Commenter Hayleyanne has asked me to consider certain ramifications of allowing same-sex marriage which I am happy to discuss starting with some of her moral concerns. She wrote:
Some people are against SSM on moral grounds. If society recognizes gay marriage it essentially puts the State’s seal of approval on such relationships. And although we can say that the government ought not to be making moral judgments, the fact is it does. It makes moral judgments all the time. If SSM is legalized it will result in the state presenting gay marriage as a perfectly acceptable counterpart to traditional marriage and family. It also removes any moral component to SSM. The law is at odds with the beliefs of many Americans. Is this appropriate, given the strong religious beliefs of many Americans?
I would also note that the strong religious beliefs of many Americans lead them to firmly support same-sex marriage. I question, though, whether the government is really taking sides on this matter should it recognize same-sex marriage. Certainly if the question was "Should the government recognize same-sex marriage?" any decision by the government one way or the other would be taking a position on the issue, but I disagree that recognition means the state is putting a seal of approval on homosexual relationships. Marriage is not some sort of seal of approval by the state. It is certainly not a seal of approval on whom one has taken for a spouse. When someone in Vegas gets drunk and marries someone they just met, the state is not saying it approves of such a relationship. When someone marries someone fifty years older merely for his or her money, the state is not approving of that relationship. I do not believe one should marry a person of another faith, but that is their decision to make, not mine and not the state's.
It is possible, though, that for some the moral concern is not that homosexual relationships are wrong per se, but rather that the ideal situation in which to raise a child is with parents of the opposite sex. As Hayleyanne notes:
The State is saying that the traditional family will always be the ideal. What is wrong with this? Why can’t society say that marriage is about family and children and the ideal setting for this is a home with a mom and a dad?
Again I am reminded of the situation of interfaith couples. I do not believe that is the ideal situation for raising children, but for many reasons I would not support governmental denial of such marriages. In fact, there are many couples that marry when they are clearly not in the ideal situation to raise children. This is okay, though, because marriage does not signal that the couple is in an ideal situation to raise children. What would be the purpose of such a seal anyway? There is a good chance the couple will raise children regardless of the state's opinion about their situation. Rather, I believe marriage itself is something that will generally make the environment itself better for raising children. A cohabiting couple is capable of providing a mom and a dad, but the marriage of said couple would make the environment for raising children significantly better for a number of reasons. Likewise regardless of one's view on the propriety of same-sex couples raising children, I would think most would agree that the situation would be significantly better if the couple had taken on the obligations and protections of marriage.
We can really look at two different notions of the ideal here. Permitting same-sex marriage allows gays and lesbians to select a spouse that some may view as less than ideal, at least for raising children. Depending on one's views of sexual orientation, this could have some influence on whom one selects for a spouse. But even many who believe that it would lead one to take a "wrong" spouse would want to leave that decision to the individuals involved. On the other hand, marriage can be thought of setting an ideal for the structure the relationship should have once the spouse is selected. It sets the obligations and expectations one spouse has to another and we can rightly value these commitments and believe they are important, especially if the couple is going to raise children. Permitting same-sex marriage would reinforce this ideal. To deny same-sex marriage, however, runs the risk of deemphasizing the importance of these commitments and this structure.
Hayleyanne also points to some indirect moral concerns that should be considered when discussing same-sex marriage:
And what about the effect that SSM will have with respect to producing children? SS couples will want to raise a family. How do they do this? Since they cannot produce their own children, they must look to alternatives that may be problematic. Will it put society in a position where it will accept and possibly promote artificial insemination? Or surrogate parenting? What about all the ethical issues these methods raise? Should society jump into this head first without first considering these issues?
Same-sex couples are already raising families, and I believe foremost it is important to emphasize the importance of marriage in protecting those families. As individual and as a society we also need to consider the implications of many new and old reproductive technologies. Same-sex couples are not the only ones who face these questions, nor do they even form the majority of those that are faced with such issues directly. As noted above, supporting government recognition of same-sex marriage does not imply support of same-sex relationships, nor support of them raising children. All the more so it does not imply support for any particular way in which they might come to have children.
