Beyond Marriage?
Have you seen this yet? If not, it is a must examine for traditional family values supporters.
Beyond Marriage would better be named Beyond Decency. In their own words: (my comments are in red)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships Executive Summary (click here to read the full statement) The time has come to reframe the narrow terms of the marriage debate in the United States. Conservatives are seeking to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment. But their opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a thirty-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources. Meanwhile, the LGBT movement has recently focused on marriage equality as a stand-alone issue. While this strategy may secure rights and benefits for some LGBT families, it has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent backlash. We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right's powerful and effective use of marriage as a “wedge” issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate: Ø Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status. Ø Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance. (First of all, when is this not the case already? A few pen strokes in front of a lawyer and notary can create legal relationships WRT health care and financial matters. Notice that these people want all government programs extended to all regardless of citizenship - so you and I bear the financial burden for supporting the world. Think redistribution of wealth - Think communism!) Ø Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families. (i.e. churches would no longer marry people - marriage would be defined strictly by the new anything goes government policy. This is a strike at the heart of most religions.) Ø Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.(Keep in mind that they already won freedom - remember the sodomy laws case? They want legitimization and acceptance not "freedom".) Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example: (This is a blatant attempt at confusing the real issue - there are plenty of legal exceptions made for most of these groups.) · Single parent households · Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls) (Wills, Living Wills, and Powers of Attorney would cover most of the needs in a case like this.) · Blended and extended families (Hello, McFly! A blended family is a marriage.) · Children being raised in multiple households (huh???) or by unmarried parents (Biology is the law! Ever tried to take a child out of an abusive family? Parent relationships aren't established by "marriage". Again this is an attempt to confuse the issues and blur the cause - they don't want you to know that all they want is the complete and utter acceptance and dominance of homosexuality and sexually deviant lifestyles.) · Adult children living with and caring for their parents (A few pen strokes...) · Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives (see last comment...) · Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers (They want college roommates to be "married" under the law? How do you divide the mutual property upon graduation? A divorce?) · Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (Read this closely: POLYGAMY! The next step will be pedophilia because all marriage definitions will be considered arbitrary and all sexual limitations will also be considered a gray area.) · Care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS. (Again, a few pen strokes...) The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. (Dishonesty seems to be the norm do we legitimize it? You know, mistreatment of trees is the norm - we actually cut them down to build houses and buildings - even such trivialities as paper! Gasp! Perhaps we should all move into caves... Right and wrong isn't defined by popular vote. If we want the deviant to define the norm, we'll review the Kinsey report.) We seek to reframe this debate. Our call speaks to the widespread hunger for authentic and just community in ways that are both pragmatic and visionary. It follows in the best tradition of the progressive LGBT movement, which invented alternative legal statuses such as domestic partnership and reciprocal beneficiary. We seek to build on these historic accomplishments by continuing to diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households. We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision,” and to join us in our call for government support of all our households. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
There you have it. They want to change the world. Now, they are really out of the closet. If you needed proof of an agenda - here it is. Visit the site and read it for yourself.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by MOS— 2006/08/04 @ 07:50 PM — (Reply)
MISINFORMED, MOS. The LDS/Mormon church stopped comdoning polygamy in 1890 with the official Manifesto by then president of the Church Wilford Woodruf.
To quite the contrary, members of LDS church, went door to door with petitions to present to CA legislators. What were they for? For marriage to be defined as the marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.
Additionally, in the last general conference of the church, Elder Nelson of their twelve apostles declared the same (1 man, 1 woman). The video is here: http://lds.org/conference/file/0,17193,4-602-2-12-2,00.asx
Don't try to legitimize the LGBT by pointing at OBSCURE sects. Look at India, which is not Christian, but Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. They have still outlawed sodomy, and recently a mother of past nobilty (article called her a princess) denounced and disowned her son for coming out of the closet.
Point your finger at everybody, hon. Christians aren't alone on this, they're backed by every other group of people who still embraces a moral code.
Comment by River— 2006/08/17 @ 06:50 PM — (Reply)
Okay, so I did... and here's what I found, under About Us:
Nearly 20!!!! Holy cow!!
Meanwhile, we have existing Christian (mostly Mormon) sects that actively practice polygamy, with total membership estimated between 80 and 110 thousand.
Here's one site that explains the Christian foundation for polygamy. Here's another that provides support and resources for active polygamists. Maybe it's not just the LGBT's that we need to worry about, but those danged Christians as well!
Comment by Michael— 2006/08/08 @ 07:27 AM — (Reply)
The "Mormon" church has denounced polygamy. The cults that continue to practice under that name are no more "Mormon" than Madonna will be Catholic if the Vatican has its way.
