The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Last week I addressed some of the moral concerns that commenter Hayleyanne had brought up with regards to same-sex marriage.  At this point I would like to address some interesting comments she had regarding the conservative approach vs. liberal approach to this issue.  She wrote:

Ultimately, I believe, if you remove the religious/moral component, the reason that many people are against SSM boils down to the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives usually favor the status quo and are cautious with respect to fundamental change. Liberals are more willing to make fundamental changes in the name of progressive ideals. We can take good from both sides. It is a natural "push" and "pull back" that we see when any fundamental change is proposed in society.

Conservatives fear that gay marriage threatens the foundation of our society because it will change the traditional family as we know it. Tinkering with the structure that has served so well through our history is risky and may be unwise-- we don't know. On the other hand, the world is changing. Technological change has made it possible for gay couples to produce children through artificial insemination. Surrogate mothers have emerged. Adoption laws have changed to allow some gay couples to adopt. More acceptance of homosexuality has resulted in some people who were in traditional marriages with kids, coming out as gay. The reality is that we are now in a situation where gay couples are indeed raising children. How they got these kids raises some problematic issues for some people. One need only read some of the comments on your blog to see this. They wonder about the biological parent and what happened to him or her. They wonder about whether children need both a male and a female influence in their lives. Etc. I think these concerns are valid.

On the flip side, we cannot ignore that the reality is that we do have gay couples doing the hard work of raising a family and they should have all the same benefits available to a traditional family.

Personally, I think all of these issues need to be discussed openly in our society. How they are presented is very important. For example, as I have said before, through the courts is not the best way to go IMO as it leaves people feeling as if the court is forcing a change.

The issues should be discussed, fleshed out, and ultimately decided in the court of public opinion. People who come off as harshly denying gay couples with kids the benefits of other families-- wind up looking heartless and unkind. I would ask people in this camp how they propose to protect children being raised in a SS household. But people who try to argue that the two types of relationships are interchangeable and refuse to acknowledge fundamental differences come off as pushing an agenda.

Before I could get around to responding to this myself, I came across (thanks to MarriageDebate.com) this interview with Dale Carpenter conducted by Craig Westover.  I think Prof. Carpenter squarely addresses some of these issues and more, and I encourage more people to read the interview.  Carpenter echoes Hayleyanne's sentiments as he said:

I think gay marriage advocates have to do a better job of explaining how gay marriage is a deeply conservative cause. It is a deeply conservative idea. And they have to do that by appealing to our fellow citizens and not by running to courts.

There is something about courts that makes people want to throw tea into the Boston Harbor. It really upsets them. On the other hand, when these changes are made democratically as they were in California, when California basically very broadly adopted this domestic partner idea, or in Connecticut when Connecticut adopted civil unions, there’s something about legislatures and democratic actions that make people accept the results even when they are on the losing end. Accept the legitimacy of the results -- they may not agree with the results -- but they accept the legitimacy of the results even when they don’t win. That’s what we have to do.

This is an issue I plan to discuss further in an upcoming post later this month.  In the meantime, enjoy the whole interview. 

 

Comments

[Trey]

One case that some conservatives will make _for_ gay marriage is that it will promote stable relationships among gay men and women, that it will change the 'gay' culture.

There is already some indication of that in Europe where the rates of syphilis have dropped in those nations that have gay marriage and/or unions.

I'll be the first to state that it isn't 'proof', coorelation rarely proves causation, but the researchers work is _magnitudes_ better and more sustainable than Katz's 'Scandinavian evidence'

and its interesting, perhaps same-sex marriage does promote stable, faithful relationships in same-sex couples as conservatives like to believe it does for opposite-sex couples.

[Chairm]

Trey, could you please quantify what you meant by the following?

>> "the researchers work is _magnitudes_ better and more sustainable than Katz's 'Scandinavian evidence'"

[On Lawn]

Trey,

It is more reasonable to say that your evidence supports forming RB's than marriage.

