The Marriage Debate

The Marriage Debate.
In an e-mail debate with my family several years ago that turned from a politcal debate about the Obama and McCain presidency campaign to a debate on gay marriage several arguments against gay marriage were made by my family. I have tried to lump the arguments that had the same theme together so I didn't end up with hundreds of similar but worded slightly different arguments to debate. I have also tacked on an argument or two that they did not present, but that tend to be common in this debate.
I'm not sure they will ever see this. So for now it is just a therapeutic outlet for me. With our little girl being born it's caused me to think about family. What it was like, what it is like, and what my new family will be like. That brought up thoughts about this debate that took place 3 years ago this month. The debate fizzled out back then when I expressed some of my personal experiences and feelings. But it's raged on in my head now and again ever since. I don't think it would be productive to start it up again with my family. It would only open up old wounds and create some new ones without ever allowing anything to be resolved because they will always have a religious objection that can't be reasoned with.
When this discussion started I was still alone when it comes to my family. It hadn't been very long since I had come out to a few of my family. And those I had come out to told the rest of the family. The majority of them never said anything on the subject of me being gay, let alone gay marriage. I didn't send my original reply with the intention of having this side debate. But the opportunity presented itself during the back and forth and so I chose to not hide and pretend anymore. I think at the time I had delusions that any of them might see things differently when confronted with my sound and well reasoned arguments. I knew I would be getting negative responses. I know they (the majority of them anyway) are, were, and always will be ... disappointed, awkward, judgemental, disapproving, non supportive... take your pick... of me being gay. They will always want me as the Mormon I should have been and see the person I am as a choice I shouldn't have made.
I didn't know what arguments they would make. Some are the typical things said. But some were new, at least to me. I said then that I wasn't taking it personally. But that wasn't really true. This is my life and who I am. It affects me and is about who I am and not just what I do. When an argument is made about a group, it is very personal to everyone in that group. And it seems to me that it is rediculous to expect that you can express your negative thoughts about people but not have it touch them personally or affect the relationship you have with them. However, I was more interested in having the discussion and getting my voice out there than I was in saving myself the discomfort of hearing what they think. I wanted their honest opinions and arguments and so I had to distance myself, in a way [as much as I could anyway], from the affects of hearing the arguments to get them. It got heated then and it get's heated this time around again for me.
I recognize the difficulty in understanding or caring about something you have no personal stake in. And without a personal interest there is no reason to question what you have been taught that your views should be. If I hadn't said anything they would continue to be unaware of the heartache and anguish I suffered at their hands and the hands of the community I grew up in. And therefore they still wouldn't have any reason to question their standing on the offending subject. So while their opinions hurt, I also know they come from ignorance.
My arguments against theirs will include some of my words at the time as well expanded thoughts, both my own and many borrowed from other people and sources that have fought these same stereotypes, false statements, and unreasonable conclusions. However I made no effort to keep track of who I was quoting or borrowing thoughts from. My purpose is not to take credit for these thoughts but just to express them. I list all the arguments first and then go through them, one by one with my response. At times it may appear that I don't like my family. Be assured that I love them, I just don't agree with them. And I disagree passionately. I've been writing this response over a period of many months and I did not complete them in the order they are now listed. It may be apparent when I make comments about being a parent already and then later a comment that she is about to be born.
___________________________________________________________
Arguments
1. Definition and Value of Marriage Argument:Our marriage means something different than what it did when we got married in the temple. (The reason implied is that gay people were now allowed to marry in California at the time and they were fighting for Prop 8 to get that stopped) We are fighting to get that definition back. (meaning marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman.) The sacredness of the marital institution with it's inherent responsibilities is being devalued by society.
2. Child Endangerment Argument:It's about protecting our children (this was not given any further information) [and out society]
3. Fabric of Society Argument:It's about protecting [our children] and our society. (also no information on how society is harmed)
4. Religion Card Argument:Also connected to their religion, but specifically notes that this isn't the only reason.
5. Multiply and Replenish Argument:Marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. (Not primarily a license to have sex or recieve benefits, but to have children). And since gays can't reproduce they don't qualify. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman who plan to start a family and raise the next generation. As soon as homosexual copulation naturally produces a pregnancy and subsequent child they can have the rights afforded other parents. Because we aren't bearing and rearing children, thus protecting our future, we do not deserve the greatest respect, protections, safeguards, and honor that can be given. We aren't fighting the fight that really matters. Gay couples are not participants in the building & strengthening of society by having children. Homosexual marriage does not build a society or ensure it's solvency. It does not produce workers, soldiers, doctors, teachers, or any other material benefit. It is therefore unworthy of society's protections.
6. Biological Parent Argument: The ideal set up is for children to be reared by the two people that brought them into the world. Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to have both parents who made him. And losing that right isn't because of something tragic, but something intentional. We need to strengthen and maintain the only institution specifically intended to safeguard the right of children to be raised by biological parents. Changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society
7. Innate Quality Gap Argument:Fathers and mothers are different. There is absolutely something missing if there is not a mother or a father in a marriage. There are inate qualities in women that a man does not and cannot have. And the same is true for men that women don't have.
8. Domestic Partnership Benefits Argument:Gays already get similar benefits through states domestic partnership program [California]
9. Tragic Circumstance Argument:(After mentioning a few rights that married couples get, specifically rights that pertain to benefits or protections recieved if one of them die...) The legal basis for rights is from the reality that these same people would be responsible for the continued care of children left in these tragic circumstances. (Apparently implying that we have no interest in the responsibilities of raising a child should one of us leave or be taken from the situation)
10. Proof Argument:We can't provide proof that shows we can raise children well.
11. Just Wanting/Feeling Entitled Argument:We shouldn't get it just because we want it or feel entitled to it.
12. Vote Argument:We shouldn't get it because the majority voted against it.
13. Slippery Slope Argument:If you allow gay marriage it becomes a slippery slope to polygyny, beastiality, adult/child marriage.
14. Rights Infringement Argument:This will lead to infringements on everyones rights. Including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, personal liberties, and freedom of association.
　
____________________________________________________________
Definition and Value of Marriage Argument
1. Our marriage means something different than what it did when we got married in the temple. (The reason implied is that gay people were now allowed to marry in California at the time and they were fighting for Prop 8 to get that stopped) We are fighting to get that definition back. (meaning marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman.) The sacredness of the marital institution with it's inherent responsibilities is being devalued by society.
This is two arguments with a similar theme. The first that a heterosexual marriage has undergone a change in it's meaning and this change has personally affected their marriage. While the second is that the part of marriage that is a sacred or religious purpose as well as the part of marriage that deals with the responsibilities attached are being devalued. This seems to mean a more general downgrade of marriage as viewed by the general populace. The second argument was given by a different brother, but as a possible clarification of the first brothers argument. In essence, saying that because society as a whole no longer holds marriage in as high esteem as before, it's no longer being used as a religious right of passage by everyone and the duties that once were implied have now slackened. The second brother did note that homosexuals are not the sole cause of this, but they are contributing to this downward slide.
To change the definition of marriage there must be a definition to begin with. And since it is apparently not ok to change the definition of marriage we aught to go back in time as far as we can and see what marriage originally meant. As marriage predates reliable recorded history this isn't exactly possible. If we go back to the bible we see a variety of situations. You might consider Adam and Eve an arranged marriage since Eve was given to Adam without mentioning consulting her on the arrangement. Among others, Abram, Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Gideon, and Abijah had multiple wives. In a levirate marriage a wife of a deceased husband is expected to marry the deceased husbands brother and have children if original marriage hadn't produced any. It was also ok to force slaves into marriage. After killing all men, boys, and non virgin women, the Israelites then married the surviving virgin Midianite women. So it seems to be ok to force prisoners of war into marriage. And women were regarded as belonging to the husband. And since this was the case he could divorce her for any reason at any time. This doesn't seem to fit the definition my brothers want to adhere to.