I hope to respond to some of Hayleyanne's other concerns in a future post. In the meantime I would note that the values promoted when a same-sex couples weds, commitment, sacrifice, and responsibility, are values we can all support regardless of our views on whom one should marry.
"Some people are against SSM on moral grounds. If society recognizes gay marriage it essentially puts the State's seal of approval on such relationships."
This is the worst kind of nonsense, and your response is excellent. Here's another example: The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrmination -- does that imply that the government "approves" of guilty suspects refusing to confess? No, it implies that the government recognizes that individual rights transcend the whims of the current majority.
Posted by: KipEsquire | June 06, 2005 at 07:38 AM
"Some people are against SSM on moral grounds. If society recognizes gay marriage it essentially puts the State's seal of approval on such relationships."
KipEsquire wrote in response to the above quote:
This is the worst kind of nonsense, and your response is excellent. Here's another example: The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrmination -- does that imply that the government "approves" of guilty suspects refusing to confess? No, it implies that the government recognizes that individual rights transcend the whims of the current majority.
Kip-- You can't draw a direct analogy between the Fifth amendment and marriage. The 5th's "right" to not incriminate one's self is a right we as americans chose to identify as an inate right which we have incorporated into our constitution. And although the Supreme Court has referred to marriage in certain contexts to be a "right", that does not change the fact that marriage is a creature of the state-- in the same way that a corporation is a creature of the state. It is a vehicle of the State in the sense that it is used to regulate certain types of partnerships for specific purposes.
Galois's post on why we should encourage SSM does a good job of exploring reasons why the state ought to redefine marriage to include SS couples. But that is different from saying that everyone has a god given right to marry whomever they choose.
If the state chooses to redefine marriage to include SS couples the state is clearly making a statement as to the status of such relationships. If both traditional and SS couples have marriage available to them, then the state, by definition, is saying that they are on an equal par. The state is putting its seal of approval on such relationships to say that they are indistinguishable from heterosexual, traditional unions.
I believe that most SSM advocates are seeking out this seal of approval more so than anything else. In other words, they want this more than all the benefits attached to marriage, otherwise civil unions would be completely acceptable. You can see this in the rhetoric about how civil unions bring us back to the days of "separate but equal" facilities.
I believe it is disingenuous to deny that SSM advocates are ultimately seeking this fundamental change in our society, more so than simply advocating for equal benefits.
Posted by: Hayleyanne | June 06, 2005 at 08:59 AM
Haleyanne,
I believe it is disingenuous to deny that SSM advocates are ultimately seeking this fundamental change in our society, more so than simply advocating for equal benefits.
It is more than equal benefits, it is a biased benefit package set to equalize their gender biased relationships with those that choose to practice gender equity. When I see two people of the same sex impersonating marriage I see one saying to the other, "I love you so much I'm willing to get the government to make our relationship as [ .. insert metric here .. ] as a heterosexual relationship".
Mother Nature, it would seem, is mean spirited when it exclusively endows heterosexual couplings with parental powers. And one thing is clear, the state must do more than accept it must equalize. Galois is on record as saying that even very risky medical procedures should be implemented to overcome that which nature robbed them of. This brings the distopia of Gattica to a whole new level as thousands of embryos are attempted *and discarded* in the name of "right to practice gender discrimination". No attempt to reason or even consider the violations to humanity of such experimentation while untold kinks are worked out of the system.
But that is just the children, what about the handicapped? Does Galois feel that homosexual couples, though not hanidcapped, are every bit as entitled to state resources as the handicapped? As he's written, they have the same physical capacity, and so they should be treated the same.
If you or I started trying to gain handicapped benefits for any of a number of capacities we deny ourselves (say for instance "I choose not to work so I'm disabled") we would be denied and rightly so. But for some reason that extra priveledge is okay for homosexuals to demand.
