tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post113041289882817561..comments2024-03-19T00:38:40.529-04:00Comments on The Y Files: Some closing thoughts on the same-sex marriage debateCathy Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-985983864849292622011-05-17T23:32:51.038-04:002011-05-17T23:32:51.038-04:00nice share thanks a lot :)
download free pc gam...nice share thanks a lot :) <br /><br /><a href="http://www.ourpcgame.net" rel="nofollow"> download free pc games </a><br /><a href="http://www.affiliatesrating.com" rel="nofollow"> affiliate review</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16217946196345356227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131199189393392652005-11-05T08:59:00.000-05:002005-11-05T08:59:00.000-05:00John:Just curious, if your primary concern is same...John:<BR/><BR/>Just curious, if your primary concern is same-sex reproduction (presumably along with cloning and any other types of non-sperm/egg reproduction?), then why not ban that and extend full marriage rights to gays who would then be treated like any infertile couple?<BR/><BR/>Btw, I certainly agree that at least at present it would be quite unethical to use such technologies to create new human life, since we don't know what the consequences are.Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131122825832915362005-11-04T11:47:00.000-05:002005-11-04T11:47:00.000-05:00most of the right-wing groups opposing SSM also op...<I>most of the right-wing groups opposing SSM also oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships.</I><BR/><BR/>Only if they give all the rights of marriage, and are said to be equal to marriage. I think most right-wing groups support the idea of protections to committed couples to address the problems raised by SSM advocates. But we should not give procreation rights to same-sex couples, and therefore we should not give marriage rights, or it would change marriage, and they wouldn't be equal anyway, so why bother? <BR/><BR/>Cathy, have you had time to think about how procreation rights might relate to marriage rights, and if there could/should be a ban on conception that is not the union of a man and a woman? Put another way, do you think it would be OK for a scientist, right now, today, to attempt to bring a human person into the world that is not the result of a sperm fertilizing an egg?<BR/><BR/>What do you think of the compromise I offer to end this debate? Congress would enact a ban on non man-woman conception, and also enact a law that said, for all federal purposes, state civil unions can be substituted for marriages. Marriage is preserved, unethical procreation is banned, and committed gay couples get federal recognition. Who would be against this, except people intent on allowing scientists to turn human reproduction into a eugenic manufacturing industry?John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131089021046100312005-11-04T02:23:00.000-05:002005-11-04T02:23:00.000-05:00I used all caps, in bold, because this should be o...<I>I used all caps, in bold, because this should be obvious. I figure if I speak loud enough, some anti-ssm advocate will actually listen. God knows Gallhager hasn't. She keeps pretending that equal civil unions exist, and that ssm advocates turned them down.<BR/><BR/>They don't exist, they haven't existed, and there's no sign that they will exist any time soon. Acting as if they do, and we turned them down is disengenous.</I><BR/><BR/>Very true. Not only that, but most of the right-wing groups opposing SSM also oppose civil unions and domestic partnerships.<BR/><BR/>A number of anti-SSM state amendments specifically prohibit the creation of any other legal state similar or identical to marriage. So, I believe, does the FMA version that went to a vote in the Senate.<BR/><BR/>In Michigan, the conservative groups that pushed for an anti-SSM amendment to the state constitution pooh-poohed concerns that the amendment would endanger already existing domestic partner benefits for state employees.<BR/><BR/>Then, after the amendment passed, they turned around and demanded that those very same benefits for state employees be discontinued as incompatible with the new state law.<BR/><BR/>If Maggie Gallagher and David Blankenhorn have spoken out against these actions, I am not aware of it.<BR/><BR/>I do recall an article by Maggie G. saying that civil unions were preferable to SSM. However, it certainly wasn't so much in the spirit of supporting civil unions as "all right, looks like some kind of recognition of same-sex couples is inevitable, let's at least 'save' the m-word."Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131078373103512142005-11-03T23:26:00.000-05:002005-11-03T23:26:00.000-05:00She keeps pretending that equal civil unions exist...