In ancient Greece there was no specific civil ceremony required. The women had few rights and were expected to take care of house and children. A woman who's dad died without male heirs could be forced to marry the closest male relative. This may require her to divorce her husband first.
In ancient Roman society the traditional form of marriage required a ceremony with witnesses. The woman lost her family rights of inheritance with her old family and gained them with the new. And was subject to the authority of the husband. There was another type of marriage in which the woman retained her old family inheritance rights but did not gain these rights with the new family. In this case she stayed under the authority of her dad. The minimum age for marriage was 12.
More recent history that we have more information on shows a lot of changes. It has gone from a private matter without a religous cerimony required to needing a bishop to sign off to having both clergy and parents consent to the marriage. At some point women began to be obligated to take on their husbands name. Marriages could be arranged for purposes of treaties between royal families, nobles etc. Churches often recorded marriages but it was not required. Then that was turned over to the state with the protestant reformation. With the counter reformation Roman Catholic marriages had to be officiated by a priest with two witnesses. Changing again to require a state registration and a church consecration. Marriage was defined as a conjugal union which obliges them to live together throughout life. In some areas a requirement of a ceremony was added so that you always had to have a Anglican priest clergy officiate in an Anglican Church with two witnesses and registration. Unless you were a Jew or a Quaker, in which cases marriage continued to be governed by their own customs. In the 1800's several countries began recognizing civil marriages as an alternative to church marriages.
For Judaism marriage is a contractual bond commanded by god and in which god is directly involved. The main focus is around the relationship between the man and the worman. Having kids is not the sole purpose, but is a commandment from god. A man is considered incomplete while not married.
For Christians marriage is a sacrament, a contract, a sacred institution, or a covenant depending on what branch you belong to. Roman catholics say its a sacrament, while protestants say its a covenant between spouses before god.
For Islam polygyny is allowed up to 4 wives as long as the husband can support and divide his time and wealth equally. There isn't arranged marriage, but if the father of the bride doesn't agree he can stop the marriage.
For Bahai marriage is viewed as a mutually strengthening bond, but is not obligatory.
Hinduism views it as a sacred duty with religious and social obligations. And it's taboo for a widow to remarry. In some indian cultures widows were either voluntarily or by force burned to death on the husbands pyre. Though illegal now, this still happens occasionally today.
Buddhism views marriage as secular and therefore follow the civil laws laid out by their governments.
Believe it or not, there are some churches that accept gay marriage. Unitarian Universalist, Metropolitan Community Church, Quaker, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ, Reform Jewish, some Anglican and some Neopagan.
Throughout most of the 1800's women would surrender their legal status to husbands, who were full citizens. Women could exercise influence in marriage but had no legal power, could not vote, and in many states could not own property. They could not sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. I don't suppose this is the definition they want to get back to.
The United States had miscegenation laws from the late 1600's to 1967. The trial judge for the case that eventually led to the supreme court overturning these laws said
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix"
Some groups have claimed that several passages in the bible should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that certain verses expressly forbid it. They felt they had religious grounds to enact laws controlling who could marry who. And in some cases people only had black heritage confirmed only by observing physical characteristics to have cases ruled against them. Marriages were invalidated because they were deemed to have "one eighth negro blood" when there was a legal challenge over conflicting wills. Is this the defenition you would like to get back to?
Several forms of Endogamy, or the requirement of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group, are still enforced or encouraged. This is pretty common in religions. Mormons being the one I grew up with. In a regular marriage members are discouraged from marrying someone not of the same faith. But for a temple marriage to take place they not only have to both be members of the church, but they both also have to be active in the church and determined to be personally worthy. This would include the requirement of paying tithing, not drinking coffee tea or alcohol, living the religious law of chastity, not supporting affiliating or agreeing with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those of the church (seems like this could mean my family shouldn't affiliate with me), among other things. So, even within the mormon church there are a couple different levels, or definitions of marriage. More on this later. And I'm not trying to say that these requirements are bad, just that they are different from what other people view as requirements of marriage. Mormons believe in, even if they don't currently practice, polygyny. Evidence of this is given later on in #4 the Religion Argument. This is different than many other religions and different than the definition they supported in legislation for Prop 8 in California. They are willing to define marriage as between one man and one women, even though that is not what they truly believe.
The whole point in this little history lesson is to show that marriage means and has meant different things to different people. To some it is a religious right of passage and commanded from god, to others it is a civil contract for legal benefits and inheritance rights. To some it was a way of making treaties with other nations or powers, to others it has been a way of destroying whole nations. To some it is a right to have sex, to others it is a means of becoming a citizen. As a mormon your definition of marriage has always been different than the rest of the world. Their definition had nothing to do with your marriage when you went to the temple, so why would anyone's definition after the fact have any bearing on you or your marriage? Your promises didn't change, your responsibilities didn't change, your religious beliefs didn't change, your daily life didn't change, your marital benefits didn't change, and neither of you changed because of anyone elses marriage.
My original response was this "I suppose I don't understand how your marriage has changed at all. You have your children who have their mom and their dad. You have your promises and covenants you made in the temple. You also have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions, receive Social Security payments upon the death of the other, your employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes, can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse, have a legal right to live together in the same nursing homes when you get old, have laws that protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills, and after the death of a worker most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Your marriage could have been performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world. You also receive the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage. What has changed for you now that two men or two women who love each other can have part of that too? In truth, nothing for you has changed. You use the term "meaning" as if that is what changed. Does the fact that a couple gets married in a catholic church change the meaning of your marriage? Or perhaps a Buddhist ceremony, or a Jewish ceremony, or any other religion not shared by you changes the meaning of your marriage. YOUR marriage and its meaning should be defined by YOUR relationship with your husband/wife, your children, and your god."
And I hold true to my response. Yes, my definition of marriage is different than yours. But that doesn't change your defenition of marriage or your marriage in any way shape or form.
In 1978 the mormon church changed its position on black men holding the priesthood. Was the priesthood changed for those who already had it? Was the definition changed? Did it mean less or have less power or effect? You want the world to believe that marriage is like a neighborhood, and if I move in your marriage value goes down. But this is not the case. Your marriage, it's worth and definition, is determined only by you, your choices, and your religious beliefs.
The second part of the argument is this: The sacredness of the marital institution with it's inherent responsibilities is being devalued by society.
As shown before, the sacredness of marriage has varied greatly from one set of people or religion to the next. And you certainly have the right to believe your level of sacredness is the right level. You don't have the right to enforce that belief on every other religion. By all means go out into the world and teach everyone that will listen what you believe and let them accept or not based on their valuation of your arguments. But you aren't allowed to legislate your beliefs into laws. So also is the argument for responsibilities. They can vary from state to state and from church to church. They vary within the mormon church based on whether you get a church marriage or a temple marriage.