Aside from that, Kurtz's evidence has withstood every assailing I've seen waged against it. No doubt the evidence pointed at by 365gay.com would too however. But Kurtz's evidence looks at the health of "marriage" as an institution while your evidence looks only at the physical health of homosexual couples. So as they are looking at different effects it is likely they do not conflict. The need for a public avowing of fidelity for homosexual couples can be provided while leaving marriage with its added responsibility to future generations as a relationship to require both sexes.

[Trey]

Chairm,

I disagree with On Lawn and others, from my perspective (not as a gay man, the other perspective :), I think Kurtz's 'evidence' has been soundly refuted. Galois, Sullivan and some good statisticians have written a lot.

I probably would retract my 'magnitudes'.. because of course that implies quantification, and I meant more 'commonly'.

Kurtz's work looks too broadly and at correlations and connections that are extremely tenuous at best to be of any use scientifically, whereas this work looks at a very discrete data set that has been shown in many studies to have a definite link to stable relationships. (and anyway, looks at the same coorelations in Canada and the US, the opposite is shown... though that TOO is poor evidence in my view)

Perhaps we do speak of two different things, and that is where we part. You claim to be concerned about SSM's effect on OSM, an effect I so far have seen no scientific evidence for nor find to be intuitively or anecdotally true. I am concerned about the effect of SSM on SS couples and families.. and by extension society as a whole. Effects which I believe evidence is starting to show are good (for both SSM and society) and which I see both anecdotely in my own life and community and intuitively (especially when considering SSM opponent's arguments for marriage in general).

Again, I'm not going to argue this is a definitive study, or that it even _proves_ my point, only that it is the beginning of such evidence.

[Trey]

(and anyway, if you look at the same coorelations in Canada and the US, the opposite is shown... though that TOO is poor evidence in my view)

Speaking of Kurtz's work there, just to make that clear :) (corrected too.. I need a preview in comments :).

[On Lawn]

Galois, Sullivan and some good statisticians have written a lot

This thread from Galois was very telling. Upon attributing a few statements to Kurtz, and then finding no basis in Kurtz's writings he backpeddled. Watching and participating in this episode lead me to say "As both of these examples show, what Kurtz says is ofte[n] much more reasonable than what I keep reading people say Kurtz says." Galois gave a frank and conciliatory reply, "Hence the title of the post [Read for Yourself]".

Simularly Sullivan is caught in his own guile. Sullivan forwarded the statistics in Scandinavia to begin with to support his case for same-sex marriage. Kurtz's analysis of the statistics was so strong against Sullivan that Sullivan retracted any interest in them. What was once a point of science when he thought it supported his argument was now considered "irrelevant" when that support was shown to be an easily exposed illusion.

You can wave your hand at people talking about Sullivan all you want to, of course. I've read them and others and haven't seen an argument stand up to scrutiny. Some (like the one who wrote a hit piece for Slate) wrote such egregious attempts to discredit that they wound up being themselves a discredit to science.

[Marty]

I'd say that Kurtz's points are certainly "debatable", but hardly "refuted". And just because you cannot recognize the validity of "tenuous" connections, doesn't mean that they are not very real.

For my own part, I'd say that SSM is the logical RESULT of the weakening of OSM, not the cause per se. But that is still no reason we should go forward with it -- the fact that we are even discussing it serves as a very clear warning that unless we reverse our present course (heading straight for SSM), marriage is doomed as an institution. Will we then say that SSM "caused" its demise? No more so (and no LESS!) than rampant no fault divorce, and the "legitimization" of illegitimate parenting.

Future generations deserve so much better than this.

