The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

Tony you know the difference between a human being and a dog right?

Well he certainly knows how to wind up both and make them bark.

[J70]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.

That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.

Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.

If we're all just parroting what our "betters" are saying in terms of gay equality, then why don't you, original thinker that you are, tell us why we are wrong?

[J70]

Tony you know the difference between a human being and a dog right?

Well he certainly knows how to wind up both and make them bark.

Given the progression in his "arguments" I think you are right!

I certainly hope so!

[BennyCake]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.

That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.

Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.

If we're all just parroting what our "betters" are saying in terms of gay equality, then why don't you, original thinker that you are, tell us why we are wrong?

I didn't say anyone was wrong. It's the abuse directed towards those in opposition to same sex "marriage" that is ridiculous. But that's social conditioning for you.

[J70]

Someone cited the word "consent". I merely responded that "consenting" to do something that is morally wrong doesn't make it right.

50 years ago homosexuality was a crime,now it is about to be fully "normalised" and given full and equal status with normal heterosexual relationships.And some people think my analogy of marrying your dog is a tad far fetched?

50 years ago we were living in the dark ages. Now we've come into the 21st century and everyone deserves equal rights.

That's bollix. Just because a law was passed permitting homosexuality suddenly our ancestors were Neanderthals. This crap about we are such a more tolerant society blah blah, that's bollix. THe reason society accepts things like this is because society is told to by those in power. You are no better than people of 50 years ago just because you think gays should be able to get "married", so get off your high horse.

Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.

If we're all just parroting what our "betters" are saying in terms of gay equality, then why don't you, original thinker that you are, tell us why we are wrong?

I didn't say anyone was wrong. It's the abuse directed towards those in opposition to same sex "marriage" that is ridiculous. But that's social conditioning for you.

OK, I get you now, albeit I don't agree with the social conditioning bit, at least not in terms of influence over the outcome (yeah, there will always be those who go with the tide, but that can just as easily be applied to those who go to mass every Sunday, listen to the priest and are voting no).

But back to Tony's point about tradition - gay marriage is the right thing for society to do on its own merits. That homosexuality itself was illegal until just over two decades ago was a reflection of a society still under the undue influence of religion and prejudice and is in no way a positive argument for keeping gays from marrying. Christ, haven't societies moved on from enough prejudice and repression at this point to render the "tradition" argument irrelevant?

As for the alleged abuse, sorry, but I don't have much sympathy, especially when the opposition case is framed in terms of morality. This is an emotional issue, with freedom to marry at stake for a lot of people. Those who oppose stand to lose nothing (in fact, they'll be gaining the right to gay marry too!). And honestly, I don't get how opposition to this can be really, truly motivated by anything other than some degree of homophobia. Why would anyone who has no problem with gay people care if they are allowed to marry? If I am wrong, please show me how.

[The Iceman]

Here's some arguments for you J70 just for some light reading. I'm happy enough with all the points and I'll stand by my original point from the article I first posted a few pages back. Broken homes aren't cause to create more broken homes.

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage
By Family Research Council

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.

[heganboy]

Iceman, the Witherspoon who publish this debate are about as far from a science institute as you can get, the witherspoon is a right wing political think tank funded by another bunch of right wing organizations including publicly the Bradley Foundation, John Olin (the arms dealers') foundation, templeton's intelligent design fund and others public and private...

Here's some arguments for you J70 just for some light reading. I'm happy enough with all the points and I'll stand by my original point from the article I first posted a few pages back. Broken homes aren't cause to create more broken homes.

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.

From our buddies at wikipedia:

The Witherspoon Institute was founded in 2003 by, among others, Princeton University professor and noted conservative Robert P. George,Luis Tellez, and others involved with the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Named after John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the United States Declaration of Independence, the institute's fellows include Chen Guangcheng, Harold James, John Joseph Haldane, and James R. Stoner, Jr.

The Witherspoon Institute opposes abortion, same-sex marriage and deals with embryonic stem cell research, constitutional law, and globalization. In 2003, it organized a conference on religion in modern societies. In 2006, Republican Senator Sam Brownback cited a Witherspoon document called Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles in a debate over a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. It held a conference about pornography named The Social Costs of Pornography at Princeton University in December 2008.

Financially independent from Princeton University, its donors have included the Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Lee and Ramona Bass Foundation.

[J70]

The Family Research Council?

James Dobson?

I don't trust them for a second based on other "scientific" positions they take, but I will look through their claims.

[J70]

The point about the correlation between declining birth rates and same sex marriage in western countries, as if it was causitive, is ludicrous. Lots of western countries have had declining birth rates for years, well before legalizing same-sex marriage.  Both are a symptom of an advanced,  well educated population where numerous kids are just not financially viable and society moves, across the board, towards greater inclusion and equality. The low birth rates would be there with or without same-sex marriage.

[J70]

Points 4 and 5 are ironic - on the one hand,  studies touting the normality of kids raised in homosexual households are flawed, biased and preliminary,  but the one study they quote showing deviation from gender norms better be cause for concern!

[J70]

Point 1 - why is adoption left out of the scenarios where children "hunger" for their biological parents?

Wouldn't fit the religious agenda I guess.

And asking about an absent parent does not mean a child is damaged.

[J70]

Point 9 - the little woman should be at home and man the hunter should be out earning the bulk of the income. Couples less likely to divorce, allegedly.

What kind of pathetic idiot resents his wife earning more?

And in this day and age, how is this a relevant argument against gay marriage? Homes need two incomes. Get over it!

[J70]

On the domestication/fidelity point - I like how they lump the heterosexual men and women together to give an overall 79% valuing fidelity, they decline to give the (acknowledge high) figure for lesbians, which is probably in the 90s, and then give the 50% figure for gay men in civil unions.

Of course, the value for heterosexual men is probably well below the 79%, with the average being raised by the female score.

But, assuming male gay couples will stray more often,  is this a calid argument for prohibiting marriage. Infidelity is never used to suggest heterosexual couples should not be entitled to the benefits of marriage. At what rate does it cease to be an issue?

[omaghjoe]

J70 are you feeling alright? There's no one replying to your posts you know.... its just voices in your head

[armaghniac]

Or maybe people now are better educated, more worldly and can think for themselves a bit more than those of 50 years ago cowering in fear of what John Charles McQuaid, the local priest in his Sunday sermon and the Catholic Church might say.

This process has all the characteristics of groupthink, John Charles McQuaid would surely admire the Yes campaign for their efforts to restrict debate on the issue. Perhaps people can think for themselves, but any nuanced arguments is characterised as "confusing the issue". Risible simplicities like "marriage has nothing to do with children" are repeated like a mantra. In the classic strategies of groupthink, others are characterised as being invalid to comment, because they are "homophobes", because of something that happened 1000 years ago or even because they are also opposed to abortion or pornography. The entire development of human society can be discarded, because that was the "dark ages", so there is no need to reflect on why societies evolved this way.

The whole thing is indicative of how zealots can invoke cries of "he who is not with us is against us" when reality lies somewhere in between.