The perceived implied statement being made here, that gay people don't or wouldn't value the responsibilities or consider their marriage as sacred or valued within their own religious beliefs, is offensive. Of course there will be gay people that get married in Vegas for fun or to establish citizenship, or for other conveniences or reasons other than love and a desire to create a family just like there are heterosexual people that do the same thing. But to lump us all in that group because we are gay shows your ignorance of the variety of people that exist within our community. One fourth of our parents children have been divorced from mormon marriages. Would it be fair to say that everyone in our family devalues marriage? Or that even those two people devalue marriage? I don't think it would, on either count. As someone that probably doesn't really know anyone that's gay and more especially anyone in a long term gay relationship I don't find you qualified to make such accusations. And I include myself among the people you quite obviously don't know.
And lastly, the desire we gays have to get married shows the strength and health of the institution of marriage and not its weakening. The ability of gays to get married will have no effect on whether easy breeders choose to get married, and will have no adverse effects on the institution of marriage or straight couples.
Since we are not changing the definition of your marriage, and we are not devalueing marriage but strengthening it by adding more people that believe in it and value it, we qualify.
　
___________________________________________________________________
Child Endangerment Argument
2. It's about protecting our children... (this was not given any further information)
　
I'm not sure I really understand what is being said here. Whether he meant that his own children were in danger, and/or all children in general are in danger. It is also unclear what the danger is. At the time of the argument there were several commercials being broadcast expressing the consequences of allowing same sex marriages to continue in California. They had these things to say about children:
"Did you know that nearly all public schools in California provide education about health and sexuality? If prop 8 fails children will be taught that marriage is between party a party b regardless of gender.""Children will be taught that same sex marriages are the equal of traditional marriages. There will be serious clashes between the public schools and parents who desire to teach their children their own values and beliefs.""Teaching children about gay marriage WILL happen unless we pass proposition 8. Have you thought about what same sex marriage means?" (little child says "To me") "Restore traditional marriage, vote yes on proposition 8""In addition the courts decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty, freedom of association, and free speech rights. The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost"Speaking of volunteering and canvassing for prop 8 "I feel it's important for my childrens future. I don't want my children to grow up in a genderless society. This is my opportunity to fight for religious freedom"
The theme seems to be that children are in danger of being exposed to views that don't match their parents views, and in it's extreme, that parents will have no control at all over what they teach their kids. And the environment in which these kids will be taught in will be corrupted.
I have a couple problems with this. First, their kids already go to school with kids and teachers with various backgrounds, cultures and religious beliefs. They may already know of kids being raised by gay parents and being taught by gay teachers. Almost every belief that mormons hold, if not every belief, is opposed by or different than someone else going to their school. Surely there is at least one jew, one atheist, one muslim etc. And not just religions... there are many kids who have parents that drink coffee tea and alcohol, who engage in sex before marriage or have never been married. They curse and may or may not allow their kids to curse. They let their kids dress with different standards and/or date at earlier ages. Somehow these differences don't matter but someone elses gay marriage does. You will have to teach your kids what you believe to be right and wrong regardless of whether or not gays are allowed to be married. And if you think that gay marriage is the difference between your kids hearing about gays or not you are severely mistaken.
Second, what you are saying is that my religious freedom is trampling your religious freedom. We have hundreds if not thousands of religions of different sorts or offshutes of each other in the world. I doubt there is a day that goes by that you don't come into contact with someone from one of these other religions. And yet they aren't keeping you from having and living your beliefs. They aren't infringing on your rights or your life. They don't force you to teach your kids to be muslims or jews. They haven't ripped your parenting rights away from you. Why will that suddenly be the case here? It won't be the case. This is just fear mongering to coerce voters to vote your way and to get people that wouldn't normally vote to be afraid not to. The only beliefs being trampled are ours. The only religion being forced on people is yours.
Third, learning about marriage came from home and church and experience. I don't recall anything being taught in school about it, even in health class. Nor about sexuality. They taught about body parts, and I believe I remember a bit about sexually transmitted diseases. But they didn't talk about different family setups. I remember math, english, history, social studies, health, phys ed, choir/band, computers, art, language etc. Another fear mongering tactic to make people think this will suddenly be a required class in school. That we're gonna try and convert your kids before you can. If you don't like something taught in the schools you should fight against that.
Fourth, gay people still have genders. I'm still a man. So is my husband. Lesbians are still women. Heterosexuals will still be men and women. There is no danger of a genderless society. If you would like to adhere to set gender roles in life that is certainly a choice you can make. It was a woman who made that comment and I think she might be surprised just how differenty her role in life would be in the not so distant past. Just because the most visible gay people are visible because they have a less masculine nature doesn't mean that we are all that way. And just because someone isn't uber manly doesn't mean they are gay. Stereotyping only leads to further ignorance.
Beyond those commercials and comments what other meaning could have been intended from 'protecting our children'? In the early 1800's homosexuals were viewed and investigated as criminals and homosexuality was thought to be a symptom of other psychopathic issues. By the late 1800's it was viewed as degeneracy. Possibly caused by disease, urban over-population, malnutrition, or alcohol. In the 1930's it was declared to be a mental illness. That wasn't changed until 1973. Laws were created to prosecute consensual sex in the late 1800's. The first state to decriminalize homosexuality wasn't until 1961, with some of those laws in 13 states remaining on the books as late as 2004. These 13 states had to be forced into removing these laws by the US Supreme Court. It was, and is still now to a lesser extent, viewed as something that can be cured. Cures included castration, lobotomies, pudic nerve surgery, and electroshock treatment. Gays were blaimed for AIDS. People believed that gays recruited other people and preyed on children. We were labeled as pedophiles and sexual deviants. Many of these views are still held by people today. And then you say "It's about protecting our children" without any clarification. It is possible that this is a thinly veiled reference to these hate filled and untrue views that we are mentally ill diseased criminals forcefully converting, preying on, raping and molesting children. I would hope this is not the intended meaning. But I wouldn't place any bets on that.
This is a segment from the Prop 8 trial ruling which outlined the arguments made throughout the trial. "Historian George Chauncey testified about a direct relationship between the Proposition 8 campaign and initiative campaigns from the 1970s targeting gays and lesbians; like earlier campaigns, the Proposition 8 campaign emphasized the importance of protecting children and relied on stereotypical images of gays and lesbians, despite the lack of any evidence showing that gays and lesbians pose a danger to children. Chauncey concluded that the Proposition 8 campaign did not need to explain what children were to be protected from; the advertisements relied on a cultural understanding that gays and lesbians are a danger to children."This understanding, Chauncey observed, is an artifact of the discrimination gays and lesbians faced in the United States in the twentieth century. Chauncey testified that because homosexual conduct was criminalized, gays and lesbians were seen as criminals; the stereotype of gay people as criminals therefore became pervasive. Chauncey noted that stereotypes of gays and lesbians as predators or child molesters were reinforced in the mid-twentieth century and remain part of current public discourse. Lamb explained that this stereotype is not at all credible, as gays and lesbians are no more likely than heterosexuals to pose a threat to children."
"Proponent Hak-Shing William Tam testified about his role in the Proposition 8 campaign. Tam spent substantial time, effort and resources campaigning for Proposition 8. As of July 2007, Tam was working with Protect Marriage to put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. Tam testified that he is the secretary of the American Return to God Prayer Movement, which operates teh website "1man1woman.net.""1man1woman.net encouraged voters to support Proposition 8 on grounds that homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children, and because Proposition 8 will cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan's hands. Tam identified NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) as the source of information about homosexuality, because he "believe[s] in what they say." Tam identified "the internet" as the source of information connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest. Protect Marriage relied on Tam and, through Tam, used the website 1man1woman.net as part of the Protect Marriage Asian/Pacific Islander outreach.