[Fitz]

Marty
100%
Future generations do deserve more than this.
Kurtz says specifically "further undermind the institution of marriage"
by sending the message that "all family forms are inhearently equal"

Yes SSM is both cause and effect in marital decline (people who refuse to see this are either being abtuse or have an agenda)

[vch]

discreto lesbiche ubriache
discreto mamma
discreto mediale
discreto modesto
discreto moglie sex
discreto nonne strip
discreto operaio merda
discreto pompino
discreto pulcino frode
discreto ragazze anale fotti
discreto ragazze fotti
discreto ragazze merda
discreto ragazze spogliarello
discreto scopata
discreto segretaria doppio penetrazione
discreto segretaria inculate
discreto segretaria prostituta
discreto segretaria ubriache
discreto soldato pompino
discreto tedesco sesso
discreto teen spogliarello
discreto vergine
discussioni
disegni sadomaso
disposta a scopare gratis
handsome bionde azione
handsome bionde fottilo
handsome bionde pompino
handsome bionde strip
handsome cameriera anale fotti
handsome cameriera figa fotti
handsome cameriera orale fotti
handsome cameriera spogliarello
handsome cowgirl
handsome cowgirl dildo
handsome cowgirl gruppo
handsome cowgirl prostituta
handsome cowgirl strip
handsome femmina
handsome femmina maledica
handsome fighetta
handsome fighetta doppio penetrazione
handsome fighetta masturbate
handsome fighetta sex
handsome fighetta urinate
handsome fighette doppio penetrazione
handsome fighette inculate
handsome fighette prostituta

[free ipod music downloads]

1Thanks boys :
http://musicdownloadsmp3.tripod.com >music downloads pc = http://www.nativeecosystems.org/portal_memberdata/portraits/ge3ei3#freemusicdownloads >free mp3 = http://www.sopadre.com/gallery/louies/music.html >download music video = http://www.opensource.wa.gov.au/portal_memberdata/portraits/greg34#music >free music downloads = http://www.opensource.wa.gov.au/portal_memberdata/portraits/greg34#music >how to download music = http://mywebpage.netscape.com/music10free/music-download/ >limewire music downloads = http://hometown.aol.com/mp33music/legal_music_downloads.html >music downloads = http://musicdownloadsmp3.tripod.com/music_downloads.html >free limewire = http://hometown.aol.com/mp33music/legal_music_downloads.html >free music downloads =
http://musicdownloadsmp3.tripod.com free music download :: http://www.nativeecosystems.org/portal_memberdata/portraits/ge3ei3#freemusicdownloads download music for free :: http://www.sopadre.com/gallery/louies/music.html mp3 downloads :: http://www.opensource.wa.gov.au/portal_memberdata/portraits/greg34#music Free Music Downloads :: http://www.opensource.wa.gov.au/portal_memberdata/portraits/greg34#music free mp3 :: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/music10free/music-download/ free mp3 downloads :: http://hometown.aol.com/mp33music/legal_music_downloads.html free mp3 downloads :: http://musicdownloadsmp3.tripod.com/music_downloads.html download free music :: http://hometown.aol.com/mp33music/legal_music_downloads.html free music downloads :: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/bwwfst/Download-Free-Music.htm free mp3 downloads :: http://mywebpage.netscape.com/free5mp3/mp3music.html mp3 downloads ::
[url=http://musicdownloadsmp3.tripod.com]music downloads[/url] .. [url=http://www.nativeecosystems.org/portal_memberdata/portraits/ge3ei3#freemusicdownloads]free download music[/url] .. [url=http://www.sopadre.com/gallery/louies/music.html]limewire[/url] .. [url=http://www.opensource.wa.gov.au/portal_memberdata/portraits/greg34#music]Free Music Downloads[/url] .. [url=http://www.opensource.wa.gov.au/portal_memberdata/portraits/greg34#music]free music download sites[/url] .. [url=http://mywebpage.netscape.com/music10free/music-download/]limewire[/url] .. [url=http://hometown.aol.com/mp33music/legal_music_downloads.html]free music downloads[/url] ..

[pan american airline]

Good site!

[discount airline travel]

american airline fare

[Alfred]

A fantastic site, and brilliant effort. A great piece of work. zzAzzXX