<I>She keeps pretending that equal civil unions exist</I><BR/><BR/>As any lawyer could tell you, there is no such thing as an equal 'civil union'. You would have to wave a magic wand and change history so that there is a long history of law dealing with 'civil unions'. You'd also have to rewrite every law mentioning 'marriage' to make it explicitly refer to 'civil unions'.<BR/><BR/>People who claim they don't mind the rights but just don't want gays to use the M-word are either ignorant or lying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131068893840250072005-11-03T20:48:00.000-05:002005-11-03T20:48:00.000-05:00"I don't think that gay men have any more casual s..."I don't think that gay men have any more casual sex than straight men would have if the average woman was as interested in casual sex as the average man is."<BR/><BR/>That's actually a pretty good argument against gay marriage - at least "guy" marriage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131061626036721062005-11-03T18:47:00.000-05:002005-11-03T18:47:00.000-05:00"Engaging in homosexual activity is another thing ..."Engaging in homosexual activity is another thing entirely."<BR/><BR/>"Yes, it is. It is fulfilling the most basic, intense human need there is (besides food and water)."<BR/><BR/>So sexual activity is essential to continued existence, and homosexuals cannot control their activities? They are driven, without self control, to engage in homosexual acts? Really?<BR/><BR/>Then they are truly more dangerous than I had ever supposed. We must isolate them at once.<BR/><BR/>You didn't really mean to say that, did you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131058667799787542005-11-03T17:57:00.000-05:002005-11-03T17:57:00.000-05:00Why don't we accept civil unioons that are exactly...<I>Why don't we accept civil unioons that are exactly the same as marriage, but differnent only in name, you ask?</I><BR/><BR/>Civil Unions should have a major difference: they should not grant procreation rights, they should be able to be given to couples that are prohibited from procreating together. If they explicitly give "all the rights of marriage" but are prohibited from procreating, that attacks marriage's procreation right as much as giving marriage itself.<BR/><BR/><I>BECAUSE NO ONE IS OFFERING THEM TO US.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree they should be offered as part of the compromise. Congress should prohibit non man-woman reproduction (and forget the useless Brownback "anti-cloning" bill) and affirm that marriages have an inherent right to procreate together, and also say that state civil unions will be treated as marriages for all federal purposes.John Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367755435877853172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131052563340872652005-11-03T16:16:00.000-05:002005-11-03T16:16:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comments, everyone. I hope to answ...Thanks for the comments, everyone. I hope to answer as soon as I'm done with a work deadline.Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131052301846216992005-11-03T16:11:00.000-05:002005-11-03T16:11:00.000-05:00Engaging in homosexual activity is another thing e...<I>Engaging in homosexual activity is another thing entirely.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is. It is fulfilling the most basic, intense human need there is (besides food and water).<BR/><BR/>If heterosexuality is the be-all and end-all of existence for heterosexuals (foundation of humanity, the joining of two persons in the nearly divine manifestation of blah, blah, blah, etc.), then homosexuality is the same thing for gay people. (And bisexuals get to pick either or both.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131051204043739242005-11-03T15:53:00.000-05:002005-11-03T15:53:00.000-05:00Insistence on making a distinction between being g...Insistence on making a distinction between being gay and engaging in gay activity does not represent any kind of meaningful tolerance; I seriously doubt that if heterosexual people were told,"it's absolutely fine to be attracted to whomoever you were born to be attracted to--just as long as you don't ever talk about it, act on it, or express your loving commitment by displaying a photo of your would-be spouse on your desk at work, wearing a wedding band, or getting married, you shouldn't have any problems," that they would characterize this as "fair, kind, even treatment."<BR/><BR/>This is akin to assuring all non-Christians that they are perfectly free to be of whatever faith they feel called to and perfectly deserving of respect--so long as they don't let anyone know they're not Christian, never set foot in a non-Christian church, and never actually practice any of the rites of the faith to which they feel called. Utterly absurd.