You use made up facts with no backing, and no proof to their validity. You don't need proof. Helping your cause is the only thing it needs to do. You rely on stereotypes biases and fears fostered throughout history but that have no grounding in reality.
Since we are not a danger to children and would actually have a positive influence in the number of kids getting a quality family environment in this country we qualify.
_____________________________________________________________________
Fabric of Society Argument
3. It's about protecting [our children] and our society. (also no information on how society is harmed) Nor can we provide compelling reasons to scrap standards held by civilized society since recorded history.
　
It's so easy to use fear to get what you want, especially on issues that not everyone is very well informed. And it's too easy to be feared into believing something or doing something instead of putting forth the effort to learn the truth and make an educated decision or opinion. Too often politicians use this same tactic. They've got a problem and something to blame for the problem. And that something doesn't have to be real as long as it's possible, or probable in the minds of the targeted audience. The health care bill has death panels to restrict medical help to the elderly and will kill your grandma. It's not true, but who is going to read the bill, understand it, and realize it's not true. Don't give Obama a blank check by increasing the debt limit. The reality is that raising the debt limit isn't authorization to spend more money, just to pay the bills for stuff already purchased by congress (and not Obama). Companies do this as well to sell products or services. Get this insurance or that warranty or you'll be crushed under the debt when such and such inevitably happens. Just look how often this happens every day. And religions do it. Homosexuality is evil and wrong and you will never be happy, they are only pedofiles and criminals and deviants... so buy my books, take my seminars, go to this ex gay camp for the low low price of $$$.
This is essentially what you are doing here. Society is in decline and the gays are to blame for it. Marriages don't mean what they used to and gays are to blame for it. Anyone can see the decline in society. Just watch the news. Everyone knows divorce rates are up. And everyone knows how devious those darn gays are. So obviously it makes sense.... Except there is no evidence that society is in danger because of gays. People say it as if it's a given, it's obvious, it needs no explanation. Uhm.. yah.. it does. Please explain to me how gays or gay marriage will even contribute to the downfall of society, let alone cause it. What is it that we are doing or will do that is so destructive to the world?
For your second part, a request to give you reasons to scrap standards held by society since recorded history. This request makes the hidden argument that marriage has stayed the same throughout history and we're finally getting around to a decision on whether to change it or not. The standards of 'society' throughout history has always evolved and devolved in many aspects. Slavery has been a part of civilized society for the majority of recorded history as well. The last country to make it illegal did so in 1981. And yet it is believed that there are still more slaves today than at anytime in history. The bible is riddled with slavery, and god was ok with it. Did we do the wrong thing in the Civil War? Womens rights don't have a great record throughout history either. Mormons haven't been a staple of civilized society. Even when you include the bible times, old and new, you are missing for a few thousand or so years. Several cultures around the world and across centuries have had variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples.
In addition, I'm not asking you to scrap your standards. I fully understand that you aren't going to change your religion to suite my reality. I don't expect you to start allowing gay marriages in your churchs or temples. But I also don't expect you to embrace baby baptisms, the pope, mohammed as a prophet, buddha, or reincarnation. You get to keep your beliefs and live them as you see fit and I get to follow my beliefs and live them as I see fit. It's a false choice to say it has to be one or the other. Your argument is similar to saying we can only allow christians or muslims in this country. Otherwise we are scrapping christianity by allowing muslims to enjoy the same government benefits and protections that christians do.
In addition, the governments interest in enforcing laws must be secular in nature. The government does not have an interest in enforcing private religious beliefs unless there is also a secular purpose to it. This means you have to prove there is a real danger to society or your children and not just say there is. And you can provide no credible evidence to support such claims. You can't support any of the claimed ill effects of gay marriage that have been spewed out throughout the debate.
In addition, the government does have interest in encouraging stable households for children to be raised in or just stable households in general. Both the individual states, same sex couples and their children would benefit from same sex marriage. Couples benefit both physically and economically when they are married. Being able to divide work loads, financial burdens, and pool resources. And that doesn't depend on being straight or gay. There are no meaningful differences between gay couples and straight couples other than our ability to create life on our own. In terms of relationship quality and stability, economic and demographic respects we are pretty much the same. All available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by straight folk. And you being straight does not make you a better parent than me because I'm gay. So without any non-religious reasons to prohibit gay marriage, and numerous largely beneficial reasons for gay marriage I have given you ample reasons to "scrap standards held by civilized society since recorded history".
As we are not a danger to society and there are significant benefits to "scrap standards" we qualify.
　
_____________________________________________________________________
Religion Card Argument
4. Also connected to their religion, but specifically notes that this isn't the only reason.
　
I have no interest in changing your religion. I don't believe you when you say it's not just because of your religion. I think it is only because of your religion. I think your other arguments are devoid of any substance. But I think you are blind to my arguments because you choose not to see them. Or perhaps you do see them and because of your religious beliefs they aren't valid. After all, god encourages destruction and/or slavery of entire nations for not doing as he wishes. Surely the sins of us gays warrant whatever persecution you can throw our way. Religion IS your only real argument and the government shouldn't be imposing your religious beliefs on me.
In the end you have nothing but your moral superiority and your ignorant disdain for everything not the same as you. You have your fear tactics and lies to support your beliefs. But you don't have anything tangible to bring to the discussion. Nothing I say or do can ever change your mind. No amount of confirmed evidence on my side or disproving of your evidences will be enough. Gays could be marrying and raising children for a hundred years with no evidence that the fabric of society is unraveling and you would still proclaim it to be so. No matter how sound my arguments they can never win the debate. Because in your mind the only card you need to play is the religion card and you feel you have won the game in your own mind. It's the mormon magic trump card that relieves you of the obligation to back up your words with actual reality, evidence or facts. I have slapped down every other card you've played and will continue with the rest of them, and you still feel you've won.
Since religion is your only crutch in this argument let's take a look at them from my point of view. This doesn't have to do with the argument at hand, but just me sharing my perspective.
Your church spouts off lies, promotes fear, and breaks laws to get it's way in this matter. Mormons funded the Prop 8 battle spending more than 22 million dollars. They created and funded the barrage of commercials that continually flooded peoples homes with lies to create fear to create motivation. They organized the canvassing of California to provide another way to spread their lies and create more fear to motivate people. Their involvement in political matters should cause them to lose their tax exemption. They lied about how much they contributed in non monetary contributions by saying a little over $2k. After they were investigated by the Fair Political Practices Commision they filed a new report raising that amount to $190k. Even that is believed to be a low ball figure. They made 23 commercials and the cost they claimed would have about covered the cost of making one of those commercials. The amount they stated for staffing covered only the day of the vote and didn't account for all the days leading up to the vote.
The IRS prohibits tax exempt institutions from participating in political campaigns. And they are not allowed to contribute substantial amounts of money to political lobbying. But what is a substantial amount? Nobody knows. And that is why they got away with it.
We have been the focus of Mormon bigotry for decades and this is just the icing on the cake of hate. These are a few of the things Mormon leaders have had said about gays:
How will these be stopped? Only by the destruction of those who practice them. The only way is... for the Lord to wipe them out. - George Q Cannon
Homosexuality is an ugly sin. Repugnant, like adultery and incest and beastiality, they carry the death penalty under mosaic law. - Spencer W Kimball
Homosexual abominations are fast becoming the way of life among the wicked and ungodly. - Bruce R McConkie
Homosexuality is not pure love. - Harold B Lee
Gays have a problem. - Gordon B Hinckley
Better dead clean, than alive unclean. Bruce R McConkie (Mormon Doctrine)Bruce R. McConkie stated he supported the death penalty for all illicit sex including homosexuality. McConkie excused his outrageous assumption by claiming public execution of homosexuals would never take place until the church and state were one. And he has said to the youth that it is better to be dead than to be a homosexual.
