SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Maggie Gallagher got pregnant when she was a senior at Yale. She didn't marry her boyfriend; in fact, no one suggested that. Not her friends, not her supportive family back in Lake Oswego, where Maggie grew up, not the counselors her mom sent her to see. Looking back now, she thinks nobody wanted to see her enter a bad marriage and cut off other chances in life simply because she was having a baby.
But the experience of being a single mother did change her life. She says she had planned on a writing career focused on politics and money. Instead, she got interested in writing about sex and marriage. This was in the early 1980s. She says:
I'd heard over and over again that we had separated sex and reproduction. But I knew lots of women who got pregnant. So my first book was about grappling with that disconnect. That even though we have birth control, women keep getting pregnant.
She also came to believe that part of a man's job is to protect and help women raising children.
Gallagher now has a husband and a second child with him. She writes books and columns about sex and politics, and has become a leading opponent of same-sex marriage. She says heterosexual marriage regulates human sexuality, offering what she considers an ideal solution to the "problems and opportunities" brought on by children. And she doesn't like the idea that gay and straight relationships should be treated equally.
When men and women have sex, their bodies make children. This is a fundamental, real difference.
That is her story. Here is Todd Simmons'.
Simmons knew as a young teen that he was gay. But he dated women throughout high school and into college. He calls it a survival tactic. He grew up in a home unaccepting of homosexuality. His father was a pastor in a conservative church and later left another, Simmons says, because the congregation's stance on gay and lesbian relationships was "too liberal."
His first long-term relationship with a man lasted nine years. But when his partner became terminally ill, Simmons parents suggested it might be a good time to end the relationship. Simmons asks:
Would they have said that if my wife had been dying of breast cancer?
Simmons' relationship with his parents has evolved tremendously. His mother and father are now highly supportive of Simmons' family. In 1997, Simmons married another man in a big ceremony in Florida. But the relationship was not recognized by the state; in fact, they moved to Oregon, uprooting their lives and taking cuts in pay to live somewhere they could adopt children.
Simmons says he will always remember the day they went to pick up their sons, biological brothers who were at the time three and four years old. The boys ran out of their foster home as the car approached, yelling "Dad, Dad, we love you!" His parents, he says, are wonderful grandparents.
He says his decision to marry and have children grew out of deep love for the man he calls his husband.
He was really in favor of marrying and having kids. I was sure of this guy. The emotional certainty was there. So the decision to solemnify our relationship with marriage followed.
Same-sex marriage is obviously a political issue being hashed out in state legislatures and in courts. On this show we'll hear these personal stories in more detail and try to get at the core meaning of marriage. What does marriage mean to you? How does sex help define it? How does reproduction? How does parenting? What personal experience do you bring to the political question of whether or not same-sex marriages should be legally recognized?
Note: This program was inspired in part by a panel on marriage put together by Portland's First Methodist Church that I moderated last year. A hat tip, and a link to video of that discussion.
Tagged as: marriage · same sex
Photo credit: elmada / Creative Commons
-
Marriage is about deciding who your spouse is and legally protecting that relationship with kinship rights. The government has so regulated kinship that only people that the government recognizes can legally be your family. Kinship and family rights include things such as inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, shared property, shared medical and health benefits, social security and pension benefits, the right to sponsor foreign national spouses for immigration, and a myriad of other legal protections that are in place for legally married spouses and inaccessible to those who are not. LGBT activists often mention the over 1,300 benefits denied to LGBT people by denying them marriage, but few itemize them out. These are ways that people in our community are harmed daily because people like Maggie would like to think that there is some sort of copyright on marriage and family. Not all marriages result in children, to say that is the only purpose of marriage is blatantly deceitful. Even so, children who have two same gender parents deserve all the protections of children from opposite gender parented households. The bottom line is that I should not be barred from the benefits of kinship and family status with my spouse simply because of the sex organs of my spouse, nor should any children we raise be forced to live a life of discrimination and inequality simply because people like Maggie don't like gay people. My ability to legally marry the person of my choosing does not affect Maggie, or anyone else. She, her organization, and others like it, need to mind their own business and stop working so hard to keep me and my family and families like mine and Todd Simmon's from the fundamental right to marry, have a family, and grow old with the one you love with the security of basic family law that insures a surviving spouse won't be refused hospital access or be forced to leave the home they may have shared for decades. Enough is enough, and remember, MG's organization, The National Organization for Marriage, has been officially designated a hate group on par with the KKK.
-
Jen,
A quick reply to your last point. I think you're referring to the Southern Poverty Law Center's recent report that included NOM in a list of "18 Anti-Gay Groups." In fact, the SPLC didn't include NOM in its category of soon-to-be-listed hate groups. (You can read more in the report.) In case you're interested, this is NOM's response.
Dave
-
Yes Dave, I was referring to the SPLC report. Even if NOM didn't make the final list, which I'm not seeing, the fact that they made the list of 18 speaks volumes. You provided a link to the report, which explains why NOM was listed. NOM's response is typical of a hate group not wanting to be labeled for what they are. The SPLC has been exposing hate groups for decades, including groups such as the KKK. Their reputation is far more credible than NOM's. Here is more info from the SPLC as to who they are: http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are
-
Many folks in committed relationships with same-gendered partners want to get married for the same reasons as those with different-gendered partners: to share their commitment with family and friends, to solemnize their commitment to each other, to be a family and to be treated as such, etc. That all seems perfectly reasonable and positive, dare I say "normal", to me. Isn't strengthening famillies a good thing?
-
Marriage = civil contract between two consenting adults of legal age.
That's it, simple. You can pretend it's more than that, but it really isn't. The contract carries many legal and financial benefits and I suppose it also carries a social element (showing commitment). In my view marriage has nothing to do with reproduction either because many unmarried couples have children and many elderly and/or sterile couples who can’t have children get married.
On the topic of same-sex marriages, they should be legal. These bans on same-sex marriage are just like the bans on interracial marriage except instead of being motivated by racism, they are motivated by fear and bigotry (although I suppose that’s what motivates racism as well). When the bans are repealed our society will be stronger, not weaker.
Gays exist and they want to get married. Deal with it.
-
Marriage has nothing to do with commitment in the eyes of the law.
Instead, marriage is has come to be about the whimsical personal fulfillment that can be judged and changed by either spouse at any time in the marriage. It's the easy in easy out, one size fits all divorce system that created this situation.
Because the contemporary divorce process grants ZERO compensatory value to the commitment, promises, sacrifices, labor, and the complete giving necessary for a marriage to work. No RATIONAL sincere, committed, loving person would get married. There is no incentive to invest the countless self-sacrifices that a lasting marriage requires when at anytime a party can keep her profits and sever her liabilities with minor costs.
It's the state taking over the marriage licensing and contract dissolution that's created this perverse situation. What's the government's compelling interest in regulating who one loves and with whom one wants to spend their life? There's a place for laws that require consenting, informed adults. Beyond that, it's a private matter.
George and Martha Washington did not need a marriage license.
Most Americans were not required to get then until the mid-1800s.
Informed consenting adults (straight, gay, whatever) should make their own PRIVATE marriage contracts with dissolution clauses, care plans for children, and means to enforce the contract if someone defaults built in. Getting ths State out of our most intimate business could save our marriages. -
If that's the case, why should the state become involved at all? People engage in contracts with one another all the time, for a variety of reasons.
-
I can only think of exceptional situations were you might want the State to be involved - mostly regarding children.
There's a negative externallity experienced by us all (regardless of sexual orientation) when society/taxpayers have to share the cost of raising children from failed marriages or parents that don't adequately support their children. These cost should be internalized i.e. the parents should be forced to bear the cost not you and I.
Also, I've got the 21 century Western bias against pre-arranged child marriages that other cultures find acceptable. I know these types of arrangements are suppose to produce longer lasting marriages. But our marriage system has a structural problem as I have analyzed above. We can solve that with less state involment.
-
There is no reason (that I can think of) that a marriage can't be between two (or more) consenting adults. If three, four, five, or more consenting adults wish to form a marital community, then why should they not be allowed to? This is not the model I would choose for me and my partner, but why should this be outlawed at all?
Chances are, a polyamourous marital community would include more than one male and more than one female, thus looking, on the surface at least, like a same-sex union.
-
I hear you, but can't imagine how one would manage the emotions and logistics of two or more spouses. Personally, I am a dude with a hetero orientation and can only barely manage to have a relationship with one woman at a time. So far so good - knock on wood.
Polygamy, from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "often married."1
Given that etymology lots of Westerners, both men and women, are involved in two or more marriages with children. Mother has children with one father then divorces him and starts a second family with another man or vice versa. Isn't this the norm now??????!
1. (Zeitzen, Miriam Koktvedgaard (2008). Polygamy: a cross-cultural analysis. Berg. p. 3. ISBN 1845202201. http://books.google.com/books?id=WIzHjpTJgdQC&pg=PA3.) -
From what I read and what my life-time experience tought me I can see that that Maggie Gallagher is nothing but a single mother who got quite not enough sex in her life and who is seeing every man around her as a competitor for her manhunt. She just can't accept the fact that two man can love each other and not her or any woman. At this point I actually agree that now days a gay couple can resolve most of the issues of protecting each other and not have a marriage. Notorized agreement gan give the hospital rights, inherite properties from one to each other and so on. But in my case no matter what I do there's no way to bring my spouse to US. There's no legal way to bring same-sex spouse. And that is what I want to change. Call it any way you want: legal union, domestic parthnership, civil union, marriage - I don't care, but we need the same immigration rights as straight people!
-
How grand, Ms. Gallagher was finally able to regulate her animal passions by getting hitched, so sad she wasn’t able to achieve this same level of control without the artificial strictures of a contract. You have to at least admire the blind determination of folks who forge ahead with a million variations on the same, incorrect theme---constantly building on a rotten, illogical foundation. She keeps putting new logs on the fire, but does not realize she is already in hell. Ironically, isn’t the ideal, and final, solution to Ms. Gallagher’s reproductive concerns homosexuality? As homosexuals don’t have to worry about getting knocked-up, so they can just have a bit of fun with the screwing.
What Ms. Gallagher ends up doing with her irrelevant (non)argument is making a case for homosexual relationships, she in effect proposes homosexuals don’t need marriage, not because they don’t deserve it, but because their unions don’t require the same controls. Homosexual relationships don’t have the capability, on their own, to produce the rotten inconvenience of a child! Couldn’t Ms. Gallagher have saved a lot of time, and a lot of work, and the poor world from her boring books, by simply getting an abortion the first time around? But, really, why stop with proposing one marriage? Isn’t the ultimate economic security for a mother and child polygamy? How baffling Ms. G argues against ‘Obamacare’, on one hand she advocates heterosexual marriage for the security it provides to mothers and children, but on the other hand wants to wipe away the security that ‘Obamacare’ will provide to all the single mothers in the country. Perhaps, Ms. G’s next proposition will be clipping the wings of all the birds in the world, so they won’t have the potential to die while flying into closed windows.
-
well said.
As to relationships, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
(yes, a blatant grab from Star Trek's Vulcans, in my opinion the first gay TV characters))
-
Welcome back Dave!
Good topic. As a person who has been married since 1976 to the same person, I have come to realize that each marriage is unique. I am often humbled by the relationships and marriages around me that I see. Long term couples tend to develop "rules" and a normalcy in their relationships that are unique. I think it is healthy for society to have a wide range of models for marriage.