<BR/><BR/>As far as not seeing any benefits to society from homosexual activity, my guess is that anonymous simply doesn't (knowingly, at least) actually know any gay people or families headed by gay people. If s/he knew half of the decent, loving, committed couples I know, and the beautiful children they are lovingly raising, I can't imagine s/he would be so casually dismissive of the contributions to society of such fine human beings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131049439567833462005-11-03T15:23:00.000-05:002005-11-03T15:23:00.000-05:00Why don't we accept civil unioons that are exactly...Why don't we accept civil unioons that are exactly the same as marriage, but differnent only in name, you ask?<BR/><BR/><B>BECAUSE NO ONE IS OFFERING THEM TO US. THIS SORT OF LEGAL STATUS FOR SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS DOES NOT EXIST</B>.<BR/><BR/>I used all caps, in bold, because this should be obvious. I figure if I speak loud enough, some anti-ssm advocate will actually listen. God knows Gallhager hasn't. She keeps pretending that equal civil unions exist, and that ssm advocates turned them down.<BR/><BR/>They don't exist, they haven't existed, and there's no sign that they will exist any time soon. Acting as if they do, and we turned them down is disengenous.Josh Jasperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07967224493245832241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131048237995312732005-11-03T15:03:00.000-05:002005-11-03T15:03:00.000-05:00I think the piece misses a very fundamental distin...I think the piece misses a very fundamental distinction: being homosexual vs. engaging in homosexual activities.<BR/><BR/>"Being homosexual" means being romantically attractied to people of your same sex. Whether that is innate or not is beside the point. People who are homosexual are as entitled to fair, even kind treatment as anyone. It is not a sin to be homosexual, and whether a person is homosexual is none of anybody else's business, unless the person decides to make it so.<BR/><BR/>Engaging in homosexual activity is another thing entirely.<BR/><BR/>Society confers certain advantages on married couples, because stable marriages provide social benefits. I do not see any benefit to society from homosexual activity, and see no reason why people who engage in homosexual activity are entitled to those advantages.<BR/><BR/>How quickly the conversation slips from "treat everyone fairly and with kindness", which is right, to "protect homosexual activity", which has no basis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131024027559654572005-11-03T08:20:00.000-05:002005-11-03T08:20:00.000-05:00I was glad to see that you now have a blog because...I was glad to see that you now have a blog because I have always enjoyed, reading your columns in the BOSTON GLOBE, the clear-eyed intellectual honesty with which you routinely call to task the excesses of both the right and the left.<BR/><BR/>I would like to respond to two points you have raised in regard to the SSM debate: first, the question of whether or not legalizing SSM could pave the way for legalizing polygamy and, second, the question of preserving the special cultural status of the male-female union.<BR/><BR/>You have written that gay marriage proponents have offered no substantive arguments to show that the reasoning used to assert the right to same-sex marriage could not be extended to plural marriage as well. I believe that such an argument can be found in the language of the Massachusetts ruling which stated that the right to "marry the person of one’s choice" is a fundamental right, albeit "subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare." <BR/><BR/>Unlike the SSM of two individuals, polygamous arrangements would pose pragmatic threats to such interests—as the experience of the Mormon church in America well documents. From a public health perspective, for example, relationships based on multiple sexual partners increase the odds of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases—and the costs associated with such diseases. From a safety and welfare perspective, the incidence of spousal and child abuse and/or neglect that has historically characterized the polygamous experience (the routine coercion of girls as young as 14 into harem-like marriages to much older and powerful males formed a horrific and well-substantiated pattern of sexual and psychological predation) suggests a powerful state interest in not sanctioning such arrangements. From an economic perspective, polygamous marriages would also create a host of problems and injustices that could prove extraordinarily disruptive of the laws and structures in place to deal with issues of child custody, inheritance, and health insurance—should an employer, for example, be compelled, at considerable cost, to provide health care coverage to three wives of one employee? I think the overwhelming majority of Americans would rightly perceive such a compulsion as both unfair and an undue burden. Clearly, and for rational and pragmatic (and not purely moral) reasons, the interests of public health, safety, and welfare should trump the right of individuals to marry more than one partner of their choosing.