- Carl Peaslee on Summer Stories Series: "The form is fixed now. It is at the bottom of the post...."
- Kelsey Brown on Letters to Freshmen: The High School Sweetheart: "I believe what she meant was that if you are consumed by your relation..."
- missed the point on Letters to Freshmen: The High School Sweetheart: "I think my name says it..."
- in a relationship on Letters to Freshmen: The High School Sweetheart: "why can't someone feel satisfied with their relationship and be happy ..."
- Jillian on Pimp My Campus: "oooh, new walkway! so excited to see it when I get back!!..."
My Civil Union
If the debate and controversy surrounding Prop. 8 have taught us anything, its that few issues evoke more passion than gay marriage. Those in favor view the abridgment of a homosexual’s right to marry as a violation of their most fundamental of freedoms, while those opposed view gay marriage as an affront to the moral fabric that underlies our fine nation.
I too have always felt a little conflicted on this issue. While I without question support the right of gays and lesbians to come together in order to form lifelong partnerships, I cannot argue with the fact that marriage is a term caught up in the trappings of religion. Historically, marriage consisted of a bride and groom being brought together into holy matrimony under the auspices of a priest or minister officiating at a local church. Simply, marriage is a term and an institution that has throughout history been associated with religion. This is why I have always found it is easier to support the idea of full civil unions rather than marriage for gays and lesbians.
Recently, however, I have begun to question even my own attachment to the term marriage. While I may be straight, I am by no stretch of the imagination religious. So for what reason do I feel the need to get married? When I gave it a little thought, I struggled to find one answer as to why a civil union would be insufficient for my purposes. I am not religious and I frankly feel no need to participate in the traditional marriage ritual. I would go so far as to actually say that those who are straight but not religious should express their solidarity with the gay community by requesting civil unions as well. This is what I hope to someday do.
I believe that this sort of understanding of gay marriage has the potential bridge the divide of opinion that currently exists in America. The State could issue civil unions to all those who desired them, gay and straight alike. Those who felt so inclined could take the additional step and participate in a marriage ceremony at their local place of worship. Civil unions would remain the proper domain of the state and marriage the proper domain of religion.
Recent
48 Comments
2009-03-10
17:29:53
Dear Mr. Kline:
I enjoyed your exposition on civil unions, published in the fair and balanced Forum. Proceeding with the assumption that despite your gallimaufry of misguided presuppositions and flagrant disregard for freedom of religion, you maintain some semblance of respect for civil discussion, I would like to submit for your consideration a sober, clear-headed account of why heterosexual marriage is an institution so integral to our society that any effort to bring about its unmaking, such as yours, should be fought tooth and nail.
To begin, I would like to summarize my understanding of your argument. You first introduce the ongoing struggle between left-wing homosexual activists who strive to redefine marriage and those who wish to protect it. You then mention that this struggle has evoked within you a great uneasiness that marriage, as understood in our nation, has a religious association. Your alternative is to dispose of with marriage as we have understood it for centuries and hide it behind the closed doors of churches, meanwhile using our town and city halls to publicly parade homosexuality for every American child to see. You write that this proposed uncoupling of state and marriage will "bridge the divide of opinion that currently exists in this country." I beg you to unmask your intentions and boldly say what your proposition screams: that this proposed uncoupling of state and marriage will destroy the sacred bond between man and woman, legitimize homosexual behavior and homosexual partnerships, open the door to further desecrations of moral values such as polygamist marriage, and relegate religion to the dark fringes of American society, so that our pastors may be forced to occupy a social territory shared by prostitutes and pederasts.
Putting same sex relationships on par with straight relationships threatens the sacred bond between one man and one woman. For hundreds of years, marriage has been understood as being between one man and one woman. This relationship has fostered a stable environment for children, enabling the transmission of the moral values that allow for the stability and continuity of human civilization. It is imperative for the success of American society that the state encourage such a stable and time-tested structure. Our nation already discourages certain negative behaviors through economic and punitive incentives and disincentives. We place high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and have banned some extremely dangerous substances, such as marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms among others. It is similarly vital that we encourage positive relationships that foster a caring, stable environment for children.
If the government is to grant parity to the relationships of homosexuals and heterosexuals, it detracts from the special meaning of heterosexual relationships. Homosexual activists make loud demands that they be allowed to marry but apart from their desire to marry, the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate how the recognition of their relationships will benefit society as a whole. The ability of homosexuals to raise children should not be assumed to rival that of heterosexual parents. Homosexuals, after all, are naturally incapable of producing children. Their heterosexual counterparts do not lack this incapacity. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice, it is clear that marriage between one man and one woman is a stable institution that encourages child-bearing and rearing and allows for the transmission of moral values to those children. With the rampant sexual infidelity, lack of self-restraint, and disregard for gender roles in the homosexual community, I remain unsure that such people are equally qualified to transmit moral values to their children.
Your arguments, taken to the logical extreme, will allow for a depravity yet unmatched by any modern society, including those in Europe. If we rob from the state the ability to administer marriage and allow civil unions to all two-person relationships, why not extend this right to polygamous groups? If a group of three polygamists wishes to enter into a civil union, there is nothing under your plan, Mr. Kline, that should prevent them from doing so. You might accept homosexuality, but surely no sane person would ignore the immorality of polygamy.