Within successful marriages, folks deal with personal health issues, personal tragedies and successes, and the trials of raising children and coping with the economy in ways that they develop over time. I see no reason why two people of any gender combination cannot have long term intimate relationships.
The personal elements of a long term marriage form a basis for two people to face the world and support each other with lifetime love, and for many reasons should be nobody's business but their own. I see no reason why a gay or lesbian couple cannot have the same right to privacy and the benign support of a state's laws as a heterosexual couples.
If a gay couple wants to form a long-term commitment and live peacefully as neighbors, we should applaud this and allow our laws to support this, as far as not discriminating in the areas of community property, taxation, retirement benefits, "spousal rights" and other rights that heterosexual married couples take for granted.
A married couple is the basic model of for an effective support group. My wife and I take care of each other in hundreds of ways that cannot be duplicated by any other support service. This has to be a healthy thing, and their is no rational reason why a state's laws should stand in the way of a gay or lesbian couple finding lifetime happiness as married partners.
-
The best way I can add my two cents is to ask people to watch this short documentary I did about a man named Patrick. He was in a registered domestic partnership (married as far as I am concerned). He was thrown out of the hospital on the death bed of his partner/husband because they weren't "married" though the registration gave him legal rights to be there. The hospital attendant didn't know there was no legal difference.
http://vimeo.com/14980239
Watch this story and tell me that marriage for same sex couples should still be illegal.
-
Whew! A hot topic, indeed. In my work in Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan/Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Somalia) At first in Egypt I was aghast at the amount of homosexual activity that was going on there. Islam forbids contact betrween men and wmen outside of marriage, so for many young boys their introduction to sex was by being assaulted by an adult male. As this takes place in the pre teen years boys become confused about the nature of sex and its proper usages. So it passes from one generation to another.
In my last job in Afghanistan/Pakistan the head of our medical division, a very senior Afghan doctor, told me that the number of injured boys brought torn and or diseased into hospitals in Afghanistan was the most shameful aspect of his country's culture. So when I hear in the USA that this aberrent activity is a natural phenomenon, I simply refuse to believe it. In most cases it is learned. But it is UnPC to admit this.
I suspect that if the truth were know most homosesuals in this country were assaulted as children by homosexual adults. Only occasionally as with law suites against priests do men come out and confess that these early assaults led to a life of confused sexuality. They admit this, only in order to bolster their claims for damages.
I think any society that enshrines tolerance as its highest virture actually believes in nothing at all. Allowing same sex marriages is the wedge of an attack on society that will eventuate in the sanctioning of all sorts of sexually aberrent activities. We will end up with a culture with no moral boundaries. A culture that says 'yes' to every possible activity and urge is no culture at all, but merely a collection of license.
-
Because we see heterosexual love and marriage upholding the virtues of society every day in this country, and around the world. I think the shining beacon that should lead us is Catholicism and their strict adherence to morality and the prudence allowed by their religion. You are probably happy about the fact that witch doctors in Africa telling AIDS infected men to rape virginal women, because that cures AIDS. I am assuming that you remain ok with that because the women don't grow to be screwed up, as they were sexually assaulted in a heterosexual manner.
Bravo.
-
Really? You're equating sexual activity between consenting adult homosexuals with the rape of children? Seriously??
-
For Galaxy sailor. Professionally I dealt with the issues of HIV/Aids in Africa..Liberia and Uganda. I didn't see you there. Your argument can be construed as reductio ad absurdum and nothing more.
The business of politicalizing homosexual activity is the single aspect of your proclivities that is most ruinous of society. It promotes and seeks to propagandize young people in to thinking it is a wholesome and normal way of life. The higher morbidity and mortality rates including suicide rates for homosexuals are proof enough that it isn't a healthy, normal life style. There are studies that show that children reared by lesbians and homosexual males tend to be confused on the subject of their gender roles.
The adoptions of same sex kids by homosesual and lesbians are a terrible disservice to these children.
By the way, I am an atheist.
-
Africa is a big continent...that is probably why you didn't see me there.
There are enough perverts in heterosexual life that the homosexuals can't catch up. I have seen two men who loved each other more than two heterosexuals. Trust me when I tell you that heterosexuality has done enough to set itself back, the idea that homosexuals have a crazy agenda to undermine the development of youth is absurd and "black helicopter" crazy.
-
Our ultimate success on this planet is defined biologically as REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS: How successfully we propagate our genes into posterity.
We can enjoy RECREATIONAL sex, either hetero or homo. And it can be culturally sanctioned or banned. Or legally accepted or not.
But the right of PROCREATIONAL SEX is biologically limited to heterosexual couples. And this the ultimate benefit that will NOT be legislated or brought forth by cultural acceptance. It is based on Meiosis and Mitosis, not an underlying discimination. Just as a male cannot birth a child reguardless if the government law permits it.
Like it or not, BIOLOGY IS DESTINY. The basis is science. Raging against the night, cursing fate, legislation, voter mandate, or even cultural acceptance will NEVER change it.
A Gay marriage fails because of biology to become the equal of a heterosexual couple...it has NOTHING to do with law or culture. OF course heterosexual couples CAN choose NOT to have children, but it is a choice.
But we all need to couple. And I see a benefit of gay unions/ partnerships...but gay marriage falls short by definition.
Denying the facts will not change outcome.
-
So all people should be given a test before marriage, and if they are not able to reproduce only healthy babies they too shouldn't be allowed to marry. As well, older couples or couples on second marriages shouldn't marry because, statistically, these types of marriages never result in children. So your basis of reproduction=marriage means that all unions must result in offspring. What kind of term limits are you giving couples in this? If a couple doesn't reproduce within a certain time, then they are violating your biological regulations (which are bogus by the way). If they are violating those conditions of no offspring, then they should be separated from their marriage, and new one established. But then again, second marriages and older couples marrying don't result in offspring, on a statistical basis, so one marriage only, and offspring within a given time.
That makes a lot of sense. Nice work...
-
What outcome? First you are required to prove that marriage succeeds at all! Which you cannot do. Succeeds at what? Based on what conception? Based on what person’s ideas about marriage? Marriage is already a human-made commitment that is not inherent to human living, any of us could rewrite the contract, or the rules, at any time. Marriage could only be said to succeed on a per instance basis, on whether people feel it works for them---its worth is always individual and anecdotal. Clearly, people don’t need to be married to have children, that point alone shows how wrong you are, because we don’t need marriage for the human race to continue. The one thing we can say succeeds, is that heterosexual sex can produce children, which has nothing to do with marriage, or with homosexual sex. The world could potentially become better populated without marriage. It could potentially be that marriage helps control the population rather then proliferate it. (I am not taking a stand on that, but it is worth considering.) If a partner is sterile in a heterosexual marriage, has this marriage failed? Is it any less worthy?
-
Interesting comment as our reproductive success is a leading candidate to be our undoing...
I've always been curious if anyone is statistically tracking the general prevalence of same-sex relationships over time and, if increasing, one could argue that it's a biological response to overpopulation/ increasing population density... same-sex relationships may yet save the race by reducing our reproductive success. "Gay is Green" (?)
-
rethomas
"Gay is Green" (?)
Yow! Nice one!
-
If hetero marriage is so important to raising biological children, would you advocate banning divorce for biological parents until their children reach the age of independence?
-
Reproduction is not a factor in the argument. It is a misleading point that has no barring on anything. The entirety of the world reproduces without marriage (mating for life included). Only humans make a ritual of the commitment beyond the act of reproduction. Every other reproducing object in the world does a courtship that is temporary and for reproduction. Then they move on. Marriage is only one thing - a social construct. What define that social construct as is the debate. Rproduction takes place every day and is proven time and again not to need marriage. It is up to us to define the social construct of marriage. Just as it was to define the social construct of women voting. There was a time when that was considered to be unnatural and immoral. Now women vote. Social evolution. So, are you going to be the bigot that said gays can't marry or the person that supports the major of people that are willing to have social change? There are still people that think women shouldn't vote or that blacks shouldn't be free. They are called bigots. I refer to the skit by The Daily Show members: it gets worse. Someday, twenty years from now, the people who kept gay people from marriage will be the piria of society.
-
One of Maggie's arguments against same-sex marriage is based on opposite-sex relationships being the only way children can be created. I've heard this many times from same-sex opponents. A question for her: what happens when science allows two same-sex people to have a child? Will two women who have an embryo created from their eggs, and one of them then carries the baby to term, be allowed to marry because they've had a child that is biologically theirs?
-
OK then, what happens when science can "grow" a feritlized egg from the point of gestation, outside of the womb? Under Roe v. Wade, that would mean that "viability" occurs upon conception.
-
Excelent question. On the other side of the coin, if as Maggie says "the goal of marriage" is to procreate, why don't we nullify childless marrages? If you don't have a kid within 3 years of the wedding you have to break up and find someone more fertile? Lets also make tubal ligation and vasectomies illegal. Since I had my tubes tied, is my marrage pointless?
-
I think something is missing in this discussion. Anthropologists now believe that pairing in early humans...male/female, provided a stable relationship and a commitment by both parents to rear their offspring together. But those couples, male/female, reproduced and successfully nurtured more infants to reproductive age than males and females who did not inherent the genetic trait to pair off in stable male/female couples.
There is little doubt there were some homosexuals and lesbians, transgenders and the simply confused back then; maybe some of them managed to accidently reproduce. If they hadn't we would not now be plagued with politicians.
People with aberrent sexual habits can argue from now to doom's day that their practices are normal and wholesome and worthy of being promoted and supported. But that argument is made null and void by evolutionary biology.
If their effiorts, starting in kindergarten in some places, were successful in teaching that their homosexual way of life was normal and preferred to heterosexual relationships then everyone would be in some kind of homosexual relationship and the human race would die out.
If, on the other hand, this core belief does not lie at the bottom of their proselytizing they are knowingly promoting a lie. That lie is just one of several similar assaults on traditional marriage.
-
As a woman who has been "married" to another female for three years via a ceremony performed before our family, friends, and loved ones, I have an invested stake in the outcome of these sorts of conversations. I have an intimate desire to see understanding, empathy, and change spring out of often heated and conflictual discussions, but that is often not what I see.
What I see instead is intense fear from either side. On the pro-marriage-for-all side, I see a deep seated fear of Other People deciding our fate, of further keeping us from equity, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to be self-determined.
What I see from marriage-between-a-man-and-woman folk, is a I see a deep seated fear of Other People deciding our fate, fundamentally changing the deepest core values of our community, exposing us to unfamiliar and often scary newness, and taking our right to be self-determined.
The very real fear that either side feels keeps us from listening. It keeps us from understanding. It keeps us from embracing change. For both sides: if your goal is to have some resolution with this topic, the first task is to understand your own fear, and then to listen. Perhaps even listen without judgment and without accusation. You may find some commonality if you do so, which can move the discussion forward.
-
I assume you are a biological female. If evolutionary biology intended two males to mate or two females to mate and reproduce then there would be but a single gender not two. There must be two unalike genders for a reason..reproduction of the human species.
Actually dear lady no one gives a big ---what you chose to do in private. It is the political drive to promote your proclivities in to a protected minority status that we must object. To do that you all feel you must organize and shove your aberrent habits in every one else's face. (Figuretively speaking). And therby promote it.