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. … The Lord condemns and forbids this practice....'God made me that way,' some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves...'I can’t help it,' they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be 'that way'?" - Spencer W Kimball
Homosexual and lesbian [sic] activities are sinful and an abomination of the Lord (see Romans 1:26-27, 31). Unnatural affection including those toward persons of the same gender are counter to God's eternal plan for his children. - First Presidency 1990
Parent be alert, ever watchful, that this wickedness might threaten your family circle. -Boyd K Packer. (Oct 3 2010)
They have incited bullying and promoted suicide without actually saying it outright. They engender fear and loathing of us. They have promised the ability to change. That with enough repentance heterosexual feelings can emerge. That is a lie. They can not change the desires, only assist in curbing the behavior. They promise God will answer your earnest prayers and that did not happen. The supposedly inspired knowledge of the source of gay feelings has changed through time. Blaming it on parents because of absent or weak fathers or dominant mothers. Or just plain poor parenting and/or dysfunctional families. Changing to it being a temptation of the devil, to it being from genetics, experiences, and/or nature and nurture, and then they say it's absolutely not genetics. My own mission president taught that sin comes from within and not outside influences. It's who we are, and what we think, and what we do. And yet they claim being gay is not who we are but what we do. As a homosexual I know better. It is part of who I am and nothing they offer can change that during this lifetime. They now counsel families to love the homosexual sinner but condemn the sin. But in the past counseled to condemn and turn against their gay children. Mormon leaders now say about gay marriage what past leaders used to say about monogomy. That's right, the church is against monogomy but they fight to get laws to enforce it anyway. Pretty rediculous.
They say it about gays:
This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome - Spencer W Kimball
Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate God’s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family. - James E Faust
They said it about monogomy:
It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her. - George Q Cannon
Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious. - Brigham Young
...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people. - John Taylor
Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,... } - Brigham Young
This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,... - Orson Pratt
We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations. - George A Smith
I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece. - Heber C Kimball
Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. - Brigham Young
They lump me in with child molestors and rapists and say my sin is next to murder on the scale of worst sins. They call me unnatural, impure, immoral, sinful, abominable, abnormal and perverted. They warn people that gays will tempt you into homosexual acts. They drive us to self-loathing and despair and would have us believe this life long pennance is the only way to happiness. That it would have been better that we weren't born. And then rediculously say they are a church of inclusion. Torture yourself for your entire life and we'll be glad to have you. What a deal.
As this would not change your religion, your religion should not be enforced by the governement, and no other marriage or religion is subject to your qualifications for marriage - we qualify.
　
_____________________________________________________________________
Multiply and Replenish Argument
5. Marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. (Not primarily a license to have sex or recieve economic benefits, but to have children). And since gays can't reproduce they don't qualify. Marriage is reserved for a man and a woman who plan to start a family and raise the next generation. As soon as homosexual copulation naturally produces a pregnancy and subsequent child they can have the rights afforded other parents. Because we aren't bearing and rearing children, thus protecting our future, we do not deserve the greatest respect, protections, safeguards, and honor that can be given. We aren't fighting the fight that really matters. Gay couples are not participants in the building & strengthening of society by having children. Homosexual marriage does not build a society or ensure it's solvency. It does not produce workers, soldiers, doctors, teachers, or any other material benefit. It is therefore unworthy of society's protections.
　
This is the one I got in "trouble" on with my original response. I was told I lose credibility when I use diatribe. While I felt my words got their meaning across perhaps it wasn't the best way to go. At the time I was a bit shocked at what was said, felt a bit hurt, and thought some of the arguments were a tad on the loony side. So I guess I felt justified in responding the way I did. I'll try to refrain this go around though.
The first one off the line isn't all that shocking. Marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood... so if we can't produce kids to become parents of, we don't qualify. Sounds like a sound argument on the surface but it takes a few things for granted that I don't buy into. First, it implies that the only function of marriage is to create and raise children. Second, it implies that we, as gays, don't create or have children. And third, that just because something serves no purpose it should be illegal.
We looked at the definition of marriage in history earlier. But what are the rights and responsibilities of marriage? What makes up todays marriages? We talked about how this is different for different people, so forgive me if this list isn't exhaustive. I think at it's core it is a deep and loving bond between two people. A commitment between those people. A declaration to your friends and family of that commitment and bond. For some it also involves their religion and god with the accompanying religious responsibilities and benefits. And it involves state or civil recognition with the accompanying benefits and responsibilities. As one religion will differ from another, so do the responsibilities and benefits in this aspect of marriage differ. As this doesn't apply here, since the only aspect of marriage we're talking about with gay marriage is the civil and social we'll focus on the civil aspects.
It is no simple task to identify the many laws and legal consequences of marriage since they are spread out over many thousands of laws. And some don't affect all marriages. In 1997 Congress asked the General Accounting Office for a summary of the Federal Laws that treat married people differently from unmarried people. They came up with 1,049 but even this was not a complete list. Besides these, each of the states have their own laws that also give special rights and responsibilities. In addition there are also companies that give different treatment to married couples. Here are few highlights of the government granted benefits and responsibilities.
Taxes. Tax law treats a married couple almost like they are one person. Income Tax - If two people with fairly high incomes marry then they usually end up paying more taxes. That's because with their incomes added together, they end up in a higher tax bracket than they were individually. This is the "marriage penalty" that people talk about a lot. It isn't always a penalty though. If one partner does not work, their taxes are likely to be lower.People on Social Security also end up paying higher taxes on their Social Security income if they marry. For this reason "living together" rather than marrying has become more popular among senior couplesGift Taxes - Ordinarily, if someone gives you more than $11,000 in a year, then you have to pay gift taxes on that money. But gifts between married people are always tax free. Furthermore, a married couple can make tax free gifts to other people (including their children) of up to $22,000 a year, even if only one is earning income.Estate Taxes - Only millionaires ever have to pay estate taxes, but if you are a millionaire, being married is a big advantage because you can leave money to your wife tax free, and the portion of what you leave to your children that is exempt from estate tax is twice as highEmployer Taxes - If you work for your spouse, you are not their employee. They don't have to pay social security taxes or unemployment taxes on your behalf
Health Care. When a person is seriously ill and not able to make their own decisions, hospitals regularly turn to the person's spouse to make health care decisions, up to and including whether to disconnect a person from life supportA person's spouse can often be carried on their health insurance. Even if your health insurance is not provided by an employer, it is likely to be much cheaper to insure two people on one policy rather than buy separate policiesOn the other hand, if your spouse cannot pay their health care bills, then you can be held liable for the cost.
Judicial: Married people cannot be required to testify against each other in court.
Government Assistance: Married people can get higher payments from some government assistance programs, including Medicaid, supplemental security income, and federal employee and veteran's disability payments. If your spouse needs to move to take a better job, and you need to leave your job so you can stay together, then you can qualify for unemployment assistance. If your spouse is leaving military service, you can get employment assistance and transitional services. On the other hand, there are many government benefits that you can only get if your income is below a certain level, like housing assistance, veteran's medical benefits, and educational loans for children. If you are married, the income of both partners is counted. This may make these programs harder to qualify for.