Moreover, your proposition ignores the right of people to exercise their freedom of religion. If we are not able to make any moral judgments at all, our nation will be left devoid of religion and will languish in moral poverty. Furthermore, religion, namely Christian religion, has been a central part of the American social fabric since the first settlers landed on our great nation's shores in the seventeenth century. Who, might I ask, are you, Mr. Kline, to deny our heritage and tradition? Your suppression of religion rejects American tradition and would render us incapable of banning even the most heinous and repulsive acts.
I request from you a reconsideration of your previous argument based on these criticisms. Unless you are willing to discount the stability of traditional marriage, condone polygamy, and turn your back on religion, I urge you to repent. We must protect marriage from those who wish to take it from us, and your suggestion aligns all too nicely with the broader liberal conspiracy to restrain and banish religion from American political discourse. Please join me in my efforts to save our society.
Sincerely,
Sebastian Arcus
2009-03-10
18:09:26
how can you write a response that's more than twice as long as the original post? why don't you just submit it as a post in the first place? wow.
2009-03-10
19:24:18
Really? Your "efforts to save our society?" That is a lofty goal for someone who believes in liberal conspiracies. We (liberals) can't even get out act together to pass a liberal stimulus plan, let alone take on religion.
2009-03-10
19:25:45
Mr. Arcus:
"[T]he burden of proof lies with [homosexuals] to demonstrate how the recognition of their relationships will benefit society as a whole."
In the United States, government does not exist to protect rights that benefit society; it exists to protect individual liberties, so long as they do not detrimentally affect society. Your basis is wrong.
Moreover, you insist that gay marriage undermines traditional marriage. You are wrong. If the ban against gay marriage lifts, heterosexuals could still receive marriage licenses in precisely the manner they could before. They could still raise families in precisely the manner they could before. Straight men could still knock up straight girls, and the two "parents" could still abandon their child to an emotionless adoption vacuum. But with gay marriage, there might be a loving gay couple out there willing to care for that abandoned, helpless child. There might be a non-traditional couple willing to counterbalance a "traditional" society that has devalued families enough to discard thousands of children every year.
Then again, you could relegate those unions to an uncertain legal and cultural status. Or you could outlaw these couples from adopting abandoned, helpless children. You could base your decision on intangible, baseless concepts of "devaluing traditional families." Meanwhile, you will leave real families to fester by the might your bigotry.
I generally value people's individual opinions, and I almost always respect that good people can disagree. But the arguments you have presented are petty, illogical, and dangerous. You should feel ashamed of what you have written.
2009-03-10
19:26:15
Did you really just equate homosexuality with "hard" drugs like marijuana and mushrooms? Where do you think you live? Pot is practically legal in LA.
2009-03-10
21:33:28
Brad's characterization of Sebastian's arguments as "illogical" could not be more correct. I would like to focus this criticism on one point made by Sebastian: that Spencer's argument interferes with the freedom of religion.
This is an assumption that Sebastian takes for granted, despite its want for any rational or logical foundation. The ability of others to marry does not affect the freedom of religious groups. The fact remains that religious groups remain able to determine to whom they will (not) grant marriages. Under a regime that were to allow for homosexual and heterosexual marriages, conservative churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples would still be able to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Though conservative religious groups might oppose divorce and refuse to grant new marriages to those who have annulled previous marriages, I would be hard pressed to find a rational person to argue that divorce impedes upon their freedom of religion. Freedom of religion would be infringed upon if the law were to force religious groups to marry homosexuals. Nobody has made that argument here.
Spencer has, in fact, made a slightly different argument, which I applaud. His argument for government sanctioned civil unions for all, and private marriages for those who choose to pursue such ceremonies within their own religious communities hits on an interesting point: marriage for some denotes a civil agreement, whereas for others, it signifies a religious commitment. The problem with "gay marriage" is that it strikes religious conservatives as an affront on a religious institution. Spencer is merely taking government out of marriage. In its place will be a civil institution. This proposed separation allows religious groups full discretion in choosing who they want to marry, while allowing homosexuals the same governmental rights as heterosexuals. In the same vein, public schools are separated from religious schools, preserving the divide between state and religion while at the same time allowing for freedom of religion. Spencer's argument is not an assault on religion, but rather an attempt at bringing secularism to a governmental institution still tangled in religion.
2009-03-10
21:57:16
I'd respond, but I'll just be censored by Ross.
2009-03-10
22:38:00
I just write things to piss people off, too. And make petty arguments and quips on the internet.
2009-03-20
13:31:14
ross is officially not editor anymore... go crazy
2009-03-20
14:03:59
Officially still your editor until Monday night ;)
2009-03-10
22:00:22
Charles this is as you often say a forum, so I want to hear your opinion. If you keep it civil and polite, I'll assure you that you won't be censored. Unless your fear of being censored is just a front covering for the fact that you don't have an argument. If that's the case, don't worry I won't blow things for you.
2009-03-10
22:43:14
Why has the Forum not commented or reported on David Daleiden and Kyle Kinneberg being banned by Pomona College?
2009-03-10
22:50:34
What is there to comment or report that hasn't already been commented or reported to an absurd extent elsewhere?
2009-03-10
22:57:33
If you don't know that story you haven't been outside in a week.
2009-03-10
22:59:21
instead of asking why, you can submit a post to be published.
2009-03-10
23:35:39
Charles I am still waiting for a response...Can I take your silence to indicate agreement with my argument?