<BR/><BR/>SSM, by contrast, does notimpose similar undue burdens or pose similar threats to interests of public health, safety, and welfare; whether I marry one man or one woman, the costs (and benefits) to society are comparable. It is even arguable that, in the interest of promoting public health, safety, and welfare, the government should offer the same financial and legal protection incentives to marry that it currently offers to opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples for the very same reasons: marriages foster social stability, economic productivity, and good public health.<BR/><BR/>Second, you have written that you “can certainly understand that to many gays, ‘marriage in all but name’ feels like a statement of second-class citizenship…but feel that the male-female union should retain a special cultural status” and also that you would support the notion of civil unions so long as they conferred protections truly equal to those offered by traditional marriage. <BR/><BR/>Marriage is all but name can never truly equal civil marriage; as Margaret Marshall wrote in the Goodrich opinion (mindful, perhaps, by her life experience as a South African raised in the era of apartheid), “separate but equal is rarely equal.” Marriage in all but name is the moral equivalent of black- and whites-only drinking fountains from the Jim Crow era in American history and galling for similar reasons; the source of the water and the physical structures of the foundations may have been identical (indeed, they were often literally side by side) but no one could reasonably argue that, even thought these fountains were interchangeably identical, their separation delivered even-handed treatment for both groups. The very fact that governmental authority saw the need to impose a distinction conferred a stigmatizing effect on one and a stamp of superiority on the other; those who doubt this should ask themselves how many whites would have drunk at a blacks-only water fountain (and how many opposite-sex couples would happily trade in their marriage licenses for a civil union certificate.<BR/><BR/>This brings me to wonder why it is imperative to retain the special cultural status of the male-female union. Of course, such a union is inarguably the biological building block of our species. But if human sexuality and the drive to reproduce are largely innate, then the the retention of such special cultural status does not seem all that critical; I suspect that if SSM were legalized the world over tomorrow, the overwhelming majority of citizens would nonetheless still be sexually and emotionally attracted to, fall in love with, and choose to marry people of the opposite sex, thus safely perpetuating the species and preserving, by sheer statistical reality, the cultural centrality of traditional marriage.<BR/><BR/>Given that the reasons for retaining this special status are thus not practical but philosophical in nature, then is it not fair to critically assess the value judgement made by our civil government in deciding to bestow this special cultural status exclusively--yet indiscriminately--on opposite-sex couples? If the government’s motive in conferring such status truly is, not to reflect theologically-based popular moral disapproval of same-sex relationships but rather a morally neutral, democratic, good-faith desire to promote relationships that best serve society and family interests, then why does it not critically examine the circumstances underlying the issuing of ALL marriage licenses issued in this country and regulate accordingly? <BR/><BR/>Is not the stable, monagamous lesbian couple of 15 years more likely to serve society’s best interests than the union of two drunken opposite-sex strangers who choose to get married, on the spur of the moment, by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas? Is the educated, affluent gay male couple raising three flourishing adopted children more likely to benefit and contribute to society than the opposite-sex teen couple who dropped out of high school to wed in the face of an unplanned pregnancy? Is the union of an elderly lesbian couple who’ve been together for 40-plus years less worthy of special cultural status and a bona fide marriage license than the the convicted felon who chooses to exercise his right, from behind bars, to marry (with or without conjugal visitation