This list goes on and on. But one thing is clear, marriage impersonators are not asking for equal benefits, they are asking for equalizing benefits. That the relationship itself may not be accepted as Galois claims is true to a point. The only thing they want acceptance of is the same thing an illusionist wants acceptance of -- but its probably better called "willful suspension of disbelief".
KipEsquire,
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrmination -- does that imply that the government "approves" of guilty suspects refusing to confess?
There is nothing incriminating about homosexuality. But that is an aside.
Once again the argument becomes "passive acceptance" where the topic is "active acceptance". A government will respect the right to not incriminate oneself, and even endorse it -- but only with lip-service (see: Miranda Rights).
The real endorsement comes from confessions where the guilty are able to "plea-bargain" for comfier jails, less time, or even reduced fines.
So, Kip, just how "passive" or "active" do you think the state equalization of same-sex impersonations of marriage is going to be?
Posted by: On Lawn | June 06, 2005 at 12:41 PM
and what about the effect that SSM will have with respect to producing children? SS couples will want to raise a family. How do they do this? Since they cannot produce their own children, they must look to alternatives that may be problematic. Will it put society in a position where it will accept and possibly promote artificial insemination? Or surrogate parenting? What about all the ethical issues these methods raise? Should society jump into this head first without first considering these issues?
artificial insemination and surrogacy came to be broadly used by straight couples and the legal issues of them discussed, written into law etc well before gay couples made use of them. And their use and the legal/ethic issues surrounding them will be with us with or without SSM.
I believe that most SSM advocates are seeking out this seal of approval more so than anything else. In other words, they want this more than all the benefits attached to marriage, otherwise civil unions would be completely acceptable. You can see this in the rhetoric about how civil unions bring us back to the days of "separate but equal" facilities.
This is mistaken on two counts. First, my motive and the motive of 90% of the gay couples i know is not society's acceptence. Though I would be the first to admit I'd love to live in a society where I stood equal in acceptence and celebration as did my brothers in their relationships, and it'd be really nice not to have to defend myself/my family and my relationship to perfect strangers on a plane (just happened) because the stranger didn't 'approve'...
frankly, I don't believe that legal civil marriage will change whether socieyt 'accepts' my relationship or not. I dare say that people like Hayleyanne, on lawn, oped, marty and will not 'accept' my relationship and family any more or less than they do now because SSM marriage is legalized.
But it sure damn well changes my legal status, and I (and most gay 'activists' I know) care deeply about that. In the end, I can ignore that passenger on the plane (and did eventually), but it's much more difficult to ignore the legal and financial difficulties of not being married.
The second mistake. Civil Unions are not marriage, not because they are separate but equal, but because they are separate AND unequal. Thats why CU aren't good enough. I don't know how many times we have to tell opponents that. Civil Unions can not give all (even most) of the civil rights and obligations that civil marriage does.
Posted by: trey | June 06, 2005 at 02:31 PM
I dare say that people like Hayleyanne, on lawn, oped, marty and will not 'accept' my relationship and family any more or less than they do now because SSM marriage is legalized.
I accept your relationship. You are in a relationship. What's not to accept? I'm in lots of relationships, or don't you accept that?
...but it's much more difficult to ignore the legal and financial difficulties of not being married.
Not nearly as difficult as ignoring the legal and financial difficulties of not being a hospital, but you seem to be managing that one OK. You're not a hospital. You're not married. You chose not to be. Get over it. If you've got a problem, state it and we'll see what we can do to help, but mounding all your problems up and hiding them under an "I'm not married" blanket isn't going to make you any more married and it's not going to solve anything, either. Don't just stand there whining that you're not married. Be productive.
Civil Unions are not marriage, not because they are separate but equal, but because they are separate AND unequal.
That's what Hayleyanne said. You're just restating exactly the point you claim to be arguing against.