2009-03-10
23:45:53
Response to come. Exams tomorrow. Working on getting a life, as well. -- With love, Charles
2009-03-11
00:42:46
I don't know that targeted personal comments have a space in this thread, which, in my understanding, is here to allow us a space for debate and discussion. I happen to disagree with Sebastian, for example, but this disagreement is political, not personal, and so it will remain as such. If you have a personal disagreement with someone, like "Applause" does, please deal with it elsewhere and spare us your incivility.
2009-03-11
02:01:54
Sebastian:
While I have the time, I would like to respond to another point of yours. In your response to Spencer's article, you write that marriage exists in order to encourage child-bearing and the transmission of morals to children. You then conclude this point by stating, "I remain unsure that [homosexuals] are...qualified to transmit moral values to their children."
Even if the institution of marriage exists solely for the purpose of child-bearing and the transmission of morals to children, it is unclear to me why excluding homosexuals impede this goal. To this day, I cannot think of one gay marriage that has inhibited a straight couple from having children. If you still insist that marriage exists solely for those who can bear children, then it is unclear to me why straight couples who are unable to have children should be granted this right. Similarly, those straight couples that are unwilling to have children should be denied marriage certificates. Any logical inconsistency should not be tolerated; even granting your definition of marriage, if it is to be allowed to those who do not or cannot have children, there can be no exclusion of homosexuals from the institution.
Still, your supposition that homosexuals are unqualified to be parents would, I suppose, allow any straight couple to marry without extending the rights to gay couples. This supposition is baseless. First, it is wrong to assume that every straight couple is "fit" to raise children. Furthermore, it is scientifically accepted that children of homosexuals are exactly the same as children of heterosexuals, save for one difference. Rates of homosexuality are no different in the two groups, nor are social exclusion, depression, behavioral problems, academic performance, self-esteem, or family relationships. What is that one difference? Children of homosexuals are "more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual." It's quite late and I am badly in need of a cup of coffee but my instinct tells me that having tolerant children is not a threat to the continuity of civilization. But who knows, that might just be the caffeine withdrawal gnawing at my ability to reason.
2009-03-11
11:50:02
Haha, Sir Sebastian Arcus got railed. Get outta here!
2009-03-11
18:07:26
So does anyone else think that polygamists who love each other and want a polygamous life should be free to enjoy any of the same rights I do? Can anyone please make a strong argument against allowing any loving qualified individuals to raise children worse than foster care/adoption facilities? I've compared gay marriages and polygamist marriages and gotten horrified looks from pro-gay marriage people. Why should any loving people be stopped from marriage? Parents who love their kids are good, we should give as many kids a chance for this as possible.
2009-03-11
18:58:22
Dear Adam et. al.
I want to put forth an argument on this issue. Why should the state be involved in marriage at all? I've heard the argument that married couples can produce children, and that children are a public good, so we should subsidize the act of marriage through certain tax breaks. This argument may be archaic or even wrong in this day and age, but it is a reason why the state is involved in marriage. Gay couples cannot produce children on their own (except through artificial insemination or adoption, which will be addressed later). Polygamist couples can produce many children but regardless of whether the data supports it, the public's perception is that being raised in a polygamist setting is unnatural, bad for child development, and just plain wrong as it takes advantage of (mostly) women.
Exploitation is independent of consent.
Polygamy, as practiced in the U.S, is inherently exploitative of women. We do not have group marriages in the U.S where one wife has many husbands and one husband has many wives. We have a system where one husband has many wives. I'm not sure if there are any documented cases here where one wife has many husbands, though even if this is true, then the guys are being exploited, or so the argument goes. Besides the exploitation argument, there is the argument that plural marriages are bad for child development. I don't have any data on this, and I think that we can show a correlation with plural marriages and development, but I'd guess this is because of of confounding variables having to due with poverty, religion, etc. I won't address the moral arguments as I don't give credence to moral arguments.
My point on polygamists is that there is no reason, assuming the exploitation argument is correct, and assuming that there is no developmental benefit, that we should give them a government benefit. We should not subsidize a group if it does not give a public service.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, the child development argument has been debunked with data, and I'd venture that being raised from a gay couple has positive benefits such as open mindedness, however, since gays cannot have their own children apart from adoption or artificial insemination, then perhaps government should not give gay marriages a subsidy. We could subsidize adoptions, or even insemination, but subsidizing a gay marriage is too broad of a discriminatory variable. No one is saying gays cannot "marry" through civil unions or private contracts, but does society owe them an automatic subsidy? Perhaps we do. Marriages have been shown to prolong people's lives, make them more productive, etc. Businesses partly subsidize marriage by giving higher wages and better projects to those whom are married compared to single guys. Married guys also get more time off (The source for this is Cosmo I think, so take these claims lightly).
At present, we have a complicated and discriminatory system where the government subsidizes marriage. We can argue whom should get this subsidy, whether the subsidy is valid, and whether heterosexual marriages should automatically receive a subsidy, but I think this argument is pointless. As time goes on, and as we can identify the targets of a subsidy, and as we can give decide who is more worthy of a subsidy, we can target the recipients our subsidies much better. My thinking is that anyone who raises a child should get a subsidy. Anyone who adopts, should get a subsidy, as long as there are too many babies who need to be adopted. Everyone who gets inseminated should be subsidized. If marriage is shown to make people better, then people in positive marriages should be subsidized. By extending subsidies to every marriage, we are giving money to too broad of a subject pool. We might as well give everyone a subsidy and tax everyone that same amount, so the net transfer of wealth is zero. We give subsidies so that a small group of people who provide a public good, will provide more of that public good. Whether this is babies, health, or anything else, discrimination should be based on the public good provided and not on how that good is created.