As for the polygamist groups you mention, they are a threat to traditional family and they are riding the coat tails of the gay marriage movement. In Canada, a town called Bountiful, if memory serves, the government is/was considering legalizing polygamy. BUT the fact is that polygamy is still appalling to most Americans (though Big Love may be having the same impact as Will and Grace by desensitizing people to the abnormality of the lifestyle) makes it an obstacle yet to be breached. Beyond Marriage is the proof that gay marriage is not a singular issue but a step to a sexual-social revolution that would completely undermine the family.
I know this is hard for many people to hear these days but procreation is a process that can ONLY occur between one man and one woman. It amazes me that the same liberal mindset that would reduce us to creatures crawling out of the primordial ooze would reject the only natural, scientific form of propagating the species.
That Beyond Marriage started with 20 people is insignificant. Nazi Germany started with one man. The same grunge band formed by 4 kids in a garage ends up having tremendous impact on our culture. Do you disagree? BTW, you may want to check the list of signatories. Way more than 20 people on that list and many are people in positions of influence.
As I said, Michael, visit the website.
Comment by Cate— 2006/08/08 @ 09:28 AM — (Reply)
Hey again, Cate,
Well, I did miss the list of signatories- my bad there. While it's true that Nazi Germany started with just 1 man, it's also true that there have been millions of Hitler-wannabes, most of whom never made even a scratch on the pages of history.
And of course I was being mostly facetious talking about the Christian threat to traditional family values. Not entirely, but mostly.
I'll tell you what scares me is the simplistic statement:
The implication, and it's not a big leap to take, is that marraige exists purely for propogation of the species. Defining marraige purely on the basis of procreation (either potential or realized) is overly simplistic.
By extension, then, ought we outlaw marraige for women who have passed menopause? Or between individuals who are unable otherwise to procreate? Ought we require, even mandate, unprotected sex on a regular schedule between married persons? After all, if the purpose of marraige is the propagation of the species, then let's not waste valuable tax dollars on those selfish couples who refuse to populate the Earth.
A "camel's nose" kind of argument, I realize, but I have yet to see an argument against gay marraige that is any more persuasive than the "procreation" tact. It's undeniable that homosexual couples are unable, by biology, to create new life. There are heterosexual couples just as unable, by biology, to create new life- so are we threatening the traditional family by allowing those couples to wed? I would suspect not, for we can at least allow for the chance of a "miracle" (using the term very loosely) occuring.
There are heterosexual couples who choose not to create new life. Do they pose a threat to traditional family values? Perhaps they do, for they represent, on some level, a mindset that values individual freedoms over a larger societal good. If that's your contention, I can't find much fault in it.
But if you are concerned for the welfare of the children, find me the studies that show gay parents are inferior to hetero parents. From what I've found, the worst that can be said is that most of the studies on the topic have had some flaw in their design. Nearly all studies show no major differences between gay or hetero parenting.
If the argument is that gay parents lead to gay children, the studies also suggest that this is false. The only thing that has been shown is that children with lesbian parents are more likely to have homosexual friends. However, to me, that's a bit like discovering that children with Catholic parents are more likely to have Catholic friends.
Okay, so Cate... let me ask you this:
You seem to conceed that rights, similar to "marraige" can be conferred with a few strokes of a pen. Does that mean that you support that exchange of rights between homosexual couples, so long as they just don't call it "Marraige"? If legislation were introduced to forbid "civic unions" or pen-stroking (er... sorry for how that sounds) between gay couples from happening, would you oppose that sort of intrusion?
Comment by Michael— 2006/08/09 @ 08:08 AM — (Reply)
Property, guardianship, wills, etc... were all about taking care of progeny. Remember the old standard "Isn't it Romantic?" When referring to having a "troop" of children, the song claims, "It's a duty that we owe to dear old France, isn't it romance?" I bring this up only to reference the commonly understood albeit implied idea that childbearing was not just a religious custom but also a social responsibility. Just an illustration of cultural ideas from a century ago.
Now, I'm really going to ruffle your feathers... You write:
For legal reasons, the potential of procreation should be defining factor in determining benefits. Otherwise, what interest does the government have in marriage at all? If not to protect the interests of minors and to protect the real interests left by parents to their children, what does marriage matter legally? What others matters cannot be resolved with a pen and a notary?
It's interesting that homosexual activists condemn the religious right for trying to define marriage according to Christian ideals and here I am arguing pure biology.