Posted by: op-ed | June 06, 2005 at 03:28 PM
op-ed
I accept your relationship. You are in a relationship. What's not to accept? I'm in lots of relationships, or don't you accept that?
talk about straw men and ignoring the point.
Not nearly as difficult as ignoring the legal and financial difficulties of not being a hospital, but you seem to be managing that one OK. You're not a hospital. You're not married. You chose not to be. Get over it
well, that made about a much sense as a fish in a doghouse, apples and oranges and all that.
marriage to the person I want to pledge my life and support to and with whom I'm raising my children is very important. I choose marriage. You'd rather deny that to me.
being a hospital isn't particularly important to me and thus has no difficulties whatsoever.
or are you equating marriage to pretty much a useless desire?
That's what Hayleyanne said. You're just restating exactly the point you claim to be arguing against.
ah, not at all, read her comment again and get back to me.
Posted by: trey | June 06, 2005 at 06:29 PM
Trey,
talk about straw men and ignoring the point.
I'm curious, just what point are you making? I for one accept your relationship also. I hope you are happy in any relationship you choose and find no reason to deny homosexuals the capacity of relating to one another. Op-Ed says he accepts your relationship and you accuse him of creating strawmen and missing the point.
I found it very mean-spirited. After all you were the one complaining about a list of individuals *not* accepting your relationship in the first place.
I don't think such an accusation is warranted as I've not said anything that attacks the relationship you've chosen. Do you? Nor do I see anything from any of the individuals listed to suggest they don't accept your relationship.
I choose marriage.
And you choose wisely. I sought long and hard for a wife who had the same goals for marriage that I have. We've had our rocky times and we've had our great times. We've had our house blessed by our procreation, even though it is also trying sometimes.
I remember as our children were born the trip to deaths door my wife took for each of them. The duress, the struggle and the creation of life. Seeing those lives spawned from my own as they are loved developed and fostered is one of the greatest joys I feel anyone can know. I see myself in them, in many ways I know them already yet they can go in so many different directions. Countless opportunities are afforded me each day to look beyond myself and see their uniqueness. Countless opportunities are afforded every day to share a unique perspective as a parent who shares much of their genetics.
Its therefor utterly distasteful for you to insinuate that I deny you a marriage. I wouldn't deny marriage to *anybody*. Its just too great an institution. I highly recomend it to everyone.
So just what are you saying here Trey? What are you getting at? You are making some very angry accusations, and continuing in your vitriol towards Op-Ed but I just don't see how or why you feel justified in making them. I haven't seen Op-Ed tell you not to get married. I think it is save to say that Op-Ed, myself and so many others don't want you to settle for pretending to be married when the real thing is so much better and so easy for you to achieve.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 06, 2005 at 06:51 PM
If the state chooses to redefine marriage to include SS couples the state is clearly making a statement as to the status of such relationships.
If the couple marries their marital status obviously changes to married but I'm not sure what statements the state is making concerning the moral value of the relationship. As I noted in my post many couples marry today and that does not imply that all of their relationships are of equal moral worth.
Perhaps the statement made depends somewhat on the reason for permitting same-sex marriage. If the state does so because it believes an individual should generally be given great latitude in selecting one's spouse, the statement is not that all choices of spouse are equally good, but rather that the state is going to be quite deferential of the individual's decision in the matter. If the state does so because it is hesitant to use gender classifications, the statement made is one concerning the appropriate use of such classifications. If the state does so because it believes that same-sex marriage is better for all involved than same-sex cohabitation, it is making a statement about the value of marriage over cohabitation. As you have noted, there are many reasons the state may wish to recognize same-sex marriages, and most of them deal with the importance and great benefit of marriage, not the underlying appropriateness of one spouse over another.
If both traditional and SS couples have marriage available to them, then the state, by definition, is saying that they are on an equal par.
They are equally permitted to take on the obligations of marriage, but that does not mean they are of equal moral worth. Individuals can decide for themselves on the moral worth of any given relationship, the state just refuses to pass any judgement on the subject.