Or, we can decide that the marriage system is too complicated to enforce, and that we aren't furthering the production of public goods. If that is so, the only reason we subsidize marriage is due to moral and societal beliefs, and if that is true, we should abandon the state sponsored marriage system as it is inherently discriminatory.
As an aside, I've heard Foucault based biopower arguments that argue that extending marriage to whomever (polygamists or gays) cements the idea of a state sponsored marriage and makes it harder to get to a more free market system of private contracts. I don't believe there is any significant effect from this "cementing" but I've heard it argued by many a libertarian.
The point of my diatribe is that marriage is a complicated issue. As a fiscal conservative I am not sure whether extending marriage benefits to all gays or polygamists is sound policy. To be fair, I also think extending marriage to all heterosexual marriages may not be sound policy. If we want to subsidize the positive effects of marriage, we could better direct our funds at more specific programs. Subsidize children. Subsidize adoption. As a liberatrian, I think the state should get out of marriage all together. As a liberal on social policies, I find the current system discriminatory against not only a segment of society, but against my friends and family(closeted cousin). I need to balance out these thoughts to arrive at an optimal solution. This is not a one sided issue. Just because you voted one way on Prop 8 doesn't mean you are a heteronormative facist and just because you didn't vote the other way doesn't mean you are a liberal homo who wants to legalize animal erotica. Being a demagogue and casting the other side in this overly simplistic and overly dramatic light does not help people's causes. I, like many people I talk to, am stuck in the middle. Issues such as utility, fairness, and maximizing expected value must be addressed. Neither side addresses all of these issues so I take offense at all sides presented so far.
2009-03-11
19:36:51
How could any sane person simultaneously deal with more than one wife?
2009-03-11
20:40:48
Dear Devil's advocate:
I was wondering if I could have clarification as to what ways our government currently subsidies marriage. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but I am unclear as to what exactly you mean when you say this. In my opinion marriage (or more properly a civil union) should be viewed as nothing other than a contract. It is an agreement between two (or more) equals to come together and form a singular unit--with perks like being able to visit each other in the hospital.
But regardless I disagree with your supposition that the issue at hand is as nuanced as you say it is. I fundamentally disagree that it is the governments job to socially engineer society in such a way as to maximize whatever notion of the public "good" they happen to cling too. You say that you try to avoid moral arguments, but that is exactly the type of argument you end up making. Only a comprehensive system of morality can raise any one system of the good above any other. By sanctioning government pursuit of a so called common good through the sanctioning of certain unions, you are without question making a moral judgment about what is right and what is wrong.
Now I don't disagree with you that we should prevent the people from being physically forced into any sort of relationship, polygamous or otherwise. And if you want to make the pragmatic argument that maybe because so many polygamous relationships are coercive in nature, given our limited capacity of enforcement, it may just be practical to simply outlaw them all. However, I struggle to find one theoretical reason as to why three adults who love each other and wish to sanctify their union should be prevented from doing so. That it is good for them should be all that matters, nebulous concepts of communal welfare should play no part in the calculus.
2009-03-11
22:17:25
By subsidies I mean the tangible subsidy of tax breaks and hospital visits and the likes given by government to married couples which are not extended to people signing private contracts. I understand that this issue is murky as some "civil unions" also have government benefits, but a true civil union for purposes of this debate is one done exclusively through private contracts and not done through the government at all. One could also argue that framing the issue as "marriage" vs "civil unions" gives a subsidy to married people as they are recognized by the state to be in a special union, whereas civil unions are held in less regard. Again, my definition here for civil unions pertains to unions done exclusively through private contracts. State sanctioned civil unions do apply here as well to a lesser extent, as they are held in less regard than full state sanctioned marriage is.
As you correctly stated, my assumption that government should advance public goods does make an assumption of right or wrong, namely, that certain goods are right or ideal relative to others. However, there are some items I believe the vast majority of us can view as being "right" through a utility framework and without injecting a moral value judgment into the mix. I completely understand the libertarian argument of minimal government but I ask all my libertarians or those who want minimal government involvement, whats your view on stoplights? To quote my favorite columnist and my possible future house representative Charles Wheelan, " I like stoplights. More to the point, they're a simple and tangible example of how government can make us better off: They enable complete strangers to interact more safely and efficiently. Given a choice between the freedom to speed through an intersection at any time and the coercive red light, I'll tolerate the red light."(http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/89955)<--- A great though oversimplified read on why libertarianism and absolutism fails in the modern world. Interestingly enough, he has a blurb on how gay marriage should be legal, though he doesn't address any subsidy arguments.
I believe that childbirth and some other aspects of marriage may qualify as being so "right" on a utility and not a moral basis, that we can agree that government subsidies and involvement is appropriate. Whether or not we should subsidize every married couple or not and whether these subsidies should be extended to gay couples is a different argument which is framed by fairness and expected value doctrines. Whether government should be involved in marriage falls under my stoplight doctrine.
In regards to the polygamy argument, I am in 100% agreement with you that three people who are in love should not be prevented from marriage (assuming of course the exploitation argument is null and that there is a benefit to society from their marriage) . If there is no societal benefit, I do not think we should let them "sanctify" their marriage, as you put it, by having the government give them special recognition for being married. Private contracts can take care of all of the non government subsidy related issues of marriage. Practically however, there is no way for us to enforce and differentiate between those few if any polyandrous couples and those many exploited polygamist couples. Just like with my stoplight example, given the freedom to harm one to help many, I will vote for the stoplights every single time.
