. . . Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. Marriage is inherently normative: It is about holding out a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal, especially when there are children involved.. . . .
Marriage is not simply an artifact of law; neither is it a mere delivery mechanism for a set of legal benefits that might as well be shared more broadly. The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage.
Some who criticize the refusal to embrace gay marriage liken it to the outlawing of interracial marriage, but the analogy is woefully false. The Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation laws because they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist legal order. Marriage laws, by contrast, were not invented to express animus toward homosexuals or anyone else. Their purpose is not negative, but positive: They uphold an institution that developed, over thousands of years, in thousands of cultures, to help direct the erotic desires of men and women into a relatively narrow but indispensably fruitful channel. We need men and women to marry and make babies for our society to survive. We have no similar public stake in any other family form--in the union of same-sex couples or the singleness of single moms."
. . . .
"People who argue for creating gay marriage do so in the name of high ideals: justice, compassion, fairness. Their sincerity is not in question. Nevertheless, to take the already troubled institution most responsible for the protection of children and throw out its most basic presumption in order to further adult interests in sexual freedom would not be high-minded. It would be morally callous and socially irresponsible."I encourage you to read the entire article. And feel free to disagree.
19 comments:
*yawn* I read it, even though seeing the name Maggie Gallagher pretty much gave me the gist of what the article was going to be about.
For those who don't want to read it, I'll summarize:
'The purpose of marriage is to have kids. Gay people can't biologically produce children together so therefore they don't deserve equal protection under the law.'
If that is the "definitive piece" on why we should maintain marriage inequality, then those of us who support equal rights have nothing to worry about. When your "definitive piece" isn't even logical on the surface, it helps us out quite a bit.
Well of course they won't want to read it if they rely on your interpretation. Dang, dolphin.
I suggest that folks read it and judge for themselves; dolphin would probably agree, seeing as the piece is so illogical and unpersuasive.
By the way, I'm about half way through your homosexuality in the Bible study . . . nothing yet that I hadn't heard before (though the Eunuch stuff might be novel). And I am impressed with the lengths to which the author is going to reconcile modern mores with the Biblical text--a text which is, at best (for your side) silent on the normative nature of homosexual acts, or, as is commonly understood, rather clear in lumping it with other acts of sexual licentiousness. I suspect I'll post more on the study later, but I think it is using a straw man fallacy (the straw man being that the Bible teaches homosexuality is some uber-sin or abomination). It's not, but if you assume that it is because of some personal repulsion (common among many Christians and just as many non-Christians), then you are tempted overreach in condemning it. Overreaching makes one off-balance and unstable . . .
But that's just my opinion at this time. We'll see.
Of course folks should read it (the Maggie Gallagher article) and judge for themselves, but it's a fairly accurate summary. Believe me if there is ANYBODY I want speak for your side it's Maggie Gallagher (well her, Fred Phelps and the KKK. Their all on your side and I'm glad to have them there).
This isn't the first time I've read this (the article is after all over 4 years old). It's actually a fairly tired argument that many opponents of equality are now backing away from thanks to people like Kat Coble stepping forward to remind them that when they suggest that marriage is all about having kids, gays and lesbians aren't the only people they hurt.
Equality opponents don't mind hurting gays and lesbians (that's their goal after all) but when they start hurting potential votes, they generally know it's time to back off a bit.
As for the Bible study, I'll not engage you over it. I didn't expect it to change your mind. You asked for it so I provided it.
You may be right about backing off of the argument because of whom it offends . . . but your characterization of the argument/article was simplistic and, frankly, biased. Though I certainly care about hurting/offending Kat (and even homosexuals--contrary to what you believe), I think the article respectfully addresses the issues raised by Kat. And whether we like it or not, (the institution of) marriage's impetus wasn't personal fulfillment.
But it is interesting that you reference the KKK and Fred Phelps in your comment--that's the kind of straw man I'm talking about.
I think the article respectfully addresses the issues raised by Kat.
Incorrect. This particular article doesn't even attempt to address it. Occasionally it looks like it might but then before it actually does jumps back to "but what about the children?!?!?!?" It's common scare tactics. Convince people that something is a threat to their children and you will have them as putty in your hands. Nevermind that the threat is a false one.
And whether we like it or not, (the institution of) marriage's impetus wasn't personal fulfillment.
You're right. Marriage's impetus was for the state to track inheritance, property ownership, socio-political power, etc. While it's evolved and constantly changed throughout time (at various points in history even accepting same-sex marriage), it has not yet changed to the point of being 'all about the children' as Maggie and you would have us believe. One need look no further than the rights of marriage that have nothing to do with children to see that is a fact.