Death Benefits: If your spouse dies, you may be eligable for a wide range of different benefits. Social Security may continue payments to the spouse of a deceased person. Spouses of veterans and federal employees are eligable for death benefits, as are widows or widowers of many other groups of people, including longshoremen, railroad workers, and police officers who die in the line of duty. Survivors may continue to receive health care benefits from their spouse's former employer, and there are many other benefits to survivors, ranging from renewal and termination rights over a spouse's copyrights to continuation of a spouse's water rights. If a married person dies due to negligence, then their spouse may be able to recover money in a wrongful death lawsuit. In some cases, remarrying can terminate survivor benefits.
Bankruptcy: Married couples can file jointly for bankruptcy which can be beneficial. A former spouse making claims during a bankruptcy has a higher priority.
Immigration and Citizenship: Spouses of legal aliens are automatically legal and are not subject to immigration quotas. A non-citizen who marries a citizen can get permanent resident status. Many countries who restrict emigration to the US still allow people who have spouses in the US to emigrate, because the US government imposes trade penalties if they do not.
Divorce: The legal system often provides mediation services and expedited hearings for married couples who are breaking up. After a divorce, a former spouse may be eligable for alimony payments. "Palimony" is a possibility in some states, but it requires that there be some kind of contract between the couple for it to work.
Government Employment: Spouses of veterans can get preferential treatment in hiring for government jobs. Threats against the spouse of a federal employee are a federal crime. If you work for the government, conflict of interest rules in matters relating to your spouse may limit your activities or require you to make disclosures.
Retirement Plans: Changing the benefits in a retirement plan often requires written consent from your spouse.
Domestic Violence: There are state and federal laws relating to the special circumstance of domestic violence. In most states, temporary restraining orders, and similar protective options are available to members of unmarried couples as well as married couples, but apparantly there are some states where they are not.
Parenthood: If a married woman has a baby, her husband is assumed to be the father. Establishing paternity otherwise isn't particularly hard - generally just acting like a father to the child will do it, but filing a formal claim of paternity is advisable. If an unmarried father dies without a will, his children may not be able to inherit in some states, or may have only a limited time to make a claim against his estate. This is not a problem if he has a will. The children's right to recieve Social Security benefits or life insurance payments is not effected.
Adoption: In some states, it may be necessary for a couple to be married to be able to adopt children. This is not true in all states and is rapidly changing.
　
This shows us that marriage is not primarily or solely for the purpose of bearing and raising children. As all of my siblings are or have been married I wouldn't have thought this argument would have needed to be made. While it is a large part of marriage it is not the only reason these rights and responsibilities exist. Furthermore, married people tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer-provided benefits.
The second sub point to the first part of the argument was that it assumes gay people don't have children. But this is rediculous. In a few days from now my own baby girl will be born. She is the product of 100% gay parents. Though it wasn't just me and Matt that created this child, both mom and dad are gay. And there was no modern technology used. Unless you count a baby medicine measuring syringe as modern technology. A very dear friend of ours who we have known for over 6 years volunteered to be our surrogate. She is a lesbian with a partner of 8 years and two of her own teenage children. All of whom we consider to be our family. More of a family than my biological family as they choose to be in our lives and provide the support and love that a family should.
And the last sub argument to the first part of this argument is that because something serves no purpose it should be made illegal. All of my family are republicans so it seems odd that they would be for bigger government.
The next point (marriage is reserved for a man and a woman who plan to start a family and raise the next generation) is just another one of my relatives putting the same thing a different way, so I won't harp on it. But the one after that is a juicy one. "As soon as homosexual copulation naturally produces a pregnancy and subsequent child they can have the rights afforded other parents." I say juicy because it degrades every couple out there that for whatever reason couldn't produce their own children or didn't want to and every child out there that was adopted or fostered. You're making the argument that they also shouldn't qualify for the benefits listed above because they couldn't naturally bring a child into this world. Would this include medical advances that assist in fertility? They weren't naturally able to concieve. Does this include parents who choose not to have kids? Are marriages only sealed and benefits granted after the first child is born? Your point is rediculous and highly flawed.
And we saved the best (read as most rediculous) for last. "Because we aren't bearing and rearing children, thus protecting our future, we do not deserve the greatest respect, protections, safeguards, and honor that can be given. We aren't fighting the fight that really matters. Gay couples are not participants in the building & strengthening of society by having children. Homosexual marriage does not build a society or ensure it's solvency. It does not produce workers, soldiers, doctors, teachers, or any other material benefit. It is therefore unworthy of society's protections."
You really outdid yourself with this one. We already touched on the fact that we do actually bear and rear children. You continue to emphasize popping out kids as the only reason for marriage. But you add on that this is the only way someone contributes to society. It doesn't matter if you are a worker, soldier, doctor, or teacher. According to you it only matters if you create them (which we do). Do you really believe that the only part of building and stregthening a society that matters is having children and raising them? You can't possibly believe that everything you have done, outside of having sex with your wife (and only the 3 times that produced kids for you) and raising your kids, has had no benefit to society as a whole.
As for solvency, I had initially thought this was a reference to the survival of our species. So this was my response. We're coming up on 7 billion people on this planet. I don't think solvency is problem. Not only are we bearing and rearing children still (even though we're gay), but you guys are still around! You still make up the majority of the peoples of the world. Our decendents will still die of starvation because we have eventually overrun the planet. Extinction because of gays is not something we really need to worry about. When I looked it up I learned that it is more to do with the ability to pay our debts. So the concern, as I understand it now, is that with fewer people being born there are fewer workers, teachers etc etc, meaning fewer people to pay for the baby boomers elderly care and fewer to take care of them. However, as mentioned several times, we do have children. In addition, more stable families would mean we are able to raise more productive workers (as opposed to more kids in foster care or waiting to be adopted and statistically being more likely to be abused, commit crimes, not get an education etc). I would also argue the point that wider government and state acceptance of gay marriage would reduce suicide rates which would also be a boost to numbers. After all, how helpful is having kids if you mentally abuse them to the point that they commit suicide. And lastly to this point, let's pretend for just a moment that your continued assertion that we don't have kids was true AND that we continue to not be allowed to have gay marriage... we STILL wouldn't be having kids. We won't just throw our arms up in the air and say 'alright, you win, we'll find a female and pop out some kids since we can't get married as gays'. You aren't creating more kids by withholding gay marriage, you are in fact making it more difficult and financially burdensome to do so. And you are making more kids remain in foster care so they are statistically more likely to be less beneficial to society.
As we are parents, we do reproduce and/or adopt and foster children, and we do bear and rear children, we then qualify under this requirement for the "greatest respect, protections, safeguards, and honor that can be given." We do build and strengthen society and ensure its solvency by having children and thereby produce workers, soldiers, doctors, teachers, and all other material benefits. We are therefore worthy of society's protections by this measure, so we qualify.
　
_____________________________________________________________________
Biological Parent Argument
6. The ideal set up is for children to be reared by the two people that brought them into the world. Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to have both parents who made him. And losing that right isn't because of something tragic, but something intentional. We need to strengthen and maintain the only institution specifically intended to safeguard the right of children to be raised by biological parents. Changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society.
This whole argument was made by an article that a sister in law linked saying "We recently read an article that illustrates one of the major reason we feel we must stand up and fight so that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" (proposition 8). We hope you will read the article to understand our position a little better."