2009-03-11
22:29:11
I guess the true purpose of my articles is the fact that I disagree with the governments right to sanction any union. I don't see why a private contract can't suffice, contracts where you you allow for things like hospital visits, shared bank accounts, and mutually held insurance policies. And while I won't argue that there are some things like stop lights that are so clearly for the general good we must allow for government intervention, I just don't think marriage is one of these issues. The "rightness" of any sort of relationship is simply far more complex than the "rightness" of traffic laws.
2009-03-13
17:32:52
Dear All,
I am pleased that you enjoyed my commentary and would like to offer my sincerest apology that I have been otherwise occupied and unable to provide a timely response. Most of your comments appear to further a Godless, amoral government that proceeds about the policy-making process like a machine. Brad Walters was particularly clear on this point when he wrote, "In the United States, government does not exist to protect rights that benefit society; it exists to protect individual liberties, so long as they do not detrimentally affect society. Your basis is wrong."
America is a nation founded on Christian principles. This is an indisputable fact. Where better to look for evidence to substantiate this truth than our treasured Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Human love is inextricably bound to the pursuit of happiness and our inalienable rights were bestowed upon us by our Creator. I will allow that the framers of our nation's constitution gestured toward some form of separation between church and state, but I cannot respect any such claim about the separation of God and state.
The word "Creator" did not happen into the Declaration of Independence by accident. Thomas Jefferson wrote it to ensure that America would forever have the morality necessary to maintain a state in which liberty, democracy, and freedom flourished. Equality before the law is one such product of our Judeo-Christian tradition; is it any question that it derives form the idea that we all stand equal before the judgment of God? Interestingly, as the atheistic European nations devolved into fascism, communism, and socialism, we have been able to maintain liberty and democracy for all of our citizens.
I mention the importance of our Judeo-Christian tradition because our founders intended for us to have the ability to take morality into account when making policy decisions. Law cannot be separated from morality; such an uncoupling threatens to legitimate reprehensible and disgusting governmental policies, such as racial segregation. We have a right to define marriage as we, as a nation or as a state, see fit. Spencer Kline characterized traditional marriage as "government intervention." I would like to characterize it as the exercise of religious freedom that our founders would have congratulated.
Sincerely,
Sebastian Arcus
2009-03-13
20:43:06
Mr. Arcus:
While it is difficult to divorce laws from morality, the United States does not and should not accept policy that is strictly moral in nature. We do not, for example, have laws against adultery. Why? Because any such policy would be based almost exclusively on moral foundations, meaning that individuals can and will have different opinions, and that no obvious societal interest is in question. Morality is inherently debatable, even if one accepts a Christian mindset (try asking a Catholic and a Protestant about papal decrees). A moral decree that has no clear basis in the interests of the general population is no more than poorly-disguised theocracy.
Arguments against gay marriage inevitably lead to strictly moral foundations. Gay marriages in no way affect those outside the marriage and gay marriages have no obvious detrimental impact on society as a whole. Opponents of gay marriage will sometimes use those arguments, but any literate supporter of gay marriage can refute them immediately (All social science, for example, shows that children of gay parents experience no detrimental effects from their non-traditional upbringings. Gay marriage would, in fact, provide more stability to more families, and thus, have a net benefit for societal stability.).
Opposition to gay marriage stems from religious principles, which are personal, not societal. That's fine. Opposition to gay marriage should stay in that realm. You are free to disagree with a gay marriage; you are free to not recognize it; you are free to condemn its members. The government, however, has no right to be selective about who has access to what is -- effectively and legally -- a specialized contract. Withholding that right on moral grounds is tantamount to locking up men who cheat on their wives, children who disobey their parents, and Jews who eat bacon. I challenge you, Mr. Arcus, to draw a philosophical distinction between restricting the right of gays to marry and any of these moral abuses.
Sincerely,
Brad Walters
2009-03-13
19:44:44
I would like to add, Brian, that I have never been "railed" before, in whatever sense of the word you may have intended.
2009-03-14
16:14:01
Well, argument-wise, you have been, sir. Nice try with the entendre, however. You've done nothing but argue illogical points and prove yourself to be inanely ignorant.
"Save society?" "Protect the institution of marriage?"
Forgive me for saying so, and pardon me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that with the ever-increasing divorce rate, infidelity, etc, that there are many people that don't seem to value that institution so highly.
Haha, "Special meaning to a heterosexual marriage?" While I will highly treasure whoever I end up with, I cannot say marriage has special meaning to everyone else.
To paraphrase what Brad said, not agreeing with gays and opposing homosexual marriage should stay in the realm of religion--the government itself should have no part in supporting a religion's principles.
2009-03-14
11:17:15
I would just like to point out that morality is not entirely subjective Brad. Is murder just as morally "debatable" as say marriage between two consenting loving, adults (straight or otherwise)?
2009-03-14
12:23:55
There's a clear societal interest in preventing murder, simulacric. While the law agrees with a moral and religious teaching, its existence does not rely on these moral or religious foundations. If we base a law strictly on moral grounds, individuals can and will have different opinions about the law's correctness.