But it is interesting that you reference the KKK and Fred Phelps in your comment--that's the kind of straw man I'm talking about.
A strawman is when you set up a demonstrably false argument in place of the one your opponent is presenting and attack it instead of your opponent's argument. Are you suggesting that Fred Phelps or the KKK support same-sex marriage?
If not, there is no strawman. I believe the logical fallacy you are looking for is "guilt by association." That too, however, falls flat because my mention of Phelps and the KKK wasn't an attempt to disprove your "point." It was simply noting that taking sides with Maggie Gallagher isn't going to help your point anymore than if you jumped on board with Phelps or the KKK's argument in support of your position.
Thanks for the advice, but I meant straw man. But there are thin lines between a host of fallacies.
As I mentioned above about the homosexuality in the Bible study, I think one strategy for moving the public in your direction on this issue is to frame opposing arguments as merely verbalized gay-bashing, latently-homosexual, mean-spirited, obsessive, intellectually-lazy drivel. It's easy to defeat Phelps' argument, but that's not my argument.
But I'm not sure you should be so quick to eschew the Liberal staple, "it's for the children." Gallagher plainly asserts that marriage still has value even where there are no children in a marriage. Does she have to concede her position to keep from not being respectful?
It's easy to defeat Phelps' argument, but that's not my argument.
Where is the strawman? Perhaps you could quote where I defeated Phelps' argument in place of yours? No?
Therein lies the dangers of acknowledging that other people in the world exist. You use it as an easy out. There is no logical basis for denying gay people human rights, so you're quick to try and take the conversation on a tangent when the opportunity presents itself.
Anyways, I've said I won't engage you on the Bible study. I was hesitant to even send it to you. I've had enough experience with that route to know religion comes from beliefs and not the other way around. I've never met a truly "devout" person (of any dogmatic religion) who took their religion seriously. You take your beliefs seriously, and religion is a tool that you use so long as you can figure a way to make it back your preconceived beliefs. THAT is why I no longer choose to engage on a theological front. It does no good.
You evidence this explicitly. You're "open-hearted" reading of the study amounts to looking at it only to try and figure out what was wrong with it. You even reach so far as to put words into the document itself, to come up with some imaginary strawman that an honest reading of the document doesn't contain. Now the "strawman" you fear in the document is definately a very real thing. All one has to do is look at the billions of dollars "christians" have spent trying to hurt gay people compared to their reaction to say lying, and it becomes clear that being gay to the self-righteous faux christian is in fact an "uber-sin."
THIS is why I don't discuss theology with faux "christians". I left Christianity once after 6 years of missionary service. I don't discuss theology anymroe because I've finally come back with a new understanding of the great value in Christianity and I know that I cannot let faux christians who have perverted and distorted it to take that away from me.
Gallagher plainly asserts that marriage still has value even where there are no children in a marriage.
Perhaps you cant quote. I've read the article again and can STILL not find one instance where she discusses the worth of marriage EXCEPT insofar as it concerns bearing children.
I meant to note that, while the "strawman" of the gay "uber-sin" is a very real phenomenon, the fact that you found it in a study that doesn't address issues of magnitude of sin or Christian reaction to sin AT ALL, is undeniable evidence that you went into it looking for a problem and when you couldn't' find one you simply made one up.
As I review your assertion, it is more of a "guilt by association" than a "straw man"--I was thinking more of the homosexuality in the Bible study's emphasis on extreme arguments from the Bible (arguments which are bread and butter type for people like Phelps and the KKK--btw, I don't keep up with what the KKK does, are they against homosexuals?) and the purported rebutting of those arguments. Either way it's a fallacy. And not that it is necessarily "wrong" to use fallacies--it's certainly uncompelling, though.
My time is limited this a.m., but from Gallagher's article:
"Marriage is inherently normative: It is about holding out a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal, especially when there are children involved. . . .The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage."
"But this is the core of its public, shared meaning: Marriage is the place where having children is not only tolerated but welcomed and encouraged, because it gives children mothers and fathers."
"It is also true, as gay-marriage advocates note, that we impose no fertility tests for marriage: Infertile and older couples marry, and not every fertile couple chooses procreation. But every marriage between a man and a woman is capable of giving any child they create or adopt a mother and a father. Every marriage between a man and a woman discourages either from creating fatherless children outside the marriage vow. In this sense, neither older married couples nor childless husbands and wives publicly challenge or dilute the core meaning of marriage. Even when a man marries an older woman and they do not adopt, his marriage helps protect children. How? His marriage means, if he keeps his vows, that he will not produce out-of-wedlock children."