The same person that wrote this article was also an 'expert' witness in the Prop 8 trial. It should be noted that this same person testified that both the state of California and same sex couples would benefit from same sex marriage. He further noted that marriage would benefit gay couples and their children, would reduce discrimination against gays and lesbians and would be "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion."
He was the only witness called by proponents of Prop 8 to address the governments interest in marriage and in the judges ruling he says "Blankenhorn's testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate", later stating "...the testimony of Blankenhorn is unreliable."
Blankenhorn emphasized the importance of biological parents, relying on studies comparing children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents. However, the relevant comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and families headed by opposite-sex couples. Studies comparing these two family types show conclusively that having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes. None of the studies Blankenhorn relied on isolates the genetic relationship between a parent and a child as a variable to be tested. Studies showing that adopted children or children conceived using sperm or egg donors are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by their biological parents. Blankenhorn agreed that adoptive parents "actually on some outcomes outstrip biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their children."
In the end, "...Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents' factual assertions. " "Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn's qualifications as an expert because none of his relevent publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, he has no degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure, and his study of the effects of same-sex marriage involved "read[ing] articles and ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed person about it. " His conclusions are not based on "objective data or discernible methodology," and his conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected quotations from articles and reports. The court permitted him to testify but reserved the question of the appropriate weight to give to his opinions. The court determined that Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight. None of his opinions is reliable. And these were the nice things said about him.
His court testimony was the same material used for this article. And the judge spent 11 pages of the ruling explaining the many ways in which someone could be considered an expert and then detailing how he didn't qualify under a single one. He then went on to discredit every single opinion and conclusion that Blankenhorn had come to, one by one, and the methods he used to get to those opinions and conclusions. And all of this was in addition to the selections I presented above. I'm going to agree with the judge and call bullshit on these theories and half baked ideas.
I strongly disagree with the premise that kids are always better off with their biological parents. How many kids grow up in abusive situations? How many kids grow up with alcoholic parents? How many kids are born to parents in gangs? How many kids are born to teenage mothers? Are abandoned by one or more of their parents? How many are neglected and left to raise themselves? How many are accidental births that are unwanted and treated that way? How many pregnancies are aborted? How many kids grow up in societies that tell them they are a danger to that society? That they are a danger to children. That they are criminals and perverts. How many grow up with no hope for the future? And are told they are evil and going to hell? How many are rejected by their parents and family for only being who they are?
My childhood and teenage years were constantly clouded by depression and mental anguish. I was four times more likely to attempt suicide because of the environment my family and community created. You will not convince me that I can't provide a better life than that for my child because I'm gay.
The ideal set up you set forth is not supported by relevant evidence obtained by comparing children raised by traditional marriage to those of same sex marriage. You compare children raised by traditional marriages to single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents. Furthermore, the purpose of marriage set forth by this argument, to safeguard the right of children to be raised by biological parents, is rediculous. Fathers are not required to provide proof of paternity. For that matter, neither are mothers, and with todays technology it can't always be assumed. Parents that already have children can re-marry and therefore create a parent to the child that is not biologically connected them.
This qualification is not sound and does not hold up to scrutiny, therefore we still qualify.
　
___________________________________________________________________
Innate Quality Gap Argument
7. Fathers and mothers are different. There is absolutely something missing if there is not a mother or a father in a marriage. There are innate qualities in women that a man does not and cannot have. And the same is true for men that women don't have.
The article from Blankenhorn asked "Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another?" And I answered back then with this "Yes I do. But I also know fathers are different from fathers. Craig is a different father than Armand is. Aaron is a different father than Del is. I would be a different father than Kyle is, Tessa is a different mother than what Tara is. I also acknowledge that child rearing is more than just two people, and should include grandparent, aunts, auncles, cousins, and community."
Not only are parents different from each other, but each kid is different from one another too. I needed something very different from my parents than the rest of my 5 brothers and sisters. And even though I had the so called perfect formula of a mom and a dad, they weren't able to provide that for me. I was a minority with no family support through those trials. I'm not saying they totally failed me. With the support and love I did get I was able to make it through, barely. But in the end that was because I stopped following their guidance and broke away. I survived by leaving the communities poisonous hatred of me that was killing me from the inside out.
My lucky daughter will not only have two dads, but she will also have two half moms and two half sisters. Other gay parents don't have all this built in. But that won't make them lesser parents for it. The vast majority will have had to plan out in advance and make large efforts and usually major sacrifices to be able to bring a child into the world or to adopt. Because of this they are less likely to take this opportunity for granted or start the process before they are ready. The vast majority of us will have gone through difficult childhoods and be more understanding and accepting of differences. And because of this there will be less bias, prejudice, and baseless fear mongering passed on to their children. They will have a greater understanding of the pain the world can cause because of these prejudices and provide a more thorough protection from them or help through them. Many will understand the pain of an unaccepting family and raise their kids to rise above the 'i'm right and your evil' attitude.
This qualification would only hold true if all women were the same and all men were the same and they brought the same respective traits to the parenthood table. This is not the case, so you can't say we don't qualify for marriage because we are lacking some un-named 'quality' unless you name it and then disqualify all marriages, traditional or not, that don't provide it. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a requirement that people have certain qualities (other than gender) in order to participate in marriage. What is this quality that is inborn in all women? What are the qualities that exist from birth in all men? Another qualification that doesn't hold water, so we still qualify.
　
______________________________________________________________________
Domestic Partnership Benefits Argument
8. Gays already get similar benefits through states domestic partnership program
Perhaps in California and a few other states they get some of the same benefits. Some. In some states they get marriage and still lack some of the same state benefits and all of the federal benefits. To say that because California gays already get some benefits so they shouldn't be fighting for more is like telling Rosa Parks to shut up and get out of her seat because she's allowed on the bus and that should be good enough. Well 'close' or 'similar' aren't good enough. Separate but equal is not equal.
Domestic partnerships stigmatize gays and lesbians even when put in place for the purpose of providing rights and benefits. They do not fully substitute for marriage because they do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage. And some of the value of marriage is the social meaning. The ability to show your friends, family, and community your commitment to each other and love for each other. The ability to explain in words to people your connection with your partner. Domestic partnerships are a form of segregation. And while your religion may view me as second class and therefore not entitled to use 'your' special words and have access to the same benefits, the government does not have a right or interest to do so.
This reasoning falls short of disqualifying us even if every state offered the same benefits that California does in its domestic partnership program. We still qualify.
　
_______________________________________________________________________
Tragic Circumstance Argument
9. (After mentioning a few rights that married couples get, specifically rights that pertain to benefits or protections recieved if one of them die...) The legal basis for rights is from the reality that these same people would be responsible for the continued care of children left in these tragic circumstances. (Apparently implying that we have no interest in the responsibilities of raising a child should one of us leave or be taken from the situation)
It seems repetative, but we have kids that need these protections. Easy breeders do not have a monopoly on kids or tragic circumstances that leave a now single parent around to care for their child or children and still manage all of the other financial obligations of life. Me and Matt have a child. Right now. This very moment I'm typing the response to this question our daughter is one month old (tomorrow actually). And to get just a few of the main benefits that easy breeders can take for granted because they are just automatic when you get married, I have had to get a lawyer and spend significant amounts of money and time to obtain them. And they are still inferior to what you get that you didn't have to do anything but sign a marriage certificate to get. We are still in the process of getting these things set up. So if I die or Matt dies anytime in the near future we're just shit out of luck. Under this qualification that you put forth, we qualify.
As we need these protections just like heterosexual parents do, we qualify.