The state is putting its seal of approval on such relationships to say that they are indistinguishable from heterosexual, traditional unions.
Again I don't view the state permitting a couple to marry as putting any seal of approval on the relationship itself. As for claiming such unions are indistinguishable, that is also not the case. There are many reasons the state may not wish to draw distinctions without saying that two things are indistinguishable. The state may allow men and women to hold public office without saying men are indistinguishable from women. The state may put out the fire at a church or a strip club without saying the two are indistinguishable.
In other words, they want this more than all the benefits attached to marriage, otherwise civil unions would be completely acceptable.
Trey answered this quite well. Civil unions simply do not come close to offering the same protections marriage does for same-sex couples and their families. One could try to consider hypotheticals where civil unions could and did offer such protections. Would people still find them objectionable? Certainly they would not be nearly as problematic, and it would be a great improvement over the current situation, but I would still find them troublesome. As I noted before permitting marriage would not mark any governmental approval of the relationship, but it would remove a clear disapproval of the relationship. I would much prefer that the government was neutral on the matter. One might compare this to the government's treatment of different religions. To treat all religious institutions equally does not imply the government finds all relgions indistinguishable or equally valid. It just takes no view on their relative worth. But for the government to single out one religion for inferior treatment does send a message that it views such a religion as being inferior. The reasons for being neutral on our choice of religion are not the same as those for being neutral on our choice of spouse, but the principle that neutrality does not imply approval remains.
Posted by: Galois | June 06, 2005 at 07:24 PM
On Lawn
Trey has accused me of promting people to kill themselves and of agitating for violance against gays.
This is fruitless conversation.
They are far to close to the subject matter & (in my estimation) require "marriage" to validate there own existance in their own eyes.
Posted by: Fitz | June 06, 2005 at 07:28 PM
Galois,
As I noted in my post many couples marry today and that does not imply that all of their relationships are of equal moral worth.
According to the post above you said, "I disagree that recognition means the state is putting a seal of approval..." because it cannot determine the actual moral worth of the relationship.
If the state does so [recognizes same-sex impersonations as marriage] because it is hesitant to use gender classifications, the statement made is one concerning the appropriate use of such classifications.
What statement is that? The answer is clear. The equity of requiring both sexes is a statement of civility and comprimise. The disservice of actively promoting gender prejudice is a message of basal mentality.
If the state does so because it believes that same-sex marriage is better for all involved than same-sex cohabitation, it is making a statement about the value of marriage over cohabitation.
That statement is again a very unfortunate one. The value of marriage is reduced to one of political capital and spendign that capital as a state endowment rather than the selfless sacrifice that couples throughout the ages have invested in it. The value of marriage is in being committed to a lover and no longer to a family.
The "value" is one of state domain and extending that domain as noted in the egregious decision by the Mass Supreme Court. As pointed out on Family Scholars:
Op-Ed is correct in his rebuttal to Trey. Recognition of a relationship is freely given yet the reply becomes one of a tantrum. Its overtones are that of a child who extorts from the parent "you don't love me any more" for any of a number of percieved injustices. "Civil unions simply do not come close to offering the same protections marriage does..."
As I noted before permitting marriage would not mark any governmental approval of the relationship
Actually this was not very well established at all. That a government may not care about the particulars of any one relationship is (1) False and (2) has no bearing on whether or not the government endorses a category of relationships.
The statement is false as explained to KidEsquire. The state is approving of the relationship for an intended purpose that the state feels it has interest in. States actively prosecute marriage fraud in areas such as immigration and insurance benefits.
The statement has no bearing on the overall endorsement of a particular relationship as enforcement by the state is directly limited by the people. Any and every exception provided that one assumes will disprove the rule must be reconciled against those limits we place on government. The bill of rights limits state's ability to monitor and procecute people that they feel are violating their interests. Therefore the lack of enforcement by the state can in no wise be taken as a bearing of what the state's true interest is. This mirrors the rational behind the Ninth Ammendment where lack of deliberate enumeration cannot be taken as evidence that the state has or hasn't an interest in any particular liberty or law. In Civil Libertarian Wedding Bells goes further to show how endorsement of same-sex impersonation goes beyond passive neutrality to active enforcement tantamount to thought criminalization.