Oh, and about all the faux Christianity accusations in your comment, I'm not sure where to start (or that I have time to do so right now), but you wrote:
I've never met a truly "devout" person (of any dogmatic religion) who took their religion seriously. You take your beliefs seriously, and religion is a tool that you use so long as you can figure a way to make it back your preconceived beliefs. THAT is why I no longer choose to engage on a theological front. It does no good.
It is hard not to take offense at someone calling me a fake Christian, but, hey, this is the freakin' internet, so,
You know very little about me, dolphin. No, I'm not Jesus and I don't live the Christian life as modeled by Christ (or even some other persons). But e_v_e_r_y d_a_y I make decisions or do acts that are inconsistent with what I want to do or am inclined to do or naturally would do. The religion from beliefs not vice versa line I've heard from you on several occasions is overbroad and, frankly, inaccurate inasmuch as it implies that I am violating clear-cut guidelines of my religion. And even if I or others don't live according to our religion (or what we say we believe) is not proof that it isn't true. Especially--re. Christianity, when the crux of the Christian faith is that we're sinners who can never (before or after salvation) live according to God's law and earn any right to be with God at the cessation of our physical life.
And the homosexuality in the Bible study clearly sets up niggling arguments to then knock them down and claim a collective . . . stalemate. Here's one example:
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the traditional condemnation passages against homosexual acts and appear in our modern translations to be clear cut prohibitions. Some have said these passages would justify capital punishment of homosexuals. Would these people also bring the same judgment against adulterers (Leviticus 20:10)? Following suite, they would also have to prescribe the death penalty for their stubborn and rebellious sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). One thing is clear from Paul’s teaching: anyone who puts themselves under any one point of the Law obligates themselves to keep the whole Law (Galatians 5:3) or they are worthy of death.
and another,
The clear message to the gay community from the modern Church has been one of rejection. Gay people, like many other minorities or small eccentric groups, have been labeled as unacceptable to the kingdom of God. In the same way that the Jews considered Gentiles as unclean, gays have been treated as filthy; rubbish to be thrown out. Some have rejected this blanket statement and have attempted to reach out; understanding that Jesus’ mission was not one of condemnation, but salvation. However, one Christian leader writes, “homosexuals are dogs.” This terminology, he believes, is a slang expression used in scripture to refer to homosexuals. In his point of view, “hate” and “prejudice” are justified. Terms like “family values” are used in such a way so that gays are presented as though they do not have any redeeming value. This presents the view that rejection is the only proper response to homosexuals. But, nowhere in scripture can anyone justify hate as a proper response to homosexuals or anyone. All people are the creation of God. Instead, James says to treat all alike without discrimination (James 2:1-4).
I just was able to skim the 23-page study for examples I had seen, but above are several. I don't argue these things and don't know any credible spokesperson who does.
Well I've told you I'm not going to discuss the Bible study further and I genuinely wish I hadn't sent it to you. The study addresses every potential mention of homosexuality in the Bible. If you choose to believe that every mention of homosexuality in the entire Bible (and let's face it there only very few) is somehow "extreme" and therefore not up for discussion, then you effectively shut the door on the topic before it was ever opened. Which is what I expected you to do and is the exact behavior from which I came up with my "religion from beliefs and not the other way around" line. you say I don't know much about you, but with regard to the topics I've engaged you in, your behavior has thus far been completely and totally predictable. So perhaps I know a little more than you're giving me credit for.
As for the fake christian stuff. I apologize. I am not perfect and so when I see someone taking something that I find extreme value in (in this case Christianity) and using it as a weapon against others, I get angry. Unfortunately, being imperfect, I all too often allow that anger to make me lash out at the person engaging in what I see as misuse of a spirituality. It would be wise of me to remember we all have our own lessons to learn, and just because the lessons you came here to work on are different than mine doesn't make your less important. I only hope that you don't stunt too many other souls' spiritual growth too much as you grow.
So far as the quotes you provided from Maggie's article, they are all still about children. The last of the quotes you offer do provide some further insight into the sheer illogic of her line of reasoning, and it's interesting that she can contradict herself that frequently in one thought.