Murder is not debatable, because it ensures societal stability. Legalizing gay marriage is debatable, because the act would only affront personal moral conceptions. There is no societal interest in the current laws, meaning that they are obsolete at best and theocratic at worst.
2009-03-14
13:21:22
Brad I think you play into the hands of the opponents of gay marriage by finding a laws justification in its societal impact. Murder should be illegal not because the act of murder harms society. Murder is wrong because a murderer, through force and coercion, extinguishes an INDIVIDUAL'S most sacred possession...their life. The societal damage is only a secondary evil.
And the same goes with gay marriage. Prop. 8 is wrong not because it harms society, it is wrong because it creates a legal code that discriminates against individuals. For no reason other than their sexual orientation, Prop. 8 denies individuals their proper legal protection. There is no justification for this sort of discrimination, societal or otherwise.
Now I do believe the societal impact may be an important part of the argument in favor of gay couples adopting children. The ability to adopt a child is not a inborn right. But as to the right to receive equal protection under law, this needs no further justification.
2009-03-14
13:45:03
I couldn't agree with you more, Spencer. I mentioned a "societal interest" in preventing murder, but I did not specify what that interest is. In my opinion, societies prevent murder because murder is the destruction of the most fundamental individual liberty: the right to life. Society has an interest (indeed, its only interest) in protecting individual liberties so long as they do not detrimentally affect others in the society. If you go to my original comment, you'll notice that I wrote the same statement then.
My connection back to individual liberties was unclear, and I apologize for that. I was trying to prove to Sebastian that laws based exclusively on morality are wrong, a different point that my initial argument that society exists to protect individual liberties. I should have more clearly defined "societal interest." Thank you for encouraging me to do so.
2009-03-15
02:43:40
My very heterodox views on homosexuality are visible for all to see at one of my new websites, "So I Have This Theory."
http://www.soihavethistheory.com/2009/03/unified-theory-of-gayness.html
The Unified Theory of Gayness
A debate that often occurs between me and friends is the nature of homosexuality. Many of my friends maintain that it is not genetic, but that it is a choice. Often they feel as if recognizing homosexual marriage will only condone behavior that is best not condoned. I generally agree with them that homosexual marriage is undesirable because I speculate that it is an institution that has evolved over time and that it is specific to heterosexuals. Gay couples that have been "married" tend to have higher rates of divorce.
Intellectually, I cannot find myself supporting the claim that gayness is a choice -- why would homosexuals in non-gay friendly regimes choose this behavior? -- but think it is most likely genetic. Here's my reasoning.
I recently came across a study that says the more older brothers a younger brother has, the more likely he is to be homosexual, suggesting that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Here are the essential paragraphs.
Scientists in Canada have discovered that the probability of a man being gay rises significantly according to the number of elder brothers he has, when these brothers are born of the same mother.
While the link between having older brothers and homosexuality has long been established, the new findings indicate that it is conditions within the womb before birth, and not the subsequent family environment, which are responsible for the effect.
This suggests that in at least a proportion of gay men, sexual orientation is heavily influenced by factors experienced in the womb, and not by the way they are brought up
I confess to having skimmed most of Richard Dawkins book on The Selfish Gene but the essential crux of the argument is that we want to maximize our genes or rather, that our genes want to be maximized. I suspect that the reason younger brothers tend to have a higher likelihood of being gay is to minimize conflicts over resources related to rearing the young. Note that having a high number of sisters doesn't tend to produce an increased likelihood probably because it is beneficial to have more females than males in a group in order to maximize caring for children.
(As an aside, I also speculate that the reason gays give so many gifts, anecdotal though it may seem isn't just a function of their increased disposable incomes from lacking children, but also to help maximize the likelihood that their siblings' children will reach adulthood. It's a way of assigning resources.)
When Christopher Hitchens spoke before Pitzer College, he said that many of the things that are bad for a community -- cannibalism, promiscuous sex, incest, and presumably homosexuality -- are self-correcting. That is, there tend to emerge diseases that kill off the population.
Now we also know that humans are polymorphous perverse, that is to say that they will have sex with just about anything. Just as it seems likely that there are men who like only certain women -- say Asians, blacks, etc -- so as to make the race more diverse and therefore the genes less likely to be killed off by disease, so too does it follow that the reason for gayness is to maximize that resources aren't wasted.
But if gayness only occurs when we have more brothers it would suggest that there is something within the woman that unleashes the gayness into the child, say some level of testerone. If this is true, it might be that with each male birth, a woman's body knows that it will be dangerous for the tribe or group if that male is also heterosexual in that it will compete with his brother over the population of available females and therefore minimize the likelihood that all genes will be passed on to the next generation. Basically, as in game theory, if everyone is fighting over mates, resources are wasted. It may well be true that women who live amongst each other routinely experience the same periods, so it seems likely that women who have children share or communicate some kinds of pheremones between their bodies which would enable the passing through of gayness.
It should be noted that discrimination against gays is for the above reasons extremely counterproductive. The resources from labor and help with child rearing that gays would provide end up being lost when they are forced out of the community. The question then it would seem isn't to have gays create their own families, but to help them help raise their closest genetic relatives -- their nephews, cousins, etc. To the extend that homosexual marriage enables gays to help promote their own genes by pooling resources, it is desirable. To the extent that it enables them to form their own families, it is counterproductive.
2009-03-23
19:42:13
charles, while your argument appears sound on the surface, you seemed to have forgotten about half of the homosexual population in your "support" that gayness is genetic. what about lesbians... they are clearly not included in this theory about males with many siblings.