Michael, we both know the truth and that is that most homosexuals don't care about spousal privilege any more than most heterosexuals. And they know that they can get other rights through living wills and powers of attorney. What they seek is cultural acceptance by force. Gay marriage is a blatant attempt to push the culture into embracing the lifestyle. As some of the commenters on the above-linked post attest, there are underlying motives in this debate that have absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
Now - before you play gotcha with me - let's just go with this as a given:
WRT morality and marriage... ANY conjugal relationship that is characterized by abuse, degradation, infidelity, or a drive to put one's needs above the good of his/her partner is not really a Christian marriage. (Eph. 5:25)
In the paradigm of Christianity, marriage is a selfless endeavor. Not one of selfish indulgence but one of self-sacrifice through which we come to understand the sacrificing and godly nature of the Messiah.
Yes. Morally: The message that other pursuits are equally enobling as righteous parenting is misguided at best and selfish at worst. Socially: I believe you answered this one yourself...
The right to have sex with any other consenting adult already exists - we don't even punish adulterers - look at Bill Clinton. Tell me exactly what other specific rights a "civil union" would confer? Because again we seem to be arguing of cultural legitimacy rather than legal identification of a relationship.
On the issue of gay parenting: Please take this as the example it is intended to be - not a characterization of gays but simply an example.
If children raised to parents involved in the mafia proved (through rigorous study and scientific investigation) to stay in school longer and be more likely to be financially successful in life, would you expect the government to place adoptive children in the homes of Mob bosses?
Sounds ludicrous, right? How about if after long term studies we proved that meth users over 25 could handle both the drug and the kids and raise them reasonably well? Do kids raised by strippers turn out okay? Kids raised by porn producers?
I'm not suggesting that homosexuals are dangerous in the way that a hit man or a druggie are. I'm simply saying that I wouldn't want to place a child in the home of anyone that was willfully disregarding what I regard as divine mandated ideals for family relationships. And in this case, biology supports the fact that it takes two, one of each gender, to tango.
As a former foster care mother, I know that most placements are less than ideal. The difference is that most people acknowledge their circumstances aren't ideal (the single parent, the grandmother doing foster care alone) but homosexuals believe their situation is morally equivalent to traditional marriage. With this I just disagree.
Comment by Cate— 2006/08/09 @ 03:22 PM — (Reply)
Otherwise, what interest does the government have in marriage at all?
you're right, marriage is a religious union. civil unions can allow the homosexual community the means to carry out wills, decide who pays taxes etc.
The abortion debate was changed the same way. Using euphemisms and redefining the terms (abortion = murder vice abortion is a choice) are attempts to make these things palatable and and the opposite appear discriminatory. I don't need a study to determine that what is best for a child is a father and a mother. (I realize that not every heterosexual home is a good one or that there are abusive parents or that some homosexual unions will have nurturing and loving homes) this is not the issue.
Here is a study done at Princeton Univ.
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.
This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.
The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage":
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.
2. Children need fathers.
If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.
* David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).
3. Children need mothers.
Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.
Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.
This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.
For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see: http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.
It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father.
This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem. (Perennial, 2003) 175-177.
George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.
But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.
If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
Steve Nock, Marriage in Men's Lives (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (Institute for American Values, 2003) 17.
This paper is reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/09 @ 05:23 PM — (Reply)
Nice to hear from you again! And, of course, mi casa es su casa amigo - even if it is just a virtual abode. Your comments are welcome here whatever their length.
Comment by Cate— 2006/08/09 @ 06:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/08/09 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/08/10 @ 07:10 AM — (Reply)
EB and Cate,
Two very articulate comments, and I appreciate the veracity and effort you both put into them. If I wanted to make this page scroll for meters upon meters, I would take the time to answer the points one by one. I'll spare everyone that tedium.
I will try to sum up my understanding, and please correct my errors.
For both of you, the primary criticism seems to be against gay parenting, rather than gay marraige.
Secondary seems to be the concerns you about the growing detachment of marraige from its procreative function.
Tertiary seems to be a desire to return to gender roles that pre-date modern social innovation, one that corresponds well with your religious viewpoints. (Cate, as an articulate and politically active woman, with a rich knowledge of history, I'm surprised that the cultural norms of a hundred years ago would seem so appealing to you.)
Anyhoo, is that a fair summation?
Comment by Michael— 2006/08/18 @ 09:38 AM — (Reply)
Michael, what shocks me is how many women hide from the real work of shaping humanity by dropping a baby off with a virtual stranger for 8 hours a day beginning when the child is 6 weeks old. Most mammals know better....
Disregarding religion entirely - I see the abandonment of parenting as a social ill that begets a host of other problems.
Your shock at my response makes me think that you do not place much value on mothering. I'm not shocked, as that has become a common way of thinking, but I am saddened.