________________________________________________________________________
Proof Argument
10. We can't provide proof that shows we can raise children well.
　
This may be one that hurt the most to be said about me. Especially from a family member that I would have thought knew me at least to a small degree better than a comment like this implies. We can pretend that these were general accusation and comments. But they were made about gays as a whole, and I am gay. So here you go-
　
"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents," by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley, San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551 (1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay & Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers' Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44 Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133 (1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience: Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris & Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review (Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek & Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of Southern Maine, 1992)
You can find many additional citations in this bibliography: "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: Annotated Bibliography of Legal and Psychological Materials," by Donna J. Hitchens and Ann G. Thomas, editors [San Francisco Lesbian Rights Project]
These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])
The same article goes on to note that a very few differences HAVE been reported by some researchers: One study found children raised by heterosexual mothers had a HIGHER rate of psychiatric disorders and psychiatric referrals than those raised by lesbians. Another study found that those raised by heterosexuals were more domineering and more often engaged in power struggles. Other studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater tolerance for diversity and that daughters of lesbians chose to play with opposite sex partners more often than daughters of heterosexual mothers.
Citations showing that children of gay parents are no more likely to grow up gay:
Golombok, Spencer, & Rutter, Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal, 24, J. Child Psychology and Psychiatry 551, 568 (1983)
Green, The Best Interests of a Child with a Lesbian Mother, 10 Bull. Am. Acad. Psychiatry and Law, 7, 13, (1982)
Green, Mandel, Hotveldt, Gray, & Smith, Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children, 15 Archives Sexual Behav., 167, 181 (1986)
Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A Comparative Survey, 51 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 545, 551 (1981)
Bozett, Children of Gay Fathers, in Gay and Lesbian Parents, F. Bozett ed. (1987)
by - Eileen Durgin-Clinchard, Ph.D.
　
There is plenty of evidence. So where is your proof to the contrary? And since we do have this proof that you have required of us to qualify, we qualify.
　
________________________________________________________________________
Just Wanting/Feeling Entitled Argument
11. We shouldn't get it just because we want it or feel entitled to it.
People shouldn't get everything they want just because they want it. I can agree with that general statement. And people often feel entitled to more than they are. But as that statement relates to the topic at hand I can't agree. We aren't a segment of the population that is complaining because we don't have as many sprinkles on our ice cream as you. This is about our rights as citizens of this country being trampled and withheld because you have an objection to who we are. We have the same obligations to our communities and governments that you do. We pay the same taxes and live under the same laws. We build up and participate in society in every way you do. And we should be allowed the same rights and equal protections.
The Due Process Clause provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." US Constitutional Amendment XIV.
Proposition 8 in California and all other laws prohibiting us from marriage violate this amendment because:
1. They discriminate against gay men and lesbians by denying us a right to marry the person of our choice whereas heterosexual men and women may do so freely; and
2. They disadvantage a suspect class in preventing only gay men and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.
It's descrimination based on our sexual orientation and it's wrong.
Because our reasons far surpass just wanting it or feeling entitled to it, we qualify.
　
________________________________________________________________________
Vote Argument
12. We shouldn't get it because the majority voted against it.
　
I can't put it any better or more clear than this:
"An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters of their representatives." Emphasis added.
Because your claims to harm do not have any support in evidence, we qualify.
　
________________________________________________________________________
Slippery Slope Argument
13. If you allow gay marriage it becomes a slippery slope to polygyny, beastiality, adult/child marriage.
　
With the possible exception of polygyny, no it doesn't. Allowing consenting adult homosexuals to marry each other will not in any way create any type of 'slope', slippery or otherwise, to beastiality or child marriage. There is requirement of consent that neither of these things can ever provide. Slippery slope arguments are weak because the more horrible the bottom of the slope looks the better people are at avoiding the urge to slip down them. This is an attempt to associate homosexuality with other things that actually are horrible to reinforce the 'horribleness' of gays that isn't true but that society promulgates.
As for polygyny, is the bottom of that slope really undesirable and is the slope really all that slippery? This is an example of adults making adult decisions about their relationships. I don't recall this being an argument my family brought up. Considering they are mostly Mormon it make the slippery slope to polygyny a benefit rather than a deterrant. I personally don't see the problem with allowing multiple adults decide they want to create a family. Bible prophets seem ok with the idea, Mormons were ok with the idea and they believe it will be reinstated in heaven as the quotes I added earlier in the religion section show. If it's good enough for heaven and prophets I don't see what the problem is. Perhaps if you took the illegality of it away the people hiding to live that way will find it harder to force children into plural marriages and bearing children while they are in their early teens.
Every action this country takes should be made on it's own merits and not the potential and unlikely next step that might happen. Even so, this slippery slope isn't very slippery at all. We still qualify.
______________________________________________________________________
Rights Infringement Argument
14. This will lead to infringements on everyones rights. Including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, personal liberties, and freedom of association.
More fear mongering. There is no reality to these things. Provide specific examples of this happening or how this could happen and we can discuss them.
As this has rubber teeth, we still qualify.
______________________________________________________________________
To recap:
1. Since we are not changing the definition of your marriage, and we are not devalueing marriage but strengthening it by adding more people that believe in it and value it, we qualify.
2. Since we are not a danger to children and would actually have a positive influence in the number of kids getting a quality family environment in this country we qualify.
3. As we are not a danger to society and there are significant benefits to "scrap[ing] standards" we qualify.
4. As this would not change your religion, your religion should not be enforced by the governement, and no other marriage or religion is subject to your specific qualifications for marriage - we qualify.
5. As we are parents, we do reproduce and/or adopt and foster children, and we do bear and rear children, we then qualify under this requirement for the "greatest respect, protections, safeguards, and honor that can be given." We do build and strengthen society and ensure its solvency by having children and thereby produce workers, soldiers, doctors, teachers, and all other material benefits. We are therefore worthy of society's protections by this measure, so we qualify.
6. The Biological Parent qualification is not sound and does not hold up to scrutiny, therefore we still qualify.
7. The Innate Quality Gap qualification doesn't hold water, so we still qualify.
8. The Domestic Partnership reasoning falls short of disqualifying us even if every state offered the same benefits that California does in its program. We still qualify.
9. As we need these protections in the event of Tragic Circumstances just like heterosexual parents do, we qualify.
10. There is plenty of evidence we are just as good at parenting. So where is your proof to the contrary? And since we do have this Proof that you have required of us to qualify, we qualify.
11. Because our reasons far surpass Just Wanting it or Feeling Entitled to it, we qualify.
12. Because your claims to harm do not have any support in evidence, your Vote reasoning doesn't stand and we qualify.
13. Every action this country takes should be made on it's own merits and not the potential and unlikely next step that might happen. Even so, this Slippery Slope isn't very slippery at all. We still qualify.
14. The Rights Infringement reason has rubber teeth and no merit, we still qualify.
In every point I have given a serious and significant defense of gay marriage. Every harm to you, children, marriage and society has been debunked. Every qualification listed we either meet or I have shown to be a rediculous requirement that heterosexuals don't meet or enforce on their own marriages.
The benefits of gay marriage would go beyond homosexuals extending to society as a whole and are tangible, measureable and significant. Your attacks on our rights are damaging and costly to us and this can be shown over and over again with real people in real circumstances. The benefits society supposedly gets for withholding marriage from gays are vague, incalculable, and unsubstantiated. And your stated ill effects are mystical, unquantifiable, not supported by evidence, and can not be seen or defended in secular terms.
And there you have it. Thanks for playing.