil rights of racial minorities were contigent upon their being married? It would have looked like a damn farce.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Amp;
Re: The legitimacy of donor and adopted children.
You’ve put your finger on exactly my problem. I’m not comfortable with the “legal transplant” idea of adoption or with donor conception either. “Legitimacy” in this situation is a lie. It was justified on the basis that infertility was a stigma and that illegitimate children were legally disadvantaged (thankfully something which has been done away with). It should be done away with.
I think the justification of SSM from adoption is tenuous. This is the reasoning: (1) We should pretend an adopted child (of married parents) is legitimate. (2) Same-sex couples can adopt. (3) Therefore SSM is justified on the basis of children.
Siblings can adopt. Parents can co-adopt their grand-children. But they can’t marry, so I’m not sure the leap to (3) is justified. I also think (1) is a legal fiction, for convienience, I don’t think it should be given any real weight as a foundation for other changes.
Donor children and adopted children aren’t the same are ‘real’ legitimate children. If a wife has a ‘real’ legitimate child the husband married her and his obligations flow from that. If a wife adopts or has a donor conceived child, the husband’s obligations don’t flow from the marriage. These are both tacked on the side of marriage. If all children were from donors or adoption, I think we could do away with marriage.
We can date both of these developments. Law on donor-created children goes back 20 years(ish), and is heavily contested. Law on adoption grew through about 1900 to the 1950s, and has come under a huge amount of criticism in recent years. I wouldn’t say the law’s that longstanding or firmly accepted.
I conceed I’m outside the mainstream American conception of marriage and the parent-child relationship, all I’d say is that I can throw the same accusation right back at you. Neither us are happy with the current situation, so I don’t think not agreeing with it is a problem.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
QGrrl, you’re really making me rethink the whole SSM thing. I had never really considered marriage from an assimilation POV before, but I think might I agree, mostly, once I’ve had a chance to absorb the concept. Because if marriage isn’t normative, then (trivially) why on earth do we have all of these relationship advice columns where people moan about why their SO won’t “commit” or what to do about their in-laws (and now I really notice that word, too).
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Q Grrl;
I’m quite comfortable with how I’ve behaved. Your posts were specifically addressed to me. The others weren’t, and had nothing to do with me. That’s why my “offensiveness is quite selective”.
I don’t accept your suggestion that because gay people are disadvantaged it’s illegitimate to be concerned about disadvantage suffered by others. It’s like saying that because there are people suffering from famine it’s illegitimate to be concerned about disadvantage suffered by gay people.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Except Nik, you are mostly talking about people who don’t even exist yet.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
If young, lower income (and especially racial minority) gays and lesbians can be refused housing and jobs based on their homosexuality, aren’t those life and death issues too?
If you’re saying that the focus shouldn’t be exclusively on marriage rights, or that the current focus is too heavily on marriage rights and takes away from these issues, I’m with you. But that doesn’t mean that marriage equality isn’t worth fighting for.
As to the first paragraph of this quote, why are those rights contingent for queers on the ability to marry?
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Those rights are part of the legal-recognition-of-partnership package commonly known as “marriage”. I suppose it might be possible to gain the same rights some other way, but it would end up being either a) unworkably cumbersome or b) marriage in all but name.
Report this comment to the moderators