Dang, dolphin, were you expecting me to have a Road to Damascus experience from reading the study? And its substance of is widely available online, I would imagine--though maybe not in one document. So it sounds more like you just don't want to discuss the subject. That wouldn't surprise me, because I think you are on very difficult terrain when trying to argue in favor of immutable/normative homosexuality from a Biblical viewpoint. However, I have to give you and others credit for trying. That would seem to demonstrate that you haven't completely written off the God revealed in Judeo-Christian scripture, but I guess it could also demonstrate that you believe in belief and that all religions are about the same (the hindu-sounding comment about being sent here to learn lessons).
And your arguments aren't any less predictable . . . but I will say that you seem less spiteful toward God, more willing to wrangle with the ideas and less crude than what I have come to expect on this subject. I don't have to use my "beavis and butthead" filter with you . . .
But your comments about the study are poignant because, as I've hinted at, even if we take out the purportedly mistranslated (against anti-homosexuality) references in the Bible, homosexuality is either ignored (as a normative sexual relationship) or generally discouraged or prohibited. Even silence on the subject hurts your argument (from a Bible-honoring, positive law perspective) . . . it is only hurt more by the fact that so much work (as displayed in the study) is required to neutralize or obfuscate the various mentions of homosexuality that are in there.
Re. Gallagher,
Of course those are in reference to children . . . her point is that marriage is valuable as an institution because of its impact on perpetuation of the species. Not everyone is directly involved in such perpetuation, (though everyone certainly benefits from society's perpetuation of emotionally and physically and socially healthy adults.), but it is still in society's interest to offer marriage to those who qualify. I'd say that society benefits when men are "tied down" (either due to internal or external factors) and when children are in good environments for maturing and developing. Facilitating marriage is the least-intrusive, most de-centralizing, most efficient way of creating these micro labs of citizenship, I think.
Well, I was expecting exactly what I got. What I was hoping for is that you'd at least consider it or, at the VERY least, read the whole thing before deciding you weren't gonna believe a word of it. If you couldn't even be bothered to do that one might hope you'd object some specific content in it. Instead I got exactly what I expected, you glanced at it, made up some vague nebulous and overall meaningless excuse for how it was all heresy, then through it out without thinking twice.
And you're right. I don't want to discuss the subject. You're wrong about my motivation for not wanting to discuss the subject though. I don't want to discuss it because I tend to only want to devote my energy to things that have the potential to be fruitful. Where you are at right now the conversation CANNOT be fruitful. You're set in stone and incapable of movement.
If there's one thing I've seen happen to much (and it still sickens me), it's people taking some truth they've discovered and turning into a weapon against their brothers and sisters. You do it with Christianity on the whole. I refuse to use any golden brick of truth to bean another over the head with it. Such usage of truths only serves to harden people against that truth and stunt their spiritual growth. That is true sin, and I'll have no part in it.
AS far as Maggie's article goes, you explanation is a new one on me (congrats, I thought I'd heard all the anti-equality arguments). Never heard anyone reduce marriage down to some sort of sexual hand-cuffs (and not in a good way) for men. I find the argument less than convincing however. First it doesn't address opposite sex couples where both individuals are sterile (do you and Maggie suggest that they should be denied marriage as well, after all, they can neither produce children through their union nor could either conceive a child outside of wed-lock). Second, if the purpose of marriage is as described the law is frightfully over reaching as the status granted by civil marriage certainly entails far more that would be necessary (or even helpful) for the rather twisted arrangements you and Maggie seem to find marriage to be. Thirdly, you make it clear that you think gay people are clearly lusting after every opposite sex individual that walks past and just faking it to get on your nerves, so by your logic, gay marriage would serve the same purpose in preventing children out of wedlock that you and Maggie claim straight marriage does.
This is the funny thing when you push anti-equality folks long enough. For all their lofty talk about marriage as a "sacred institution" they really feel that it's nothing more than some vicious man-trap to either force men into having kids with their wife or not having kids at all. Really sad, because if that is what your most intimate relationship really means to you, you're missing out on a lot.
If you're anti gay marriage, I assume you'd be against gays adopting by the tenor of the article.
I would think you'd want to see more couples, including gays, able to adopt since you're so into the (forced birth) anti-choice thing.
All these conflicts - anti-gay, anti-choice, eminate from fundamentalism - the root of all conflict and the most powerful myth man has ever created. (Just a reminder here, scripture written by men in the Dark Ages has nothing to do with US law).
I'm surprised that you missed that aspect of Gallagher's essay if you read it multiple times as you claimed. Perhaps you had your mind made up before reading it?
And how do you always discover that anti-equality people view marriage as some man-trap or unsacred thing if this was a theory you'd never heard before?