I note with interest that most of the people speaking to this issue support homosexual marriages. That fact is quite revealing in that it proves the existence of a concerted push to obtain political goals and NOT the objective of simply being allowed to do as you wish with whom ever or what ever you prefer. Heterosexual couples that choose to live together without marriage face the same legal barriers that you people whine about. But I have never heard of a shack-up movement among them wherein they seek to obtain all the legal entitlements of married couples and the right to carry out on annual 'Shack-Up Pride' parade in San Francisco.
-
The problem for me comes down to the fact that we have confused and conflated two different concepts, marriage and the recognized contract of a civil union. Originally, it was probably for convenience because, for a long time, the two things lined up pretty well. Now it is time to ditch the conflation.
Marriage is about a religious and social covenant. If your community recognizes it the good, go and get married and adhere to the strictures therein, be it obedience, subservience, equality, partnership, whatever. Every sub-group defines "marriage" differently.
The state should get out of the marriage business all together and focus on civil contracts for the world we live in today - permanent partnerships, temporary partnerships, child rearing, etc.
Personally, I would like these civil contracts to be irrespective of sexual involvement as well. My grandmother and great aunt lived together for 30 year after my grandfather died; I also had a single friend moved back home to take care of her ailing father and lived with him for 10 years until he died; in both cases a civil partnership would have made a lot of complex decision easier
-
Every country I know of with a code of civil law requires that marriage be between a male and a female and that a legally registered union exists. There are many quite sound reasons for this, the principle one being the contractual nature of the union for the purpose of inheretence, child protection, taxes and many other legalities civilized nations require of their citizenry. I've lived and worked in places where all the nicities of civility and good order are ignored, or non existent...just the way most of you seem to desire for our nation. Trust me, you would enjoy living there, much less than living here.
When you toss out and trash the institution of traditional marriage you are extremly foolish. You can not abandon or loosen an institution as fundamental to organized human society as heterosexual marriage without inducing a cascade of unanticipated and unwanted changes down stream. Marriage is a bed rock of civilized society everywhere.
Most of you people seem to think that an institution as old as our specie can be radicalized or abolished and there will be no negative consequences for society. I reiterate: you are plainly ignorant or stupid. One or the other or both.
-
For the supporters of SSM marriage: Is a sexual relationship required? If so, why? If not, does that mean I could marry a close friend, with whom I have a "committed" relationship, or my brother, or son?
-
Aberrent sexual practices if condoned and legitimized by Govt I guarantee you will mutate into other, even less savory sexual perversions.
If you people get what you want from Govt the other communities of people wishing to endulge their abnormal practices are waiting in the wings and will be thus encouraged to take political action to 'out' their own peculiar tastes and seek whatever protection is granted by society to homosexuals, lesbiens, and transsexual whatnots. Once that Pandora's Box is opened, the way is clear to destroy traditional morality and marriage.
Granting license to degenerate habits can not but further damage our already teetering culture...such as it is today. I admit not much is left to defend.
-
Don't right wing Christians have any sense of equity?
Maggie, whose first hetero partnership failed (while she was studying religion and belonging to Yale's "Party of the Right") goes on to be a Bush expert on marriage? For which, she was given (and didn't disclose) thousands of dollars from the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, my partner and I (24 years together) pay thousands in extra taxes each year, just to suit Maggie's religious views on marriage.
Hypocrite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gallagher#Controversies
-
While I don't disagree with Maggie's comment that parenting is easier with more than one parent, it can't be ignored that many couples who don't have good dynamics but choose to have kids anyway, are inflicting on their kids anxiety and confusion about relationships. I would argue that kids are better off witnessing a healthy relationship between 2 same-sex parents than an unhealthy one between heteros.
-
As a follow-on, it would also be interesting to document the average income of same-sex couples vs. hetero couples... if income levels for SS couples were significantly higher and better able to provide for children it would further advance your position.
-
That is crazy talk. Kids reared by same sex "parents" can not ever be expected to have a normal childhood or not suffer confusion about normal behavior between the sexes.
Jesus! I can't believe there are so many peole this malajusted today. I suspect that the people in homosexual/lesbian relationships all suffered terrible childhoods were/are physically unattractive, or made horrendously bad choices in a normal marriage. So the fact you people are plain looking, or married an utter sxxthead of the opposite sex somehow gives YOU the right to reorder society around your bruised id? If everyone with a problem sought societal remedy for their source of unhappiness, can you imagine the ensuring chaos?
-
We are a gay couple and have been together for over 19 years. In the summer of 2003 we were chosen as adoptive parents in an open adoption by our daughter's birthparents. Later that year the three of us traveled to Vancouver, BC so that we could be legally married (at least in Canada). Afterward, when living in Germany, our marriage was recognized and we were treated the same as any family for visas and health insurance. Wouldn't it be great if we were treated fairly in our own country?
-
Oh yes, and I heard of a guy that wanted to marry a horse and another a 13 yr old child. And there is a man/boy love organization that promotes pederasty.
Whoopee! Let's just do whatever makes us feel good and the hell with everyone else. To misquote someone wiser than myself: "People who worship tolerance as the highest virture believe in nothing at all". Amen to that.
-
If Maggie feels that marriage is and should be about children, how would she feel if heterosexual people who were infertal, too, old, or had decided not to have children were not allowed to marry? If couples who had children together were forced to marry, "for the good of the children". Or if married couples with children were not allowed to divorce until the children were of age, "for the good of the children"?
Because it seems to me that the arguement falls down on the details. The only people she wants to exclude are homosexual couples, so it can't be based on the good of the children, no matter how she says it. She wants an exclusive club that is more "special" because she can keep some people out.
-
To me, marriage is a lifetime commitment. My Dad and Mom were married for over 43 years when Mom passed away, and my partner and I have been married for over 25 years, and together for over 27. (Yes, we are a same-sex couple.)
-
In the book "Nudge" (Thaler & Sunstein) it was proposed that marriage become privatized to protect both religious and individual freedoms for everyone. This would mean that the word marriage would not be a legal term in any laws as there is no possible way to separate church from the word marriage.
Laws would allow for civil unions in order to allow all people in committed relationships legal and financial rights. If they then also wanted to be married, they could choose to do so in their own church or private ceremonies. If a church decided not to marry a couple because one of them was not of that religion, or the right gender, then they could do so.
They made many interesting points on how this could protect more people (including children and the more vulnerable partners) and allow for more options and choices for everyone.
It sounds like a logical and reasonable compromise, too bad that this will never happen as those two qualities are not attributable to politics.
-
I fail to see how gay marriage detracts from the stability and health of straight marriage. It seems logical to deduce that if gay people get married and uphold commitment, love, health and long term stability, it only serves to strengthen marriage and society overall. Same goes for child rearing. Also, one of the biggest threats to straight marriage is straight people themselves. The divorce rate is high and if anything, people need to not focus on banning gays from marrying, but helping everyone have lasting relationships that promote health and stability, no matter what your gender is.
-
My husband and I became Domestic Partners about 5 years before we got married. We became Domestic Partners so that I could have medical insurance. I was blown away because when we got married the cost of the insurance went from $440 a month to $24 a month.
I guess a part of getting married is about saving money. We were lucky enough to have the right to get married. I feel terrible for all of the other Domestic Partners who will never have that $$$$ benefit of marriage.
-
Sex and procreation is a biological function that predates human culture. Historically, marriage is a institution that arose in many cultures to insure inheritance rights and to cement tribal bonds. A review of anthropology studies would indicate that marriage is cultural phenomenon that is overlayed on the biology of human reproduction.
Procreation outside the codified laws of society is normal and common. This leads me to conclude same sex marriage or opposite sex marriage is totally independent to property rights and tribal bonds.
I have yet to hear a single argument that would indicate that my relationship to my heterosexual partner (and spouse) is in any way diminished because somebody else chooses to pass on their property to a person of their choice.
-
For Maggie, I would ask the following:
Let's assume that discrimination by restricting marriage in the past has been closely related to raising children and the function of society imposing roles and duties on those married parents.
It seems to me that the discrimination must be continually justified because society changes. So, now that folks can divorce, people can use birth control, and children out of wedlock is no longer stigmatized, what's the justification right now?
-
My partner and I have been together for nearly 8 years, and were married this past summer, though it is not legally recognized in Oregon. While some of our family members were hesitant to participate in the ceremony at first due to their religious beliefs, we have found that our family as a whole has been strengthened by the commitment that we made to each other that day. Our family, even those who are hesitant to embrace same-sex marriage, now considers us to be a committed, loving family. My mother-in-law in particular is now supportive of our strong desire to have children. Our marriage, though not currently legal, has strengthened our relationship and our family tremendously. Why should this wonderful experience be denied to some couples based not on love or commitment, but on gender?
-
I see Ms. Gallagher defining the meaning of marriage as a state institution that recognizes and confers rights upon marriages that create (or could possibly create) children.
I see her opposition to gay marriages as primarily that they can not reproduce, but she also recognizes that marriage confers benefits from the state. Benefits that people in gay unions are being held back from.
Is there a reason that these men and women should not have the same benefits (health care, taxes, social acceptability) as straight couples gain through marriage? It seems unfair to me that the state should confer benefits upon one group, but not another based on either their gender, or their reproductive ability.
Does Ms. Gallagher agree/disagree?
-
What if a married couple can't or don't want children? Do they not have a marriage? It's pretty limiting to define a family or a marriage as one in which children are present.
Let's open our minds a bit. After all, so many marriages end in divorce. The heterosexuals haven't necessarily done a great job bearing the flag of marriage. Gays are hardly going to ruin it even more. Perhaps they'll improve it.
-
There is NO mention of children in any wedding vows I have ever heard. What a bad argument!
Besides the divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%; the divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%; the divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%. Why be a part of a failed institution, lets call it something else!
-
I would like to ask Maggie Gallagher if she is opposed to civil unions. Would she be happy if her definition of “marriage” (a man and a woman joining together and raising children) is only limited to the realm of a religious rite? Should we legislate a “marriage culture” or are such cultural issues something that should be dealt with outside of the legal sphere?
I would also like to ask her why she feels she has the right to legislate a personal love relationship? Does she think that someone should have legislated her behavior of being a single mother in college (which she seems to say is harmful to children)?
-
Oh, for goodness sakes, the public definition of marriage has changed greatly over the years. It was originally a "property contract" along with being used politically for treaties between monarchs.
Women and children are no longer considered the property of the man.
This Gallagher guest is just not well informed, she is rewriting history into some past idealized Conservative Utopia. And that Unicorn never did exist!
Conservatives have always used minorities to fear-monger their political base into being easly manipulated by those in power. Let's remind ourselves of what the German Conservatives did to homosexuals, gypsies, and Jews back in the 1930s. And they are back at it now with gay people.
-
I may have misheard her story, but did Mrs. Gallagher say that she had a no-fault divorce and re-married? It wasn't that long ago that women could not divorce (or vote, own property, etc.) and even today, many churches would not honor her re-marriage. It's hypocritical for her to argue that discriminating against gays and lesbians is "protecting marriage", while she has redefined the public definition of marriage being an unbreakable, lifelong commitment, to being a temporary, civil arrangement.
-
Of course, it is rather pinched and bigotted to assert that two committed gay partners in a happy long term relationship somehow have less of a right to the benefits of marriage than an easily found screaming abusive alcoholic half-accidental hetero marriage.
-
Could not have said it better.