2009-03-15
13:02:28
Thank you, Charles, for a thoughtful and very interesting piece of analysis. I've shared it with several people, because it's quite well-written and raises some intriguing and deeply logical points.
I have a disagreement with your conclusion, though my divergence is more a matter of scale then of substance. You say that gays should not form their own families because their genetic differences were likely meant to ensure that they would help rear the young of their heterosexual kin. Perhaps that's true. But in our current society, there are countless unwanted children. Would it not make sense (given the theories of genetics that you laid out) for gay couples to care for those children unable to be cared for by their heterosexual parents? It's a measure to ensure that births are not wasted. Gays are not able to conceive children, and thus, I agree with your analysis that they were genetically intended to help in the proper care and assigning of resources to other children. But why must we limit this to family? Most family structures have adequate resources to care for the young; most children left out of the structure are in need of resources that could be provided by gays, who are unable to have children through other means.
If we acknowledge this, then wouldn't we want those gay parents to be in the most stable relationship possible? It would maximize the effectiveness of childcare, and thus maximize the success of the race.
2009-03-15
13:04:46
The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, "survival machine." A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas.
This being said, just because a trait is evolved does not mean it is functional or even desirable. The world we evolved to live in, as hunter gathers in the savanah of Africa, no longer exists. Take for example morbid obesity. As hunter and gathers we so rarely came across fat and sugar that it was a beneficial strategy eat every bit that was in sight. In the modern world, however, this is a strategy the inevitably leads to early death. Beyond this there is clear evidence that rape is actually an evolved trait and therefore can be seen to have evolutionary benefit. Would you support a mans right to rape simply because it is an evolved pattern of behavior? This acceptance is the logical conclusion of your argument.
Finally, under your premise you are taking societal benefit to be the only thing that matters. Well money, like all goods, has decreasing marginal utility. If we were to think only about the the group, some sort of redistribution of wealth would be desirable. You declare implicitly the value of the community over that of the individual. You sound like a bleeding heart liberal in all honesty, dressed under the transparent guise of a social Darwinist.
2009-03-15
17:59:49
Charles:
I applaud your observation that "Intellectually, I cannot find myself supporting the claim that gayness is a choice — why would homosexuals in non-gay friendly regimes choose this behavior..." I have often wondered the same.
Still, however, I see no relevance of your "Unified Theory of Gayness" to the question of marriage at all. Marriage is a contract. Let us not lose sight of this fact. It appears to me that Spencer's libertarian approach to the matter at hand maintains a devotion to logic and rational thought that yours unfortunately forsakes. If two individuals capable of giving consent wish to form a contract with one another, why is it government's place to deny them the right to make such a contract (barring any externality caused by this contract that limits the liberty and autonomy of others)? In trumpeting our capitalistic system, we are, in a sense, trumpeting the diversity of desire that exists among members of our human race. I might order a coffee in the morning, but that annoying woman standing in front of me prefers to order tea. This is one of the things that profoundly disturbs us about the central planning inherent in a statist system. We would be hypocritical to allow the freedom of contract in economic situations but not in social situations. Even under the (false) presupposition that homosexuals choose to be gay, why should we limit their freedom to make a contract with each other? Allowing one group of people, in this case heterosexual individuals, the right to make a contract but denying that same right of contract to another group of people, homosexual individuals, violates the fundamental libertarian respect for the autonomy of the individual. I cannot understand why two straight men would want to make a contract of marriage with each other but, pray tell, with what authority do I derive the right to judge their decision and legislate to invalidate it?
The burden of proof is on those against gay marriage to demonstrate that the institution tangibly constrains the liberty of other people. Does it hurt children? Studies say no. Does it hurt gay people? Presumably, they wouldn't make such contracts if they did not want to. Surely, however, it must affect straight marriages, right? Yes, insofar as the woman's decision to order a tea destroyed the sanctity of my decision to order coffee. It is altogether irrelevant that homosexuals divorce; we should allow them the right of contract irrespective of their propensity to later annul their contracts.
Please indulge me a few more observations, despite their irrelevance to the above response. Spencer's arguments notwithstanding, where do lesbians fit into your "Unified Theory of Gayness?" Second, I appreciate your assumption of benevolence on my part, but I must assert that I believe myself to be just as stingy as my straight friends.
Karthik Reddy
2009-03-15
18:13:00
PS: Having been raised in the Hindu tradition, I can speak for the fact that homosexuality and gay marriage have precedent in ancient Indian literature. However, I fail to see why (the lack of) historical precedent for an activity or piece of legislation should be grounds for denying or accepting any such practice today.
2009-03-15
18:51:06
To Spencer, Charles' quoted study is true. Endrocrinal signalling before birth changes from kid to kid so that each kid is exposed to different concentrations and amounts of different hormones. Even though each child or gene's DNA may not know how many children came before, the hormonal mechanism can upregulate or downregulate certain transcription factors and in theory, make someone more or less prone to be gay, assuming there is a ""gay" gene.
On the other hand, I think CJ's theory is looking to assign a genetic benefit to every human trait. Men do not have nipples because there is some huge genetic fitness this gives us. Men have nipples as its a byproduct of our development. Humans have chins not as they provide us a benefit, but because chins are needed for us to have jaws. Not every trait has a genetic benefit. I think the most parsimonious explanation for why endocrine regulation degrades with more kids is that every human system degrades over time. Our bodies don't magically conclude that more gay children means less competition for the opposite sex. Our signaling just degrades and a side effect is that siblings have a very miniscule increased chance of having the gay gene upregulated (or the straight gene downregulated).