privileges)? Should all infertile couples (by definition, this would include all same-sex couples but also a significant percentage of opposite-sex couples) be entitled to civil unions but only physician-certified fertile couples to marriage licenses? <BR/><BR/>Or perhaps the government, in weighing whether or not a couple should be issued a civil union license versus a marriage license, should consider applying other standards such as the applicants’ average yearly income, educational level attained, mental health status, and/or prior convictions for domestic battery and/or child abuse? Or perhaps only those couples who undergo some kind of state-sanctioned prenuptial counseling, or who can furnish proof of the length and depth of their commitment should be entitled to marriage licenses and the rest to domestic partnership certificates? And what about marital history? Should twice- or thrice-divorced individuals forfeit their eligibility to obtain a civil marriage license much as repeat DUI offenders sometimes have their driving license privileges curtailed or even eliminated? Are not all of these indicators equally, if not significantly more relevant, to assessing the worthiness of any particular union of special cultural status based on the potential of such a union to promote the best interests of society at large? Talk about your slippery slopes…<BR/><BR/>My guess is that the majority of straight Americans would be (rightly) outraged by such attempts by the government to scrutinize, and award or deprive accordingly, marital status, based on such criteria, as rational as they might be. And yet so many have few qualms about relegating same-sex couples to a Jim Crow-esque second-class facsimile of marriage, despite the absence of any compelling rational evidence that admitting such couples to the privileges and responsibilites of the institution of civil marriage would do society significant harm.<BR/><BR/>I believe that if admitting same-sex couples to the privileges and responsibilites of civil marriage became the norm in this nation, it would only be a matter of time before people began arriving at the same conclusion (and one similar to that reached by the courts in striking down the principle of ‘separate but equal’ in other contexts of American life) that so many Massaschusetts residents, contrary to dire ‘the sky is falling’ predictions of the unraveling of the social fabric, have come to in the remarkably quiet aftermath of the legalization of SSM in that state: namely, that retaining a semantic distinction is not only practically pointless but morally indefensible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1131010659988179872005-11-03T04:37:00.000-05:002005-11-03T04:37:00.000-05:00anonymous: Emotions aside, homosexuality is about ...anonymous:<BR/><BR/><I> Emotions aside, homosexuality is about as natural as a human breathing under water.</I><BR/><BR/>So, somewhere between 2 and 4% of humans can breathe under water? Interesting factoid.Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130973294694906052005-11-02T18:14:00.000-05:002005-11-02T18:14:00.000-05:00I should point out the very notion that deviant hu...I should point out the very notion that deviant human behaviors are a matter of genetics is a matter for debate.<BR/><BR/>The argument "Gays are born that way" smacks of biological determinism, which is highly controversial in the scientific community. Unlike animals, human beings have free-will and the ability to make choices.<BR/><BR/>I believe human beings are product of their socialization, and people are no more born gay than they are born to be smokers or drinkers.<BR/><BR/>Besides, the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders was 100 percent political, and pro-homosexual individuals are blinded by their irrational emotivism.<BR/><BR/>Homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered because they deviate from the basic biological design of human reproductive organs. Emotions aside, homosexuality is about as natural as a human breathing under water.<BR/><BR/>That point leads me to another one. All pro-homosexual arguments are rooted in an irrational fear of traditional families and procreation as the basic design for sex.<BR/><BR/>To sum it up pro-homosexual individuals are IRRATIONAL individuals who cannot make an argument based upon reason alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130898197270203792005-11-01T21:23:00.000-05:002005-11-01T21:23:00.000-05:00In case you're wondering, there wasn't any flaming...In case you're wondering, there wasn't any flaming in this thread. A spammer somehow snuck past the word-verification barrier -- what do you know.Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130860757601677492005-11-01T10:59:00.000-05:002005-11-01T10:59:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130840379817625912005-11-01T05:19:00.000-05:002005-11-01T05:19:00.000-05:00I think this discussion is a bit off-topic, but ba...I think this discussion is a bit off-topic, but basically, my point is: obviously, sex has been used (by animals as well as humans) for purposes other than reproduction. That doesn't negate the fact that sexuality evolved as a method by which sperm meets egg.<BR/><BR/>Non-reproductive sexualized behavior in the animal world includes a lot of activities that we would not normally classify as "sex" (i.e. genital contact leading to orgasm). That includes animals mounting other animals of the same sex in a display of dominance or presenting themselves to other animals of the same sex in a receptive posture as a signal of submission. The <I>New York Times</I> article I referenced before lists male monkeys embracing or female monkeys smacking their lips at each other and playing hide-and-seek or peekaboo as homosexual behaviors. Along with that, of course, true homosexuality occurs in the animals world as well. <BR/><BR/>I don't think this negates the obvious fact that in every species that reproduces sexually, male-female sex is necessary to the survival of the species. As I said, I think homosexuality is a morally neutral variation on this template.<BR/><BR/>As I understand, most SSM advocates argue that homosexuality is an innate, genetically fixed sexual orientation, occurring consistently in 3 to 5% of the population, and hence legalizing gay marriage is (1) a matter of justice for the gay minority, and (2) very unlikely to have more than a minimal effect on the rest of the population. There is a lot of support for that position among fair-minded Americans. I don't think that the goal of "problematizing" heterosexuality is likely to find the same kind of support.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your comments.Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130836042320006972005-11-01T04:07:00.000-05:002005-11-01T04:07:00.000-05:00It *is* ridiculous to worry about only the origins...<I>It *is* ridiculous to worry about only the origins of homosexuality, because that point of view presumes that zero sexual attraction to same-sex members is the norm</I><BR/><BR/>It is. The notion that significant numbers of people feel sexually attracted to both sexes is refuted by the observed fact that bisexuality is even less common than homosexuality is.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130821679101187502005-11-01T00:07:00.000-05:002005-11-01T00:07:00.000-05:00To be honest, I'm also wary of some of some claims...<I>To be honest, I'm also wary of some of some claims made about the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom</I><BR/><BR/>I was thinking less of "gay animals" and more of how primates are less hung up on strictly limiting their sexual behavior--especially sexual activity that isn't specifically reproductive.<BR/><BR/>It *is* ridiculous to worry about only the origins of homosexuality, because that point of view presumes that zero sexual attraction to same-sex members is the norm, and homosexuality is some kind of damaged variation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130813126544683302005-10-31T21:45:00.000-05:002005-10-31T21:45:00.000-05:00There's no possibility that legal recognition of S...<I>There's no possibility that legal recognition of SSM, by itself, in a vacuum, will lead to the destruction of marriage.</I><BR/><BR/>Even if that was known to be completely true, it still wouldn't especially matter -- legal recognition of SSM will not take place, by itself, in a vacuum. It will be existing gay couples, and existing "gay culture", that will be joining the existing institution of marriage. If that culture does endorse open marriages, then people who worry about harm to the instutution of marriage do so for good reason.<BR/><BR/><I>What the non-homophobic SSM opponents seek, therefore, is not to prevent SSM marriage per se, but to censor/marginalize/minimize the free expression by certain gays of a pro-open-relationship point of view, and they seek to accomplish that, not by presenting a counter-argument in the marketplace of ideas, but rather by denying all gays the right to marry.</I><BR/><BR/>I simply do not agree that denying married gay couples a place at the entitlement trough is a form of "censorship", or a denial of freedom of expression. *I* don't get any government benefits as a single man, and you don't see me kvetching that that represents a form of censorship. (and don't say "you can get married". Yeah, and gay men can marry straight women. They just don't want to, and neither do I).<BR/><BR/><I>Horse feathers. There's been no discussion of SSM in the broader society except in the last, what, 10 years?