-
This line of thought is seen in many comments here. It first denigrates marriage, in order to say why it desirable to homosexuals. In other words, marriage is crappy so why limit it to its culture-wide meaning. It frequently "fails" as it is, so therefore we should be able to do it also.
If heterosexual marriage somehow had a perfect success rate, would that mean that homosexuals would have no claim to marriage?
How does that make sense?
-
For millennia- and still in some cultures- marriage brought men and women together primarily to birth children, Ms. Gallagher is correct. However, it was, in many ways, a financial transaction between families. Women did not have the choice of who they would marry, they were given to another family to bare children and continue the family line. Is this what Ms. Gallagher believes marriage should continue to be?
-
Does this mean if you're in a marriage and you are barren or childless by choice, that should also not be legal? Should there be a separate union for that too? I'm curious what Gallagher would say about this. How are we going to monitor that heterosexuals who want to get married really procreate and aren't also missing her definition of marriage?
-
I am in a heterosexual relationship and when we get married we have no intention of having kids. Since the purpose of marraige, according to Maggie is bringing men and women together for procreation, shouldn't her group be trying to ban marriage between people like myself and my partner who have not intention of having any children. I know many married couples who do not have kids and do not want to, why is this woman targeting gay and lesbian couples? This is discrimination plain and simple!
-
This argument is a red herring. Traditional marriage, as it is today, has more divorce, more turmoil than ever, and to think that Gay marriage will make it worse is absurd. I believe that it will make it stronger.
-
till now i couldn't find a good answer to what's the meaning of marriage...
Alex from Zahnarzt München
Veneers München
Bleaching München
-
To me there seems to be a distinction between the religious and public meanings of marriage. Ms Gallagher talks about not wanting to change the public meaning of marriage but imposes a religious definition. I am OK with allowing private religious groups to impose their narrow definitions of marriage, however, in the public domain, the institution of marriage is simply a set of laws, rights, and responsibilities that govern financial issues and individual liberties (e.g., visitation, inheritance). I do not see how it is reasonable to impose a single individual religious definition of marriage on the public legal aspects of marriage makes sense. As another blogger said, Ms Gallagher's focus on children does not stand up unless she thinks that public marriage should also exclude the elderly or infertile.
GDM
-
If we want to say that marriage is for the sake of bringing mothers and fathers together for the protection of children, then instead of denying marriage to specific groups (homosexuals in this case), let's instead simply reserve whatever protections we declare essential for the sake of protecting children to couples who have children. If that is the real argument, then instead of denying marriage to specific couples who do not somehow conform to our notion of what is the "right" union for children, let's instead not encourage or allow marriage for ANYONE who does not enter the union for the sake of having and raising children. So no one gets married unless and until they have children, and then once their children are successfully "launched", it would seem to make sense that the couple no longer remain married. Stop using "for the sake of the children" as our excuse to discriminate against pepole whose pairings we, for whatever reason, think are not appropriate. Who someone else marries has little if any real impact on me or my family.
-
I identify myself as bisexual and have dated and loved both amazing women and men. When I was 25 I got pregnant with my boyfriend of over a year and a half and we decided to have our son but not get married. When our son was 16 months old we did get married because we felt the pressure from society that our relationship was working fine why not just sign the papers for our son's sake? Our marriage lasted less than two years and I very strongly feel that it is because we were pressured to do it because why wouldn't two "heterosexual" people just get married when it is so easy. I am now with a wonderful man who is helping me raise my son, he has also been married before, and we both see no benefits to our relationship to getting married, but we still get a lot of pressure from our families and society. If he were a woman that was my partner currently I would not only not have the option, but also not the pressure to marry, especially since my son is from another relationship. Having been a couple raising a child and a married person raising a child I only see the difference in the taxes, partner rights, and separation of property.
I can find no reason to marry on behalf of giving a child an "official" parent when the child just wants love from everyone. I feel the more people who love a child the better that child will be and that is not a result of marriage. Marriage serves to provides a safety net to the two individuals raising the children in case of an accident, death, financial devastation and other unforeseen life issues. I believe that if two men or two women want to devote themselves to each other and provide that net to themselves and their children that they should be able to.
I also think that if there were more education, outside of religious, about the realities of marriage for any couple seeking it, that it would eliminate a lot of divorce. Marriage is not all about the party and the dress. Going through my divorce has been a year and a half long process, getting my marriage certificate took 2 hours.
-
hm.. and who did you enjoy more? men or women?
Lisa, crazy about yachtcharter
-
I'm 73 years old. My wife is 58. We were married after our child-bearing years. We love each other, and we contribute as a couple to our friends and community. How are we different from a same-sex couple, if marriage is about caring for children? Should we also be denied the right to be married?
-
What is the basis for Maggie's belief that marriage is one man and one woman? Is it biblical in nature? Cultural? Traditional? What is the driving force behind this belief?
-
"Biblical" references to marriage should be fair to note the many wives and extra women (concubines, slaves, so forth) that old testament guys had. "Biblical based marriage" is probably more complicated than folks think. Even in the first centuries of the Christian era multiple wives were pretty common. ANd, of course, "Biblical marriage" can be used as a code for treating women as chattle property. Not so good.
"King David and King Solomon led merry merry lives
With many many concubines and many many wives.
But when old age crept upon them with infirmities and qualms
King Solomon worte the Proverbs and David wrote the Psalms."
-
roboturkey
That's an interesting post and poem.
-
quick comment on Maggie's concern of change in marriage....I am sure that when wives were no longer were considered the property of their husbands some thought that marriage would be destroyed.
Change is not always bad
-
Dear Maggie,
The Oxford American dictioary defines Bigotry as: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
If you're intolerant of Gay Marraige, then you're a Bigot.
And really, haven't all the "crimes against marraige" like divorce and adultry been invented by heterosexual couples.
Or should we bring back all Mosaic Law, and stone adulterers and infidels?
-
Well said!
-
These two people confirm what I think about marriage. Government has no business being in the marriage business. What two adults do ,within the other laws,is of no concern to the state. What is of concern of the state are children.
There should be no unplanned pregnancies. Having children should be licensed.Two people ,usually the responsible man and woman,should be signed up for the care of that child until the child can function as an adult(not 18years, until 25 years if a PhD is needed, forever if the child is disabled).Single parent families should be unusual as should foster children.Of course this will never happen.Rational approaches to problems never occurs. -
I'm not sure why we can't just have Civil Unions for EVERYONE Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, etc... This would create the same legal benefits for everyone.
Marriage began in the church, it should stay there. If someone wants to 'get married' they can go to their church and have their legal civil union recognized by God.
-
Yes thank you!
-
Marriage is a relgious concept. Not a government function. The government should get out of the marriage business and let the relgious organizations maintain mariages. Marriage is between you your partner and your god. Not the government. Contracts can be granted by the government not marriage.
-
Good point. You get a license from the state, but a preacher does the ceremony. Just eliminate the need for a license and change it to a notice registry after the fact.
-
Being someone that is married without any plans to have children, and having been raised by a single mother, I find it very personally offensive that my family and the family that raised me is not a "valid" family according to the guest. i did not need my father - actually i think i did better without him, from what I know about him.
Why, if children are the primary reason for marriages, does the guest not push for some sort of prerequisite for married couples to produce children as a condition of getting married, instead of just denying gay people the right to marry?
-
Maggie is a terrible role model.
There are still cultures which would have stoned her to death: happily (and through no credit to her religion) we don't do that anymore, nor even make a big deal of bastardy cases. Yet she casts figurative stones at Todd.
Of the two guests, I would much sooner let my kids go play at Todd's house.
-
Ha ha, so she is making money spouting Conservative anti-gay propaganda!
She's busted! She is our modern day Goebbels!
-
I will never understand why people like Maggie Gallagher feel they have the right to legislate their morality on others. She most likely wouldn’t want a particular Religious belief or specific moral forced on her, why does she feel she has the right to do that to others? Lead by example, live your life as you wish and leave others alone to live their lives as they wish.
P.S., I’m in full support of same sex couples gaining the same rights as we opposite sex married couples, like the marriage tax penalty.
-
As a heterosexual, married mother of two, I find Maggie Gallagher's arguments unintelligible. Surely, Maggie, you must have a better argument than the ones you're positing... I'm not in any way, shape or form threatened by gay marriage. Indeed, I believe a society that respects and honors love and commitment is the kind of world I want to bring my children up in.
-
Mrs Gallagher has yet to articulate any clear harm associated with her position against gay marriage. Not a single harm. More concerningly, she has yet to address the fact that the vast majority of those who oppose gay marriage are holding that position because they are anti-gay. This is a wedge issue that allows them to express that anti-homosexual position in a socially acceptable way. While Mrs Gallagher may feel sincere in her position, her base of support is clearly impure.
-
What's hilarious is that there's decent evidence that lesbian couples are better at raising kids than hetero couples. Her arguments are clearly based in emotion and delusion(at best) and bigotry at worst, not reason.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6917212.ece
-
can you then only have healthy happy children in a family with a mother and a father????
What about a dead spouse? What about an abusive partner? Our children need LOVING people...and that is it. The sex of the people providing care does not matter.
Maggie, no one seems to be buying your tugging on the heartstrings "it is for the children" bit.
-
Ask Maggie Gallagher this:
What percentage of gays men and women were born to a heterosexual couple? I'm confident that the answer will be north of 98%
-
This woman is bigotted. She is dedicated to denying rights to US citizens. She is in the business of making misery. Her God will know what is real and what is spin.
-
You win genuinely kind-hearted Christian comment of the year award. Congrats.
-
If marriage is about children and helping to keep those families together, why aren't children, adopted by and born to gay couples not entitled to those same protections. And then why are childless straight couples allowed to marry. Because it's not about children. It's about two people committing to share their live together and to be responsible for each other. When you look at the legal protections afforded to married couples very few are about children.
-
I too have failed to hear a compelling argument for denying full marriage rights to gays and lesbians based on its negative impact on heterosexual marriage. In fact, the attached article demonstrates an opposite effect in the place in the world which has had gay marriage the longest...Scandinavia.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
Enjoy reading...
-
When will Conservatives promote real policies that will help raise healthy children; more and stronger Unions, higher minimum wages, well-Regulated Corporations, taking away Corporation "personhood" and limiting Corporations, stronger safety laws and enforcement, higher progressive taxes, stronger estate taxes, etc.
Gallagher is just distracting from the real problems facing families and children, with this fear-mongering against gay marriage.
Shame on her!
-
That's the entire point of these choice issues. They force people who would otherwise care about real policies and reform to get embroiled in heated arguments surrounding largely emotional issues, and you can walk arm in arm with the absurdly wealthy and present yourself as the peoples' politician or an underdog.
Defending our rights from conservative onslaught costs the left legitmacy as a party in support of working people.
The thinking is like this "Oh, so you'll help rich gay people marry so they can get breaks on health insurance(that I can't afford) but you'll cut funding for social programs, give tax breaks and bailouts to millionares, and fund the police occupation of my neighborhood. You don't really care about us. I'm voting you out." Solidarity needs to run both ways (and it often does, but not often enough).
-
dtylyer
Yeppers!
-
Maggie keeps talking about the importance of marriage as it relates to having children. I'm heterosexual and have been married to my wife for over 6 years. We are not having children. Our marriage is not about having children. Does Maggie think my marriage is worth less or shouldn't be recognized because we don't plan to have children. Our marriage is about love and commitment to each other. The decision to have children is secondary to the initial felling of love for another and the decision to be committed to each other. I would say to Maggie that her fear of change is understandable but we have to change and adapt to the needs of our society. Her need to hold onto the past definitions of marriage will render her obsolete.