One might compare this to the government's treatment of different religions.
I'm sorry for the analogy, but like a dog to its vomit you return to this point over and over. Religious differences and gender differences are in no wise ever considered equatable by any ruling or act of legislation. And how can they? A religious difference is in no wise discrete while gender differences are. The number of religious differences are almost limitless while the number of genders is a very managable two.
The solution, therefore, of religious equity and gender equity are like apples and oranges.
You claim a common denominator in neutrality but not even that can be considered in common. While neutrality does not imply approval, the state is not being neutral about marriage. Again the response to KidEsquire above shows that when benefits are extended we can clearly show what the state approves of and doesn't. Again the response above shows that the messages given by "approving" (whether of the actual relationship or simply the willful suspension of disbelief surrouning) same-sex impersonation of marriage with benefits is in fact an approval being sought after (re: Trey's tirade). And sometimes they are so indistinguishable that some let their mask slip occasionally.
The Mask Slips? Hmm. Op-Ed has an excellent piece that you should read on the matter as well as "Civil Libertarian Wedding Bells".
Posted by: On Lawn | June 06, 2005 at 08:37 PM
>> Trey: "Civil Unions can not give all (even most) of the civil rights and obligations that civil marriage does."
There is not a single uniform version of "civil union" across the discussions on these issues.
In Vermont, and potentially in Oregon, civil union is treated just like marriage. The formulation is basically: "marriage/civil union" and "spouse/partner".
The federal DOMA stands in the way of federal benefits (not rights), but on the state level there would be no difference. But that also applies to SSM in Massachussetts.
Posted by: Chairm | June 06, 2005 at 10:29 PM
There is not a single uniform version of "civil union" across the discussions on these issues.
This is itself one of the main problems with civil unions. While marriage laws vary from state to state and countrty to country there is an understanding of the sort of commitment and obligation one takes on with marriage. Not so with civil unions where different people have very different understandings of what sort of commitment or obligation is involved and some haven't heard of it. A time of a medical emergency or other family crisis is no time to try to explain to someone what civil unions are.
In Vermont, and potentially in Oregon, civil union is treated just like marriage.
By the state of Vermont it is, but that does not mean it is treated just like marriage by private entities in Vermont or by other jurisdictions. People have a general policy of respecting marriages, there is no such policy for civil unions and this has made real differences in a variety of situations. For example New York and other states will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, but not necessarily civil unions. DOMA stands in the way of federal benefits, obligations, and rights, but it could be repealed or struck down on the theory of Romer. If that were to happen marriages would be recognized, but civil unions would not be barring some additional legislation. Even if DOMA was not repealed, but Congress passed some legisaltion that would recognize same-sex marriages for some limited purposes, they might not recognize other same-sex unions because there is no good criterion for when such a union should be recognized as the legal structures vary so greatly from state to state.
Civil unions inherently come with a great deal more uncertainty than marriage undermining one of marriage's great protections, security.
Posted by: Galois | June 06, 2005 at 11:08 PM
That is a good reason to forestall the spread of the bait and switch game of civil union status.
Posted by: Chairm | June 07, 2005 at 09:15 AM
seeing those lives spawn from my own…I see myself in them…a parent who shares much of their genetics.
It’s sad that if your children didn’t share your genetics, you would value them less. My guess is that Trey is as good a parent as you, yet he is not so in love with himself.
Posted by: | June 07, 2005 at 01:01 PM
I didn't mean for that last comment to be anonymous, and I was responding to On Lawn.
Posted by: arturo fernandez | June 07, 2005 at 01:06 PM
Trey:
I choose marriage.
Then get out there and get married. Nobody's stopping you.
being a hospital isn't particularly important to me and thus has no difficulties whatsoever.