Comment by Cate— 2006/08/18 @ 12:29 PM — (Reply)
Hi Cate,
My shock at your response doesn't comes from a lowered value on mothering. It may be that you and EB both see me as devaluing motherhood and parenthood overall. I'd like to think that's not the case, but I'm not sure I'd be able to persuade you otherwise.
No, my shock comes when a woman who is one of the sharpest minds I've engaged, who prides herself on keeping informed and, I assume, is actively engaged in politics, speaks waxingly of a time when a woman would probably have had much opportunity to attend college, would not have had the opportunity to engage in politics, and who would likely die by the age of 45-most likely due to child-birth.
Was suffrage a mistake?
Heaven knows that once you women could express yourself in the ballot box, it was inevitable that you would start thinking you could leave the kitchen. Boy, once that starts happening, soon you'll start thinking that maybe you can go to college, or have a life that's not predetermined by the fact that you have a uterus.
You do argue a biological basis for marriage, and I concede that. But hasn't technology advanced to where we don't have to allow biology to rule our fates entirely?
You are a proud mother, and I have every reason to believe that you do an excellent job providing the loving developing environment for your kids.
P.S.- Daycare is a result of the dissolution of the larger family structure, not a cause of it, IMHO. But I agree it is symptomatic- just disagree on the chicken-egg side of it.
Comment by Michael— 2006/08/18 @ 02:20 PM — (Reply)
Why can't women be well educated, informed and active in their communities but still CHOOSE to prioritize motherhood?
What's really interesting (and would make an exceptional thesis topic) is how the idea of a "feminine divinity" of the sort devised in The DaVinci Code holds such fascination in a culture that increasingly disregards the most beautiful act of selfless creation as an act of subjugation.
Comment by Cate— 2006/08/18 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
Cate,
There is much to be admired, and desired, in educated and politically active women in making that choice, or really any woman... indeed any person. The selfless role of caretaker and nurturer is the single-most vital job that exists in our society.
But the word you emphasized is the very same word I would have: CHOOSE. Modern technology and modern society allow women to make that choice, rather than have that role imposed upon them.
----------------------------
Okay, EB... time to address your points:
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
2. Children need fathers.
3. Children need mothers.
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
These four arguments are as strong of an argument against single parenting and/or divorce, than same-sex relationships. If you allow that our society must allow divorce and/or single parenting, even if those are not desirable, then these are not effective as arguments against same-sex relationships. If you want to assert that divorce should be forbidden, and any pregnancy should require a corresponding marraige, then these are valid arguments.
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
Completely agree here, though your own notes conceed that nearly all studies, despite being flawed, preliminary and/or incomplete, suggest there is no difference. So, this is not an argument against same-sex marraige, so much as it is an admission that the evidence is inconclusive.
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
Disturbing that after conceeding most studies on the subject are flawed, though most find no difference, you are willing to use a similarly anecdotal study as an argument against. By your own standards, this should not be considered any more conclusive than the FAR more numerous studies that show no significant differences between same-sex and cross-sex relationships.
Further, "gender and sexual disorders" seem to be defined as "non-traditional gender roles." Is it any condemnation that children of same-sex relationships may (stress MAY) be more susceptible to same-sex relationships of their own? A child emulating their parent's lifestyle is hardly a flaw, unless, of course, we consider the parent's lifestyle intrinsically flawed to begin with. It is what we would expect.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
10. Women and marriage domesticate men.
Yet, in the study you cite, the problem is not same-sex marraige, for lesbian couples report the same rate of desirable fidelty as hetero couples.
The problem seems to be men, not homosexuality... perhaps marraige should be defined as a union between a woman, and whoever she wants?
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
Contraception, be it physical, chemical, pharmaceutical or surgical, has already unleashed this genie. Shall we undo Griswold v. Connecticut, and outlaw protection?
Nor is it a coincidence that these countries have some of the highest literacy rates, lowest infant mortality rates, internet usage or life expectancy. Common denominator? Education.
Or is this an argument that we should be Afghanistan, Somalia or Haiti (all with fertility rates well above the replacement rate)??
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
... and yet research by the Barna Group has shown that born-again Christians have virtually the same incidence of divorce as non-Christians.
Oh, and is it an accident that, among the states in the Union, the divorce rate is lowest in the states like Massachussetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey- where "same sex" relationships are recognized in some form? Meanwhile, "traditional value" states like both Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas had some of the highest divorce rates. (The highest is Nevada- but Las Vegas is something of an anomaly).
Certainly there are other factors involved here, but it is as potent an argument FOR same-sex marraige as your argument against it.
Short of outlawing contraception and divorce, EB, I think your arguments only support forbidding men from marrying anyone, and only letting women choose who they should marry.
Comment by Michael— 2006/08/18 @ 10:08 PM — (Reply)