-
She probably does think your marriage(if not your life) is pointless, but it's not her issue as an activist. Yet.
-
I'm struck by the historical and cultural ignorance of arguments such as Mrs. Gallagher's. I read Helen Fisher's book, The Anatomy of Love, years ago and she provides compelling evidence (as do many others) that our life-long concepts of marriage are recent, for example.
Further, human cultures reflect many different ways of taking care of the needs of children, and that our narrow nuclear family approach isn't the only "natural" way. (Indeed, the extended family, which is defined differently in different cultures, appears to be the most important human protection for children.) So the whole "natural" argument has been really simplified in this debate.
And finally, I was stunned at how summarily the caller's question about the parallels of parental responsiblity with adopted children was dismissed. I didn't catch the whole show, but I don't see how Gallahger's views can hold without addressing the larger notions of family as a unit caring for children vs. mere biological/sexual responsiblity.
I won't even attempt to address the whole "hate" debate. When I start hearing reports of hate crimes against heterosexual couples because they're straight, then I might listen to her sob-story about all the hate directed at her.
-
In the last few minutes of the program, Todd Simmons showed his true colors--and it was not a pleasant sight. Unable to answer Maggie Gallagher's principled defense of the institution of real--i.e. heterosexual--marriage, he resorted to a personal attack on the messenger and thereby lost the debate.
-
Not true. He called her motives, ethical and financial, into question, in strong terms. He had just spent an hour listening to her denigrate his morals, his lifestyle, the commitment and love he has experienced, the essence of who he is. It wasn't until that point that he turned the tables on her. He didn't get personal, he didn't attack her. He disagreed with her, in her own language.
As a listener, I had spent that hour listening to her spout her hate speech about homosexuals, couched in her calm, reasonable, "I'm just saying what everybody else thinks and knows is true" words. It was appalling, and I was relieved to hear him stand up to her in the end. We should all be doing that.
-
Actually, Bob, Todd Simons exposed her for the paid professional prevaricator that she is. A dynamic dissembler. A lying lobbyist. A Conservative con-woman.
-
My wife and I entered into marriage in our 40s and have no intention of having children. Does Ms. Gallagher feel our marriage is a sham because we're not going to have children?
The belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is born out of religious mythologies and ancient beliefs, yet is now so ingrained in our society that it has become part of civil law. People who love one another should be able to marry, whether they want to have children or not, and whether they're heterosexual or not. We believed for a couple thousand years that slavery was right and proper. We know now that things change and societies evolve in better societies. It's time to stop discriminating against loving, tax-paying adult humans and open marriage up to all.
-
I got pregnant my last term of college. I forced marriage on the father of my child, based on the beliefs I was raised with. I wanted my child to have a father. It took 50 dollars and three days to get married. The marriage in itself was a farse. Yes we could then share health insurance and taxes. Our marriage was not a union with God, but a legal agreement. Marriage has numerous meanings in society. The church has one view, the courts have another. It took over a year to legally end my marriage. None of this has benefitted our child. Everyone will argue their personal beliefs based on their personal experiences. You can dedicate yourself in a marriage ceremony and never make it legal to the state. You can sign a legal document and never dedicate yourself to legal spouse. Do we really need to define what marriage is? Why can't it be different to everyone?
-
How does urging a pregnant woman to marry for the benefit of her child have anything to do with same gender marriage?
-
I don't see how restricting who can be married forces or even impacts people taking responsibility for children they create. If this is her main concern there must be a better way to make a difference. It is too bad that so much energy can be spent on working to restrict some people's rights, when these unwanted or unsupported children need help now.
-
As always on this issue, Ms. Gallagher is muddying legal marriage (an institution created and sustained by governmental entities) and the state of being married (an emotional, spiritual commitment between two people). Actually she's not the only one making this mistake; most people, including our lawmakers, combine the two.
It's simple: if it's a legal institution, with responsibilities, rights and privileges attached, it MUST be available to all adults who wish it. If it's not, then it doesn't matter. People would then be free to make these contracts between themselves, without interference from the state. Children, when they come along, should be the legal (as well as personal) responsibility of their legal parents.
This way, people like Ms. Gallagher are free to live in their beliefs that their way is God's way, that their definition of marriage is the only true one, without hurting anybody else.
BTW, Ms. Gallegher, you were not being personally attacked, either by Mr. Simmons or any other commenter. You were being disagreed with; you were being categorized as wrong, and possibly financially motivated. In other words, you were on the receiving end of their judgment, instead of the other way around. Sucks, eh?
-
As a 64 year-old heterosexual with serious reservations about the institution of marriage for anyone, regardless of gender combinations, in the context of the discussion I have to say that the gay man on the show made a perfectly reasoned argument and exposed the woman's motives as not only profit-motivated, but exploitive of people's irrational fears and anger. He was honest, and she was not, which speaks poorly for the moralists and "family values" crowd.
-
I've never had a whole lot of repsect for marriage as an institution. I do think that both parents should be actively involved in the lives of their kids, and that parents' problems shouldn't become a wedge between one parent and a child, but I know of way too many people whose lives were made worse by treating marriage as a status marker in keeping with the rest of society instead of really seiously considering their emotional motivations and the true nature of their relationships. Socially and economically rewarding marriage excarcerbates this the harms of this thoughtlessness.
2 examples, my mother married in her early twenties, entirely so that she would be able to leave her childhood household in a socially acceptable way (living alone as a woman in the early 60s in the deep south wasn't acceptable to her manipulative and abusive family). The relationship she landed in was with another abuser, and it took him putting out cigarettes on her in front of his family to get her the support she needed to leave him without being disowned. Her next marriage was with my Atheist dad, performed by a judge, and, after they divorced, I still was raised by both parents whom have loved and supported me incredibly well, while remaining friends in spite of the vitriol and betrayal that had initially surrounded their split (none of which I learned about until I was grown.)
2nd example, I currently know of a friend of a friend who has been manipulated into staying in a marriage of duress. She dated a woman in high school, and her parents and family freaked and pressured her out of exploring her sexuality any more. she operated under the delusion she was straight for the past 15 years. Now she's married to and has a kid with man she loves platonically who presumably loves her. But she's realized that she'll never develop any romantic feelings for him after developing a close platonic friendship with another lesbian and unlocking the wrong-headedness of the manipulation she was subjected to as a teenager. Her husband is less concerned with helping the woman he "loved" enough to marry and have a kid with live the life she was meant to as he is concerned about the effects that he has been told dissolving their marriage will have on their child. So now he's basically holding their child ransom to keep her from divorcing her, by claiming that if they divorce or seperate, he'll sue her for custody. She knows, considering jurisprudence around GLBT Americans in custody proceedings, that she has a good chance of losing that battle if it goes to court. And that is a married couple people expect to raise a well-adjusted kid?
Marriage is not some objectively magical agreement that will make 2 people capable of living a meaningful life together as partners. The sooner we learn that and stop incentivising marriage economically and socially, the better off we'll all be. Gay, straight, whatever.
-
The Oxford American dictioary defines BIGOTRY as: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
The intolerance and hate expressed towards the vast majority of people who understand the meaning of marriage by those who wish to change the definition of marriage is astounding.
People who choose to be gay have always had the right to get married, although the resulting marriage would be a sham since to be married one chooses a partner of the opposite sex.
If a man wants a partner he can introduce as his "husband" that's perfectly understandable, but the opinions held by individuals who make that choice do not warrant the proposed bigoted change to the definition of marriage.
Ask anyone, even a child- unless indoctrinated by the new culture that devalues marriage by trying to change it's meaning, the responder will naturally tell the truth (for the reality challenged: a man marries a wife and a woman marries a husband.) It's a laughable proposal to claim anything different - we might as well teach black is red, wet is dry, and up is down!
Personally, I "tolerate", accept, invite, respect and revere many people in homosexual relationships. None are married, though some are ssmarried.
If you believe an untruth yet still are reading this great articulation of the beliefs of the overwhelming majority, let me reiterate: Commitments between same sex partners are fine, wonderful, understandable and even normal these days: however, they are not, cannot be, and thus never will be marriages.
The ONLY problem we all debate is the illegitimization of the word marriage. Let's all agree to tell the truth, these unions are ssmarriages (pronounced smarriages). Conveniently, the honest description of the proposed unions begins with s s, which means same sex but also references social security rights, tying in to the best arguments ever made by same sex supporters.
If i chose to be gay, I would be comfortable, proud and honest about my decision, but I would never lie to myself, my children, or the world by claiming marriage. . . it just isn't so.
-
It sounds like you're defining marriage in biblical/religious terms, which is your right. The basic argument in favor of same-sex marriage is that the institution as practiced in this country is a LEGAL one, with rights and privileges attached. It therefore must be available to any adult couples who wish it. Either that, or remove legal advantages of being married, and let the churches fight it out.
None of this has any relation to "the truth". It's a very recently created, culturally convoluted, religiously biased construct.
-
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used "the truth" but rather "the definition." Rights belong to the individual is my understanding, and not the couple. If a couple had the right to marry, there would be a third person.
Every adult individual has always had the right to marry. Perhaps the future is a new amendment, adding the right to smarry?
It is so amazing that all of us who claim bigotry seem blind to our own.
-
How do you define "intolerance"? You seem to believe it's synonymous with "disagreement"; please correct me if I've misunderstood you.
-
intolerance (my def.) = a full scale from lacking respect to denying existence.
-
I understand (I think). I'm disagreeing with your definition of marriage. I respect your opinion; I just have a different one. Neither of our opinions should be legislated, especially when that causes such problems in others' lives. We should live our lives as we see fit, and stop short of thinking we know best for others.
-
A proposed delegislation of marriage?
I believe problems get worse when rights are not guaranteed.
Never would I believe I know best for anyone (I hope)- nor even myself. It's the journey that counts.
-
Not sure what you're asking. I think we should either have a legal, civil institution whose rights and privileges (and responsibilities) are available to all adults, or we "delegislate" and do away with the thing altogether, and let churches and religious/spiritual groups have whatever commitment rituals they wish.
-
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying. What rights are you concerned about losing if there aren't civil unions?
-
My replies were to your last two sentences 11:21
"Neither of our opinions should be legislated," (r) A proposed delegislation of marriage?
"especially when that causes such problems in others' lives." (r) I believe problems get worse when rights are not guaranteed.
"We should live our lives as we see fit, and stop short of thinking we know best for others." (r) Never would I believe I know best for anyone (I hope)- nor even myself. It's the journey that counts.
Personally, I'm not that concerned with losing rights or "problems" caused by other people's marriages. I understand this entire issue to be about gaining more rights (as defined by law, church, society, etcetera and whatever) and I do not understand what "problems in others lives" are being caused by individual rights.
Mutual respect to you - I look forward to checking back here in a few hours.
-
SHIMH: I'm having a lot of trouble following your posts.
You said:
"I believe problems get worse when rights are not guaranteed." in response to my comments about doing away with the legal institution of marriage." I'm still not sure what you're concerned about. Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post.
I believe that when people's personal beliefs are made into laws (gay marriage isn't right, etc.) then others are harmed. That's what I meant about the problems caused to others; that's why I said we shouldn't seek to force others into our beliefs about marriage (or anything else for that matter).