</I><BR/><BR/>There has been an enormous wealth of discussion about what marriage is, what it means, and who should be allowed to participate in it, dating back thousands of years. You can't say "SSM wasn't discussed" just because basically every culture in the world reached a conclusion about it hundreds or thousands of years ago.<BR/><BR/><I>when it began to occur to people that we didn't enjoy true equality by simply mimicing the rules set in place by the wealthy straight white male property-owning class over the ages</I><BR/><BR/>Drop the words "wealthy", "white", "male", and "property-owning class" and that claim will begin to bear some resemblance to reality. Divide the world up into demographic groups by race, gender, and income quintile -- you'll find that in every last one of those groups, most people think marriage is exclusively heterosexual, and has for pretty much all of recorded history.<BR/><BR/>Hell, in the United States, wealthy white people are some of the MOST likely to support gay marriage. If you want to find vicious homophobia, look in a poor black neighborhood.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130803040529681942005-10-31T18:57:00.000-05:002005-10-31T18:57:00.000-05:00Hi mythago,Welcome and I hope you stick around. I...Hi mythago,<BR/><BR/>Welcome and I hope you stick around. I've seen your posts on other blogs (Amptoons, Kevin Drum) and found them very impressive whether I agree or not.<BR/><BR/>Re heterosexuality being "normative": I don't think the presence of homosexual sex in the animal world contradicts that statement in any way. "Not normative" is not the same as "unnatural" (I also said in my post that I believe most homosexuality is genetic). Is anyone disputing the fact that sexuality evolved as a reproductive mechanism? Yes, we all know about those gay penguins, but let's face it, if half of all penguins were in same-sex relationships, the penguin population would suffer a serious decline.<BR/><BR/>To be honest, I'm also wary of some of some claims made about the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It seems like a lot of the time they're talking about playful behavior that isn't necessarily sexual, or long-term bonding with no sexual component. Some of the allegedly "homosexual" bonding among male dolphins is actually about forming groups for the purpose of enticing a female ane keeping other males away from her. (See Dinitia Smith, "Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name," New York Times, February 7, 2004.)<BR/><BR/>I realize that because of the traditional prejudices against gays, "not normative," to many people, smacks of "abnormal" or "unnatural" or "wrong." But I don't think that the (laudable) desire to end anti-gay bigotry should lead us into the trap of what "dissident feminist" Daphne Patai has called "biodenial."<BR/><BR/>I remember reading an account of a women's studies class (can't remember where, sorry) in which the professor cited as an example of heterosexist bias the fact that scientists talk about finding out the causes of homosexuality but no one ever talks about finding out the causes of heterosexuality. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. The cause of heterosexuality is pretty obvious. It's called sexual reproduction. (Which doesn't mean, of course, that reproduction is the only purpose of sex.)<BR/><BR/>To the navigator:<BR/><BR/>A strictly libertarian position would be no government-sanctioned marriage at all. I think revenant is correct when he (I believe revenant is male? correct me if I'm wrong) says that all marriage to some extent is about social engineering.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, a lot of the current debate is not about whether gay couples should have the same legal rights as male-female couples but about whether these rights should come under the label of <I>marriage</I>. It seems to me that at least that part of the debate, on both sides, is about "making a statement."Cathy Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130801108377775252005-10-31T18:25:00.000-05:002005-10-31T18:25:00.000-05:00Perhaps the difference is that gay male couples ma...Perhaps the difference is that gay male couples may be more honest upfront about their requirement or lack of requirement for mutual sexual fidelity? Men in straight couples will almost always demand sexual fidelity upfront, because they demand that their wives be untouched by other men (else divorce or murder), BUT if they themselves cheat, well, it isn't honorable, but it's only because they can't help their masculine needs, and they deserve to be given slack by the wives.<BR/><BR/>Heterosexual swingers may be stigmatized if they are too open or blatant (cf. the failed Senate bid of Jack Ryan, Mr. Seven-of-Nine, who tried to make his actress wife do public sex at a swingers' club), but men with trophy wives and/or hot mistresses on the sides are regularly elected to Congress and regularly seen as reliable by those who promote executives.