Regardless, this debate is moot. I expected a noble prize worthy theory to emerge from CJ, but instead he is arguing that gayness is 100% genetic due to how people choose to be gay when it doesn't make sense. To this I simply refer you all to social darwinism and to Pascal's Wager. It doesn't make sense for any of us not to believe in God, but many of us do. This is because utility and expected value are different. This can also be shown with the St Petersburg or Allais or Ellsberg paradoxes. Humans make decisions based on their own weighting of utility and not based on expected value. This isn't a new concept either. Bernoulli and Cramer prpoposed this a few hundred years ago and any self respecting CMCer should know the tradeoff between utility and expected value and how they can differ. If I get hung for being gay in Iran, it may make sense for me, based on differently weighted utility tradeoffs, to still be openly gay in Iran. If I don't get heavily penalized for being gay in America, it may still make sense to be in the closet, based on differently weighted utility tradeoffs.
In summation, humans aren't rational actors so they often do make predictable "mistakes". We buy insurance and we buy lottery tickets. As such, we expect that even when people shouldn't be openly gay, sometimes they will be.
As to the complete genetic control of gayness, it simply isn't true. There are some genetic variations which correlate with homosexuality (hypothalamus size, prenatal hormones, finger length ratio,) yet there are some social variations which correlate VERY highly with homosexuality (molestation as a child, sexual scripts, socialization). In twin studies, there is less than 100% correlation with sexual identity. I think its about 41% but I can't find the studies or graphs w/o doing a search. Therefore homosexuality is not 100% genetically determined.
Now some interesting theories of why, assuming homosexuality is evolutionarily controlled, homosexuality is so prevalent
1. Kin selection: Homosexuals were meant to help take care of the communities children
2. Gay genes are phased out often but reproduction genes are located on a chromosome which undergoes a lot of mutations so, even though gay genes are phased out, they are brought in quite often.
3. Gay genes encode for a sort of hyper attraction or hyper sexuality in the opposite sex. It is disadvantageuous for a gay person to be gay but it is advantageous for a straight person to be super straight.
4. Gay genes can be like sickle cell genes in that one copy is very beneficial but two copies is very harmful.
I don't believe any of the above theories but they are interesting. IN support of kin selection, I remeber reading of cross dressers in I think India who used to hep raise children in the community.
My point is that homosexuality is not 100% genetic, it may be rational for a person to be gay and open even in dire circumstances.
As a final point... Who cares. Why should we make law based on our past genetic history? Genes and law should mostly be separate. Thats what social darwinism taught me. Maybe I missed something though.
2009-03-15
20:45:25
Damn it! Why am I wasting $180,000 on my Claremont McKenna education? It's so clear to me now that I should have gotten a background check and opened up a daycare center...
2009-03-23
19:46:51
i would try say something profound to defend my right to marry whomever i choose despite my government's oppression of this... but brad walters beat me to it.
2009-03-24
00:18:54
Note how it was a unified theory of gayness. I'll explain my unified theory of lesbianism to anyone willing to give me a drink. That one is so not PC that I fear for my life and therefore won't mention it in print.
2009-03-24
00:23:58
well now i really want to know..
2009-03-24
09:00:46
To Spencer (to further Bio Major's argument):
Your quote "The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, “survival machine.” A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas."
It is true as far as the actual gene, the DNA sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, that genes do not generally change after conception (except for in cases of mutations caused by UV rays, etc.) or have any insight into their environment. But it is not true that genes are "blind to their particular carrier" or that a gene "has no foresight or memory" or especially that "there can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers." The field of epigenetics has shown exactly the opposite. Epigenetics is the study of the markers and modifications of DNA and histones (protiens that interact with DNA) which do not change the actual sequence of the DNA, but that change the way genes are used by the body. For example, a single environmental factor experienced early in life (such as different hormone levels in the womb) can turn off a gene that would normally be expressed for the rest of an organisms life. This has been shown over and over in all eukaryote (this includes plants, flies, mammals, birds, etc) organisms studied. In fact, there are many examples of single doses of sex hormones in the womb causing life-long changes in behavior.
It is highly likely that the higher rates of homosexuality in younger brothers can be at least partially accounted for by epigenetics, thought I'm not sure whether it has been studied. Epigenetics is a new but rapidly growing field supported strongly by the NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_New_Initiative_Epigenomics.htm). For more info look at the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics).
2009-03-24
21:17:49
Despite your "scientific" theories of why homosexuality may be naturally occurring due to genetic reasons, they remain theories. I caution you to tread carefully on the subject, lest your theories lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are capable of raising children. While I do not argue that every homosexual is, indeed, unfit to parent (or care for children of close kin), we must debate it before we entrust every homosexual with the care of society's most vulnerable members. I will not waste space on this blog to demonstrate some examples of homosexual misconduct with children, but instead prefer to provide you all with a link. I urge you to keep in your mind NAMBLA and other like-minded organizations.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
2009-03-24
21:41:56
Sebastian,
That website is an affront to reason. By suggesting its legitimacy, you do nothing more than inspire hatred and discourage productive discussion. A forum should aim to find truth, not hurl insane ideas.
You've lost all credibility.
Cheers,
Brad