You seem, in this and other threads, to be stating that gay people have the right to marry, and therefore aren't being discriminated against. Since for the most part they clearly DO NOT have that right, I'm at a loss to understand where you're coming from.
My having the right to marry isn't a problem for anyone else; my not having the right to marry because someone like Maggie Gallagher thinks I shouldn't, is a problem -- not just for me, but for anyone wishing to live in a free society.
-
Please read your earlier posts: you brought up "problems"; I don't even know what they are so I can't voice any concerns about them. Oh, I just read further- yes, i believe that there will be a law soon guaranteeing people in gay marriages the same rights as people who are married.
I may be wrong, but i think i have tracked down your confusion with my point. Gay individuals have always had the exact same right as straight individuals - the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex. In your first response to me you seemed to claim a different "definition" of marriage (hence - confusion?).
For many years now, a growing voice from the gay community has sought out an entirely new right - the right to marry a partner of the same sex. Just as all adults now have the same rights to marriage, so too will all adults have the same equal rights when a law is passed to allow gay marriage.
I firmly agree with you that we should not force others into our beliefs about marriage (like: forcing the word marriage to be defined in a whole new way that includes gay unions) or (like: forcing people not to seek and be granted the entirely new right of gay marriage).
I believe your emerging right to enter into a gay marriage will not be a problem for anybody, although the bigoted few may claim so. Whether it will be called gay marriage, civil union, homohabitation, gay union or whatever, the same right will belong to everyone, not just gay people.Gay marriage is a new thing. It is not what marriage is. In what agenda would anybody seek to define gay marriage as being the same thing as marriage? Everyone agrees they are different, everyone agrees exactly what the difference is. I have enjoyed this discussion, and can think of no clearer way to state the patently obvious.
-
Marriage is primarily a culture-wide institutionalized effort to fuse reproducing couples, exactly as Maggie Gallagher says. The basic reason is to keep the man around for the children. Marriage takes on other shades over time in different cultures. Homosexual groups are trying to redefine the current Western meaning of marriage to be inclusive of homosexuals. Generally it is apparent that homosexuals want a "couple" to remain an important part of the meaning of marriage. At the same time, polyamorists want to redefine the current Western meaning of marriage to be inclusive of multiple sexual partners, generally of heterosexual partners because there are many more heterosexuals than homosexuals.
I would like to see marriage remain as an institution for heterosexual couples, with the assumption that the overall intent is to fuse the procreating couple. If some heterosexual people want to be married and have no intention or biological ability to have children, so be it. If heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, polyamorists or other sexual behavior variants want to create a legal institution of bonding with tax benefits and kinships claims, I support that.
I do resent the attempts at redefinition of the term "marriage" to be inclusive of their sexual behavior and lifestyle choices, and also resent their attempts to denigrate marriage in their pursuit of such a change. I support them to create legally defined "gayrriage", "polymarriage", "transexual marriage" or would even consider a "species diverse-bonding" if that is what tickles them. I am certain that there are people out there who would like to marry their dog or horse or whatever if the option was available to them, regardless of the presence or absence of any sexual intent. My intent there is not to equivocate homosexual behavior with bestiality, but to point out that other sexual variants and nonsexual interest groups would also like to redfine marriage to be inclusive of them. But I do not support them in their attempt to redefine marriage to include a variety of fringe behavior (which it in fact statistically is), or to be dissatisfied that their bonding is not "the same as regular marriage" when it is not in fact the same as regular marriage.
-
I propose instead that we start calling the legal, civil institution something else, and accord its rights and privileges to everybody who wants to partake. The word "marriage" has too much baggage attached to it for its use to be fair and impartial -- as evidenced by your post.
I think others have posted suggestions about personal rituals -- having some sort of ceremony marking the couple's commitment and intent to move forward together. This would be religion/belief specific; there wouldn't be the clashes between groups ("mine's real and yours isn't!"); there would be a place and time for the couple and their loved ones to celebrate their commitment; and it would be in addition to the legal contract. Couples could have both, or just one, or neither.
-
jkpotter, I suppose my "meaning" is your "baggage". Your propose removing the meaning in "marriage" and a state-sponsored elimination of the term as currently used by those who are conventionally married in order to shake loose the baggage. This would be an engineering of a "not-marriage", so that if self-defined minority groups can't have marriage, no one else can either.
I disagree. I'd rather see marriage remain as it is, and let the minority groups create their version.
-
If marriage is a commitment between two people who want to spend their lives together, then that's what it is for each couple who undertakes it. No legislation can change that. If it's a legal institution which carries rights and privileges, it must be availalble to all adults. I think it can be both, but not one to the exclusion of the other. That has nothing to do with the personal meaning marriage has for each individual; that can't be legislated either.
By "baggage" I mean the differing value and meaning people place on the word. Marriage means so many different things to different individuals; how can that possibly be the law of the land? -
jkpotter,
So you would limit the redefinition of marriage to 2 people, and maintain it as only for a couple? Surely there must be other groups of individuals who have their own personal meaning of what marriage constitutes and that does not fit within the current definition, such that they would continue to be denied/discriminated against in such a narrow redefinition? Why limit what marriage could be?
Rather than diluting "marriage" down to a meaningless state, why not let such groups declare their own version, that does not require a redefinition? It would seem that those who assail heterosexual marriage as failure should be proud to blaze a new trail full of success, rather than retreading a tired old bourgeois cliche, such as marriage.
-
Ben B:
I'm not proposing any restrictions or limitations; that's a different conversation. I'm proposing that if the legal definition does not include all who wish to marry, then the legal institution should not exist. The current argument is about civil rights, IMO. Making it a legal institution available to all eliminates all the baggage. The personal/religious/emotional beliefs about marriage aren't subject to legislation; as we know, being legally married often has little to do with the actual success of the marriage.
-
jkpotter,
The legal institution will need a definition of "marriage". Marriage can't be all things to all people "all who wish to marry", or it won't need a legal institution.
What would the definition be? You will have to impose limits if you are defining something to be codified in law. You will have to exclude some who want the label "marriage" for themselves.
Who will be excluded?
-
Ben B:
I agree, if a proper legal institution were to be created it would have to be defined carefully and specifically. Right now, there are age restrictions (which vary state to state, I think); those should probably remain. As far as your statement that "Marriage can't be all things to all people "all who wish to marry", or it won't need a legal institution," I don't think I understand. Currently, heterosexual marriage is available to all who wish to marry, with some restrictions (multiple spouses are generally illegal, etc.); does that render institution unneeded? Why are exclusions necessary per se, according to you?
-
jkpotter,
For the very reason you just posted. If there are no limitations, it can't exist as a legal entity. If some agreement or entity has no boundaries, how can it be legally distinguished from anything else?
Take the definition of "person" within the law. All human people can be a person, there is no limit so long as they are human. But definitions of "minor" or "adult" will exclude many persons, based on their very definition.
Marriage is a specific thing, with boundaries. The boundaries are some version of: one man, one woman, both of legal age of consent, not 1st degree blood relatives. You advocate redefining "marriage" or perhaps doing away with the term. If you redefine it, you will establish boundaries.
Exclusions are an unavoidable outcome of defining boundaries. You may choose to figuratively sing "koom bi ya" about it, but a redefinition will require retaining boundaries that will exclude some who seek the label "marriage" for themselves.
Who will be excluded in your redefinition of marriage?
-
Actually, what I advocate is separating the two concepts that are tangled into people's feelings about this issue. You say, "Marriage is a specific thing, with boundaries," but that's a relatively recent development. Marriage has been redefined throughout human history, always because of cultural or environmental changes that render part of its former meaning unnecessary.
Many people are using the old "marriage is for procreation" argument. In the beginning of human history male/female partnerships, however fleeting, were necessary for the survival of the species. Later in our history, conditions dictated many offspring, which gave rise to multiple wives. Still later, for reasons that aren't clear to me :), the cultural "norm" evolved into one man/one woman. There's information available indicating that homosexuality might have existed throughout our history, negating the "homosexuality is an aberration" argument.
Long story short: if the advantages of marriage are found to be beneficial, then the legal institution must be open to all. It's possible that simply striking the one man/one woman restriction will be the only change necessary to make it equitable; all other restrictions (age, mental competency, etc.) could remain.
If we're talking about the legal institution, I still don't understand why the lack of narrow definition removes the necessity for the legal contract. Not everyone who is allowed to marry wants to; that will likely be true if the "definition" of marriageable adults is altered to include gay people. What's the problem?
-
But marriage is NOT open to all. 1st degree relatives can't marry, if marriage not about an absurd obsession with procreation, why can't 1st degree relatives marry? Multiple partners can't marry, why not? Both of these things have been true in historical times, why not now?
But I see you are interested in striking "one man, one woman" from the definition of marriage. That means any consenting adults may marry, in any number. I assume you will retain "no 1st degree relatives", but correct me if that is not your intent.
Well, what you propose is not marriage. That is some new-aged, .alt form of civil union. Have at it, by all means. I certainly believe in liberty. There is no need to redefine marriage to suit this free-flowing union of adults, so call it a "unity-fest" or some similar analogue. What's the problem with that? Why must you redefine marriage into something that it is not?
-
Ben B:
My definition of marriage involves the structure itself, not the people who are in it. There are probably good reasons to restrict who gets to participate -- your comments about close relatives is a good example -- but gender certainly is not one of them. The fact that something is done in a particular way for a long time doesn't give it value, or make it true.
You define marriage in a particular way. I accept and respect your opinion, and your right to conduct your marriage, should you choose to have one, according to your beliefs. All any gay person is asking is for the acknowledgement that one person's opinion, or one side's, is only that: opinion. It should not carry the weight of law.
I see no inherent downside to allowing gay people the same legal rights as everybody else. I see plenty of upside, and plenty of downside to the "majority rules" criterion being applied to civil rights. I speak as a beneficiary of the striking down of laws based on what "everbody knows is true" regarding voting and ownership of property.
-
jkpotter,
You said "I see no inherent downside to allowing gay people the same legal rights as everybody else. "
Indeed, and I agree. But this touches an issue that is seen in many attemtpts to change the definition of marriage. In many cases, especially California, a civil union concept that allows homosexuals (and others) equivalent legal rights to marriage is rejected as inadequate, because "it is not marriage." This is what I object to, the demand to redefine marriage to include practices that are in essential opposition to what marriage is. Polyamorists want their changes made, homosexuals want their changes made. Both are demanding that the Western definition of marriage be redefined to suit their lifestyle tastes. This is often followed, especially by the homosexual lobby and their sympathizers, with snarky denigrations of how lousy heterosexual marriage is, "so why keep the concept intact?"
I object to the rejection of legal rights equivalents of marriage and insistence on a redefinition of marriage (which must include the term "marriage") to suit the tastes of various sexual behavior variants. I believe that in such cases what they are seeking is a validation of themselves and their sexual behavior by assailing and redefining the useful and needed cultural/legal institution of marriage.
-
Ben:
If the institution that carries the special legal rights and privileges is called marriage, then it needs to be redefined. The civil unions that exist are not the same as the legally recognized marriage, which is restricted to heterosexual couples.
I see two possible solutions, as I've said before: do away with the legal institution, which is currently inequitable, or change it to include gays as well as straights. If we're a country and a culture that values our equality, that goes out of our way to ensure that we all have equal rights under the law, then let's do that. If we mean, "equal rights, except for the people we don't want to have them," then we're in bigger trouble than we think.