<BR/><BR/>If there's any lesson here, it is that the double standard is alive and well, and that traditional marriage supporters are perfectly fine with the lying and hypocrisy. Why no attention to the guy who dumps the first wife when she's in the hospital with cancer, then go through two more, including one of his office aides 20 years younger than himself. Or the man who was busily boinking wife #2 while married to wife #1. (Gingrich and Reagan, respectively).<BR/><BR/>Oh, and "rottin in denmark". Ever heard of Larry Kramer? (the loudest pro-restraint gay, or simply the loudest gay on the planet) Or Rotello? Signorile? Andrew "HIV+ barebacker" Sullivan, whose motto is "do as I say, not as I do".<BR/><BR/>NancyPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1130796252472810642005-10-31T17:04:00.000-05:002005-10-31T17:04:00.000-05:00Revenant,I haven't the time to respond to your who...Revenant,<BR/>I haven't the time to respond to your whole comment; let me just note that <BR/><I>Because widespread acceptance of "open marriages" is synonymous with the destruction of marriage as an institution. If there is a possibility of that following from legal recognition of SSM, then those social conservatives who argue that legal recognition of SSM could destroy marriage are, in fact, correct.</I><BR/><BR/>misses the point. There's no possibility that legal recognition of SSM, by itself, in a vacuum, will lead to the destruction of marriage. SSM is not a virus or a supernatural force. Rather, what's being suggested as a possibility is that, once permitted to marry, many gays will be likely to advocate for open marriage and multipartnering, and recognition of SSM will allow them to show off their open relationships as examples, and that such advocacy by word and by example will cause straights to choose open relationships, until eventually there is no generalized social stigma to having an open relationship. Lots of straights, meanwhile, are currently in de facto open relationships; there's just no prominent advocacy on behalf of straights for destigmatizing open relationships.<BR/><BR/>So, the issue isn't that gays will introduce open relationships, or be radically more likely to have open relationships - it's just that they're more likely to advocate for open relationships (and, perhaps, marginally more likely to have such relationships). What the non-homophobic SSM opponents seek, therefore, is not to prevent SSM marriage per se, but to censor/marginalize/minimize the free expression by certain gays of a pro-open-relationship point of view, and they seek to accomplish that, not by presenting a counter-argument in the marketplace of ideas, but rather by denying all gays the right to marry. It's not about choosing to grant special privileges to certain forms of cohabitation - it's about preventing straights from hearing what some gays may have to say.<BR/><BR/>You were responding to my own response to Cathy's question <BR/><I>Is it possible that after basic acceptance is won, we will see more people arguing that gays ought to be able to redefine marriage on their own terms?</I><BR/><BR/>My point is that this is not a slippery slope - we're not sliding down it, towards all open relationships and a devaluing of traditional marriage. We're choosing whether or not to take one step at a time down that slope. Legalizing SSM doesn't take us anywhere near the bottom of the slope (indeed, if Jonathan Rauch is right, it may take us up the slope in the opposite direction). If society takes additional steps, it will be because the straight majority listens to the queer theorists, decides they're right, and chooses to move to destigmatize open relationships. Maybe <I>you</I> think it's okay to deny all gays the same marriage rights straights enjoy in order to make it harder for straights to hear the message of certain queer theorists, but our kind host is a libertarian and I rather doubt she favors such heavy-handed, clumsy social engineering.<BR/><BR/>Finally,<BR/><I>the argument is already taking place, and has been for ages, and has thus far concluded that the definition of marriage doesn't include gay people.</I><BR/><BR/>Horse feathers. There's been no discussion of SSM in the broader society except in the last, what, 10 years? And there's been no "conclusion" - there's been an unthinking acceptance of the way things have been for centuries up until very recent decades, when it began to occur to people that we didn't enjoy true equality by simply mimicing the rules set in place by the wealthy straight white male property-owning class over the ages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com