The "sterile couple" issue doesn't undermine the normal (and normative) usefulness of marriage. And the law is hardly "over reaching" (so it's too generous now? or it should be more restricted/restrictive and the gov't should be investigating whether people are using it as it is intended?)
And dolphin, if God describes something in my life as being wrong or sin or "an abomination" and that assertion hurts my feelings, or makes me feel bad, is that truth (that I'm sinning) therefore a "weapon"? Of course not. Well, maybe you'd disagree, but you sure aren't worried about the potential of making me feel bad for using a spiritual truth I've discovered "as a weapon" or to "bean another over the head." The truth often stings; holiness isn't "natural"; and I'm not sure that pretending something isn't true or acceding to a truth-burier or being afraid to courteously point out something that is contrary to a Biblical principle is necessarily God's way.
Re. the sacredness of marriage, I've posted a perspective on the issue on the front page.
If you're anti gay marriage, I assume you'd be against gays adopting by the tenor of the article.
You're right that I don't think it is best for a child to be raised in such a situation. But I'm almost as equally convinced that it is not best for a child to be raised by a couple who is shacking up. Likewise, a single parent is not the best situation for a child. All that being said, God is bigger than the worst (non-violent or non-abusive) dysfunction within a family and kids definitely need homes, so I think it is foolish to think that a gov't can legislate ideal families or eradicate bad things or regulate poor-but-not-illegal behaviors.
No contradiction here, unless I've ever asserted that we'll ever see heaven on earth.
I'm surprised that you missed that aspect of Gallagher's essay if you read it multiple times as you claimed. Perhaps you had your mind made up before reading it?
Perhaps, or perhaps I missed sentence. Certainly one sentence about NOT having children surrounded by two pages all about having children would leave most people with the impression that the article was all about popping out newborns.
And how do you always discover that anti-equality people view marriage as some man-trap or unsacred thing if this was a theory you'd never heard before?
I should have been more clear. I always discover that marriage is some less than sacred thing (usually just a baby-making machine). The idea that it's actually some malicious attempt to capture men is in fact a new one on me. I like the theory though. I think if it spread that this is what the religious right really thinks of marriage we'd have nationwide same-sex marriage within a week. The reality is the vast majority of the population does not agree with you or Maggie on that point.
The "sterile couple" issue doesn't undermine the normal (and normative) usefulness of marriage. And the law is hardly "over reaching" (so it's too generous now?
In so far as your beliefs on the reason for civil marriage, it is in fact too over reaching. I don't share your viewpoint on the point of civil marriage (or spiritual marriage for that matter) so for me, current civil marriage laws are not overreaching, however for your argument to remain consistent you must in fact find current laws to be overreaching.
Let me use this analogy. This is the type of law you are describing:
Let's say that we assume that 4-door cars are better for children than 2-door cars. Now there's no scientific evidence to back that assumption, and in fact there is a growing body of scientific evidence that two-cars are equally effective at transporting children, but because it "makes sense" to us that 4-door cars are better for kids, we assume it's true enough to base laws around. So Congress gets together and passes a law that the interstate system can only be utilized by 4-door cars.
The problem with this is, not all 4-door cars contain children, and many 2-door cars DO contain children. Further, the Interstate can take you to destinations that are not intended for children or that many people would have completely valid reasons for using the interstate without children.
Now do you see how that law (and current marriage laws) are simultaneously over-reaching and under-reaching?
if God describes something in my life as being wrong or sin or "an abomination" and that assertion hurts my feelings, or makes me feel bad, is that truth (that I'm sinning) therefore a "weapon"?
Hmmm.. Could you repeat this because from where I'm sitting it sounds like you're calling yourself God, which could take us on an interesting spiritual discussion in it's own right, but I don't think that is where you're going with it.
you sure aren't worried about the potential of making me feel bad for using a spiritual truth I've discovered "as a weapon" or to "bean another over the head."
No I'm not worried about "making [you] feel bad" for hurting other people. But to the extent that I said anything that might slow your future spiritual growth, I apologized in the very next comment.
Let me try wording it this way; How many souls have you won with condemnation and judgment? Do you think it would be more or less if you had used love and acceptance instead? Which did Jesus use (John 3:17)?
so I think it is foolish to think that a gov't can legislate ideal families or eradicate bad things or regulate poor-but-not-illegal behaviors.
Interesting. This article is suggesting that marriage should be the government's tool to do just that.
I agree with ned willams.I talked about your argument to a friend of mine from interracailmatch.com, but he was for dolphin.
Post a Comment