We're saying the same things over and over. We disagree. Let's leave it at that.
-
Ms. G is essentially saying, that she is not bigoted because her discrimination is rooted in facts, or is correct. So, if I am correct, well, then I could not be said to be bigoted. The problem is that Ms. G is not correct or incorrect, because the argument she proposes is essentially unprovable, and is based on a definition of marriage that will always be subjective. It is kind of like thinking it is okay to discriminate against black people because you can prove they are actually inferior, rather then merely disliking them willy-nilly.
Even if Ms. G is correct and gay relationships are somehow inferior, or even merely not the same as heterosexual relationships, she still needs to show why the discrimination is necessary and beneficial. And how could she ever do that? Marriage is a relative term, that as many have said, evolves over time, has different meanings for different people here, and in different cultures and in different periods of time. Ms. G bases her whole argument for allegedly useful discrimination on a premise that can never be substantiated. She is basing her premise on the recipe she feels is the true cheesecake, and then trying to ban all the other cheesecakes in the world, and writing books about the true cheesecake, wasting all this breath about the correct cheesecake---but there will never be the ultimate cheesecake, because there is no true form to compare it to. And, even if you feel there is one true cheesecake, why stop the rest of the world from enjoying their versions?
-
Discriminating against married people by thinking/stating that same sex unions are the same as marriage is kind of like thinking/stating it is okay to discriminate against black people because you can prove they are actually inferior, rather then merely disliking them willy-nilly. Neither of these claims are provable or accepted as truth.
Gay individuals have always had the right to marry, same as everybody else - but why would they? Everybody knows gay people choose relationships with people of the same sex, instead.
Where, oh where, is this claimed "discrimination"?
-
Exactly. A fruitcake or German chocolate cake is not in fact a cheesecake, so why are you trying to make these other cakes be called cheesecake?
-
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
How does the fact that gays wish to marry discriminate against straight marriages?
Legislating a legal state which carries many privileges, and denying those privileges to a group of people based on their gender, is exactly analogous to denying people the right to vote because of their race or gender. Bigotry. Discrimination.
Gays want the right to marry whom they wish, not just to marry. You know, just like straight people do.
By the way, having people you disagree with gain rights and privileges that you don't think they should have, doesn't mean you're being discriminated against.
-
SoHonestItMightHurt,
That was so dumb it might not make sense.... . Nope, it didn’t make sense! I can’t decipher what your point is. I don’t think gay marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage, in fact I don’t think the marriage of chipmunks is the same as heterosexual marriage. And? Why do I need to think they are the same to allow them? You are saying all the cheesecakes in the world must be like yours, but, god forbid I add toppings, because, then I will have watered-down your brand, and have made something that is no longer a cheesecake. Well, you don’t own the brand. No one does! Too bad you don’t get that luxury, you don’t get the right to copyright how my cheesecake is prepared.
I hope you have the strength and resilience to not allow the decisions of others to somehow infringe on the power of the unions you have made. I hope your marriages are not that weak that they cannot weather what you must see as the competition. If heterosexual marriage is so strong, and the omnipotent way, then you need not worry about what other people are doing, your spangled ways of truth will automatically shine brightly in the end. You have nothing to fear, except yourselves, and what you attempt to deny to others---and the rotten historical legacy you will heap upon this planet.
-
Well Scott, to sum up without ridiculing anyone else's posts,
Comparing a false or unprovable statement to discrimination against black people does not mean the false statement is discrimination or evidence of bigotry.
I must not have heard the entire show, since I never heard Ms G. say that a gay union was inferior to marriage, only that it was not marriage. All apologies if I missed that part (I tuned in rather late). Same sex marriages are a fact, and I'm sure most people agree that many gay marriages are superior to many marriages. I realize I am in no way a judge or arbiter of good/bad or superior/inferior.
Some people like their cheesecake with blueberries. Most people would admit that it is a blueberry cheesecake, or perhaps a cheesecake with blueberries. Even if you shorten the name and just call it a cheesecake, there is no hiding the fact that it has blueberries.
Gay individuals have always had the right to marry, same as everybody else - but why would they? Everybody knows gay people choose relationships with people of the same sex, instead.
Where, oh where, is this claimed "discrimination"? Since all individuals have the same rights, heterosexual people could conceivably enter into a gay marriage - again, what would be the point?
People who are intolerant of what marriage is certainly have that right, but it does not change any facts. Perhaps the fundamental challenge is that some people don't understand that gay people have the EXACT same rights as straight people in marriage, and that gay marriage (formally recognized by church or state) is a new thing. Since you don't think that gay marriage is the same as marriage, I can tell you are not one of these people. So where's the discrimination? Gay marriage should have EXACTLY all of the same rights and priveleges as marriage. That does not mean we can claim that it IS the same, in fact I think all I have read on this thread recognizes this one simple fact.
Perhaps you misunderstood me or mistook me for another poster. I firmly believe gay marriages are and should be permitted. They are exactly that - gay marriages - and should have all of the same rights as marriages have.
-
Now I'm really confused.
In a few states, gays are allowed to marry the way straights are. In most of the country, they aren't. I can't figure out what you're saying, or decipher the differences between this post and your previous ones.
-
jkpotter:
Well, after reading the "dumb" comment and poorly veiled attacks another poster made, along with a few blatantly false claims of what I had said, I made an attempt to cordially clarify myself.
My point is simple: gay marriage and marriage are different. Each of my posts seeks to illuminate, but probably only allows for confusion of, that one simple fact.
From early childhood we are all aware that boys and girls (men and women) are different. It is a fundamental and immutable fact. Marriage occurs between a husband and a wife. Gay marriage occurs between two husbands or two wives. Again, fundamental.
Methinks the second definition of discriminate is to distinguish accurately. I believe I have discriminated the difference between marriage and gay marriage. We simply can not say they are the same. They are not the same.
-
SH:
Okay. You're saying that "marriage" means man and woman, right? Or are you saying that a gay marriage is "different" because it means two of one gender, and "marriage" is one of each?
If I'm reading your post correctly, gay marriage is marriage between two of the same gender. Marriage is between two of different genders. Otherwise, they're the same. Right?
Still unanswered: my question about your stating that gays have the right to marry. They don't, not most places. That's what started the whole thing: the movement to give gays that same right.
-
Caution: duplicate from above, same single point as always:
I may be wrong, but i think i have tracked down your confusion with my point. Gay individuals have always had the exact same right as straight individuals - the right to marry a partner of the opposite sex. In your first response to me you seemed to claim a different "definition" of marriage (hence - confusion?).
For many years now, a growing voice from the gay community has sought out an entirely new right - the right to marry a partner of the same sex. Just as all adults now have the same rights to marriage, so too will all adults have the same equal rights when a law is passed to allow gay marriage.
I firmly agree with you that we should not force others into our beliefs about marriage (like: forcing the word marriage to be defined in a whole new way that includes gay unions) or (like: forcing people not to seek and be granted the entirely new right of gay marriage).
I believe your emerging right to enter into a gay marriage will not be a problem for anybody, although the bigoted few may claim so. Whether it will be called gay marriage, civil union, homohabitation, gay union or whatever, the same right will belong to everyone, not just gay people.Gay marriage is a new thing. It is not what marriage is. In what agenda would anybody seek to define gay marriage as being the same thing as marriage? Everyone agrees they are different, everyone agrees exactly what the difference is. I have enjoyed this discussion, and can think of no clearer way to state the patently obvious.
-
SoHonestItMightHurt,
Wow, spending all that energy on that banal, nit-picking conclusion---I don’t believe it! It is also unfortunately invalid, not to mention, pointless, and at core semantic. And, no, everybody does not know ‘that gay people choose relationships with people of the same sex, instead.’ Nor do we know that heterosexuals choose relationships with people of the other sex. In the beginning, perhaps there was the first instance of cheesecake, and that cheesecake was what we might now term as original or plain or NY, but just because new variations came along, it doesn’t mean they are not all still cheesecakes---or that we can’t even refine the definition of what the general term cheesecake includes or is. These claims are based around historicity, and they have little other value or use. Improving or modifying the recipe for cheesecake doesn’t invalidate the previous cheesecakes or stop the progression of new cheesecakes. The definition of our physical relationships, and also our linguistics are continuously evolving. Language is a symbolic or representative expression that can and does change over time. Perhaps at one time, or in one culture, all marriage was arranged---so maybe those people didn’t use the term ‘arranged marriage,’ they just said ‘marriage.’ But all these kinds of marriages are still marriages, just like all the variations of cheesecake are still cheesecake. If you want to use the term ‘gay marriage’ to differentiate between marriages, perhaps it is fine to do so, but then you probably should also use the term ‘heterosexual marriage’, particularly if you don’t want to show favoritism to one instance over another. But, it is hard to swallow, that the motivation for this overzealous labeling on your part isn’t based upon the belief that one instance must be inferior to the other.
You attempt to get around the discrimination claim by proposing that gay marriage isn’t even really the same kind of marriage anyway, as if you were merely stopping people from putting apples in orange juice, and still calling it orange juice. But what you are more severely doing is deciding on what juice itself actually is, and what single fruit it can be squeezed from. So gay people can marry, just with people who are of the opposite sex. But if they want to marry on their terms, well they can’t---what they can do is just get ‘gay-married.’
Many people may agree that gay marriage is different in the matter-of-fact way that it obviously is, with regard to the sexes of partners. But to what degree they see that difference as being, or meaning, is the important question. Yes, you have stated the obvious, obviously, but to what end?
-
SH:
Well, I congratulate you on splitting a hair so finely that no one else can see the point. Looks like we've come full circle, right back where I thought we were the first time I read your post.
You define marriage as man-woman. Gays can marry -- as long as they do it your way. Only in your universe does that amount to an equal right.
For the record, I don't agree that one person being allowed to marry whomever they want is "forcing" anybody to do anything. You might not like it, you might decide to further split the definition hair, but that's your choice. It's not being forced on you.
I look forward to the day when everybody understands that the only difference between marriage between gays and straights is the genders of the participants.
Peace out.
-
Well, i guess that the feigned ignorance from the two (one?) of you finally came to an undeniable head. Yes, I did waste lots of time on your education, but now that you know you cannot deny the truth (maybe you can, good luck living that fairy-tale!)
Facts are facts, please discuss them with your gay friends and find out the majority will not support your semantic tripe.
No other group that felt discriminated against has escaped through denial of the truth, the homosexual community can only move forward by admitting the truth as it stands today.
I wish you the best of luck; please remember personal attacks on me or on the truth serve nobody. Good Evening.
Oh, p.s: I do not have a "preferred" way of getting married, I do have a desire to be truthful in order to progress.
Are you positive I am not gay also?
-
Now that paternity can be reliably established without needing to lean on the patriarchal trappings of a mythical "chaste" marriage framework, how are Ms. Gallagher's arguments supportable?
I found the comments on the show of the father in the committed long term relationship, regarding the intentional and complicated process whereby a gay couple can adopt a child, very compelling. Obviously he and his partner gave much more thought to becoming parents than many (including Ms. Gallagher); and probably intelligently appreciated the obligations they were taking on. Testimony such as his addresses the asserted need for a child to have two parents, one of each gender.
Whose child would you rather be? Elton John's or Maggie Gallagher's. Does it matter?
-
I think the speaker's point is not that we should discriminate against individuals based upon sexual preference, or unwed pregancies, but that we should support what is best for our society's preservation and stability, the healthy root of which are our children.
-
I agree with your statement. I disagree with Ms. Gallagher about the effect of gay marriage on children.
-
If you want to really help preserve society and promote healthy, loved children, you'd be distributing birth control. Everywhere.
I'm going to close with a bit of pop culture that was making it's way around Facebook in December. "So, let me get this straight...Larry King is on his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with everyone; and yet the idea of same-sex marriage is still going to destroy the institution....of marriage? Really?" (And, incidentally, they are all parents).
-
In response to Maggie:
1. I am a straight woman happily married to a man. We will celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary in 2 months. We have chosen not to have children. According to Maggie, apparently I'm not really married, right? Because my marriage is not "for the purpose of creating children." If that's not her position, then her claim about why straight marriage is okay but gay marriage is not, is false.
2. It is true that lots of straight people get divorced. It is also true that this is often harmful to children. However, what does this have to do with gay marriage? How does not allowing gay people to get married lower the divorce rate of straight people? It's like saying, "Well, if we don't allow anybody who lives in Kentucky to get married, that will lower the divorce rate in Oregon."
3. Her claim that making divorce "no fault" "slightly raised the divorce rate" may or may not be true, but it is a specious argument. Before "no fault" divorce, people couldn't get divorced even if they wanted to -- even if they hated each other, unless there were "legal grounds." So lots of people went on in miserable, hateful, abusive marriages because they COULDN'T get divorced. Why is being in a miserable, hateful marriage simply because you cannot legally get out of it better than getting a divorce? And once again, what does that have to do with gay people being able to get married?
4. She has yet to articulate ONE practical, real reason for how letting gay people get married weakens straight marriages. The only one she came up with in the entire segment was: "Lots of people like me don't believe that gay people should get married, and if we allow the definition of marriage to be expanded to include gay people in the public square, then people will call us bigots." So, in other words, "I want to go on having opinions which many people consider bigoted, but I don't want to be labelled a bigot, so therefore the law shouldn't allow gay marriage so I can go on with my bigoted opinions without any public stigma." Which is (a) astoundingly self-serving, (b) a ridiculously circular argument ("I don't believe gay people should be able to marry because I don't believe gay people should be able to marry") and (c) has nothing to do with "protecting straight marriage" OR "protecting children" and everything to do with "protecting my right to have bigoted opinions without any negative social repercussions."
-
I am a straight woman. I was unable to have children and my first marriage ended largely as a result. I would love to marry again and am currently in a committed, loving relationship with a man. Fortunately, my boyfriend doesn't want children. Unfortunately, he too was once married and doesn't want to marry again because "marriage is old-fashioned and out of date - a lot of people are choosing not to marry, even when they have children together". I still want to get married. I believe in marriage as a public declaration and celebration of love between adults. My boyfriend is considering a civil union... I mention all of this because a good male friend of mine just married the love of his life: another man. They are hoping to adopt at least 2 children. I think they will be exceptional and very loving parents.
I heard Maggie mention on the program that the purpose of marriage is for a man and woman who love each other to create children. By that rationale, I should never have married to begin with and should never hope to marry again. I can't have children. But I feel that my life as a woman still holds value even though I can't create new people. I think I could still be a wonderful, loving wife with a purpose in this world without making children. I'm so sad that her experience as a single mother didn't help her to better understand that marriage is about so much more than making children. I'm sorry that she didn't have a man to help her raise her child, but I'm more sorry that she can't see that a family is created by loving people - be they two men or two women.
-
I'm agreeing with so many comments on here. First and foremost, saying marriage is solely for the protection of children (which may or may not enter the picture), is ridiculous. Marriage is, and should be, a right that any two people who are in love can enjoy. Period. By entering into a marriage, one's relationship isn't any more holy or valued than any other committed relationship, it's simply an avenue for people who are in love to demonstrate their love and committment for the other. Look at Scandanavian countries: they are consistently ranked the "highest quality of life" but have one of the lowest marriage rates. I think the important thing is that marriage is an option for people, all people, who want to go that route.
Secondly, saying that a marriage "legitimizes" children, is completely bogus. As a teacher and a former social worker (who worked with pregnant and parenting wards of the state) and an adoptee (my biological mom was 16 and my biological father was 34. Yuck, I know.), anyone, and I mean anyone, can produce a baby. Sure, if you don't know your biological parents, there will be curiosity, but what really matters is that the child is raised with love. In my class of 29 students, I have 3 whose two biological parents are together. Does that make those children better or more loved than the other kids? No way. It just means that the Beaver Cleaver "ideal" household has changed and everyone has the right to define their family for themselves.
What matters most (again, as a teacher/social worker/compassionate person) is that each and every child is loved, cared for, and wanted; ideally by as many people as possible. Kids who are adopted/born to couples who are unable to conceive naturally (for whatever reason) are, in my opinion and experience, often the most loved kids out there. Their parents had to work to become parents and that work often involves years of waiting, hoping, a huge financial committment, and opening your lives to the scrutiny of many people to see if you'll be a "fit" parent. When I was a social worker, I had a 13 year old boy who was a parent. Twice. He was a gang-banger and, when I became his case manager, was locked up for 6 months for armed robbery. He was robbing a jewelry store to "put a ring on it for his baby momma." (AKA, he was going to propose to his kid's mom who was, at that time, 15). And miss Maggie G wants to tell me that because those two kids were going to get married, their relationship was sacred and their kids were going to have a better life simply because their parents were married? I. Don't. Think. So.
-
Maggie is absolutely hiding behind her argument that marriage is about the importance of children being raised by their mother and father. I find it interesting that she had a child out of wedlock and was a single mom, raising her kid without a father... and that was okay! So who is she to say that a gay couple, whether 2 men or 2 women, is not just as loving and capable of raising a child?
She says that heterosexual marriage regulates sexuality? According to whom does sexuality need to be regulated?
The idea that homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals is bigoted. Maggie's argument is empty and simply an excuse to avoid facing the reality that she is devaluing homosexuals as people, purporting that they don't deserve the same rights that she does- and that is bigoted. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you just admit it Maggie?
-
So basically what you charge is: anyone upholding a social norm about as old as mankind is a "bigot"? There are scores of cultural rules..taboos and other rules designed to keep order in society and promote activities and standards of conduct that have been found over the centuries to provide a stable structure for child rearing and for the general well being of the majority of the group. So in your view any rule that impinges on what you see as your right to act in anyway you see fit, is bigoted?
All societies are in this way bigoted. Unlike the screwed up mess in this country where every conceivable sexual urge or letch is politicalized and organized into a movement (like the one predominate on this board) and feel they have a right to skew social norms and the prevailing culture in any direction that suits their sexual predelictions. But this is not bigoted; only those who would oppose this diasterous meddling with traditional values are bigots.
Is this, then, your well considered view of the situation?
-
It is very hard to choose. Get married so that the baby has a father. Separate and raise the child by a women herself. You have to be rather strong.
English Chinese translation
-
The personal elements of a long term marriage form a basis for two people to face the world and support each other with lifetime love, and for many reasons should be nobody's business but their own. I see no reason why a gay or lesbian couple cannot have the same right to privacy and the benign support of a state's laws as a heterosexual couples.
Sammy, the yacht charter guy
-
This program insulted your listeners. Talking over each other, being derisive of things the other said. It seemed to me that what evolved was winning an argument, especially Todd Simmons, rather than honestly expressing his view of what he believed about the topic. I think you chose two people you knew would clash this way, and you got what you wanted and deserved, but certainly not what listeners deserve, which is honesty. You presented the highly extreme personal viewpoints of these two people rather than broad viewpoints. Your listeners should not be subjected to such an outrageous performance. Why don't you have a new program on a similar topic with REAL people to talk about it? Todd Simmons does not seem to have the fatherly qualities that I would want to find if I would be in the position of selecting a parent for a child needing to be adopted. He wants to win, and win only, whatever the consequences. Very dangerous for children.
-
Keep in mind, this lady is selling a book!! That is what the interview was all about.
The Lord only know what strong views she honestly holds in these matters...if any at all beyond what makes for an interesting (presumably) and controversial book. This fact accounts for the contraditions and inconsistancies between her stated views, written material and, on the other hand, her own life choices as revealed.
-
Advocates for SSM are not pushing for marriage equality. They are advocating for the separate right to create gender segregated homes (male/male or female/female) as opposed to the existing right to create gender integrated homes (male/female) They want this separate right to be treated on an equal plane with the existing right.
This is nothing more than the discredited segregationist mantra of, "Separate but equal" applied to gender. -
Todd Simmons mentioned on the show that polling shows widespread support for SSM. The only polling with any significance is the polling done during elections. The results are in, and so far it is something like 30 to nothing in favor of maintaining the traditional conception of marriage. The institution of marriage is something that society has created, and our society should be permitted to maintain it as is, or change it, as it sees fit, through the democratic process.
-
If the poll is accurate, all it means is that increasingly amoral, ill-educated, drugged Americans will happily contribute their bit to our decline as a great nation. An all encompassing tolerance will quickly turn the country into a cess pool motivated solely by an 'anything goes' philosophy.
Our moral degenracy is shown most dramatically in the sad fact that most Americans think our score of conflicts across the globe in which tens of thousands of inoffensive people are murdered each yr is A Good Thing and a noble cause.
Once a cultural is fractured in such a fundamental way that not even marriage can be supported..everything else is hopelessly skewed, even the concept of humanity and the moral behavior of Govt.
-
Our society is flawed in every direction, witness the murders that took place in gun-loving Arizona. What a tragedy. What a commentary on our society. I am not really for SSM, but I'm not really against it either. It comes down to the individual persons, just as in heterosexual relationships. I have seen some very loving, committed relationships between SS, long-term partners. Someone like Todd, who leaves a terminally ill partner, and puts the onus for the decision on his parents isn't a loving, caring, mature person, and his nasty win-lose behavior toward Maggie also showed his true nature.
SSM is a very different thing from being given a child to raise. I repeat, Todd is not the father I'd pick for a vulnerable child. It all comes down to individuals and how they manage to mature in a stressed out society. We've been warring too long, and it takes a terrible toll. Hatefulness must be replaced by acceptance of someone else's different attitudes. Or color. Or religion. Or politics.
-
Is there any agreement by posters here that any culture to be nurturing, protective and stable must be compounded of both the allowed and the disallowed behaviors? If there are no boundaries, that is, moral/ethical limitations on individual and group behavior, then what there is, IS NOT a national culture, but rather a collection of people doing whatever they wish, to and with whomever they wish.
This translates into social chaos, where all normative beliefs and standards are abolished. But these collective beliefs (bigotry or prejudice as some would term them) are the glue that hold a people together in the same way that language and religion and heroes, mythology, etc. enable a entire people to establish a national identification.
No doubt a large number of people do suffer from poor life choices, mental derangement, and drug induced states which have left them anguished and unhappy. However these private problems do not give them any right to organize and attempt to rearrange the national culture around the consequences of what is mostly their own choices.
As one consequence of your Movement's efforts, the State Department on it's application for passports have removed gender specific questions on parentage. It is now "Parent One and Parent Two".
BRAVO! We're well on our way.
-
Comments are now closed.