No? Driving around in an ambulance would certainly get you places faster, leaving you more time to interact with your children. Favorable tax treatment would also leave more money for you to take care of your children. Why, I can see no reason other than rank unacceptance of your relationship for why the government hasn't declared you a hospital already!
or are you equating marriage to pretty much a useless desire?
What?? Hospitals are useless? Your ugly hospitalophobia has no place being endorsed by government, sir! How would it hurt your hospital if same-sex couples were allowed to be hospitals? How could not calling you a hospital possibly be necessary?
ah, not at all, read her comment again and get back to me.
Just read it again. Still hasn't changed. How many times should I reread it before it changes? My, what a brave new world you must live in!
Galois:
As I noted before permitting marriage would not mark any governmental approval of the relationship, but it would remove a clear disapproval of the relationship. I would much prefer that the government was neutral on the matter.
The government is neutral on the matter, as it bases its different treatment on the different capacities involved. You propose removing that neutrality by drawing arbitrary distinctions between different groups of the same capacity, same-sex and consanguine unions, as one example, sexual same-sex unions and non-sexual ones for another.
To treat all religious institutions equally does not imply the government finds all relgions indistinguishable or equally valid.
And yet the government does distinguish between what it recognizes to be a religion and what it does not. Perhaps you would like to find an analogy that actually supports your position?
While marriage laws vary from state to state and countrty to country there is an understanding of the sort of commitment and obligation one takes on with marriage. Not so with civil unions...
Could that be because "marriage" has a clear purpose and meaning and "civil unions" do not? Not that one could not be found, but shouldn't that purpose be identified before the union is defined?
People have a general policy of respecting marriages, there is no such policy for civil unions...
Using government action to enact a private attitude, in this case "a general policy of respecting" same-sex unions, on its citizens? What a particularly onerous and autocratic purpose you see in government.
You may want to readjust your mask.
Posted by: op-ed | June 07, 2005 at 02:25 PM
Arturo,
It’s sad that if your children didn’t share your genetics, you would value them less.
I'm not sure what I said to make you think that. I give my love and respect freely to all.
But don't think I don't appreciate your attempt to deride the difference between procreation and adoption. The difference is something to celebrate, not fear.
I have two friends that gave their children up for adoption. Their decisions weren't easy, and one facet of the decision seemed to weigh on their minds as only possible in a mother carrying their child. That was the bond she had with the child as her biological mother. That bond was something she found very hard to break in making (what I consider to be) a wise decision to give them up to a family where it could have a father and mother. Recognizing their error and wanting to still have that bond they have both gotten married to real men who actually care about their family and have had many fine children.
A friend of mine was adopted, though he loved his family greatly and had no reason to want to shop for parents, he found a great interest in his biological origions. He was interested in his parents, what kind of people they were and their parents were. He found much in common and learned a new appreciation for who he was.
My wife and I are plenty fertile, but that doesn't mean we haven't ruled out opening our home to children in need of responsible parents. It is rather insensitive to assume that were I to adopt I would value them less because I don't have a biological tie to them. Its insensitive for me to try to sweep the biological ties they might be able to learn from under the rug out as inconvenient to some illusion I wish to portray. For an example of such devaluation check out "My Daddy's Name is Donor".
Lets review what I wrote about this biological tie...
It is shear selfishness to assume that because two people share something that means you have less value. Because I appreciate one thing, does that mean I do not appreciate something else? I know I don't see it that way, and am mistified by those that are so dead set in such selfish thinking that they would tear down things they don't have.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 07, 2005 at 02:28 PM
they would tear down things they don't have.
(i just thought that was worth repeating)
Posted by: Marty | June 07, 2005 at 08:03 PM
On Lawn, you complain in your latest comment about insensitivity, but its your posts that I find lacking compassion.
As a gay man growing up in a Mormon community where family and fatherhood are valued above all else, my soul has been tortured by the fact that my sexual orientation makes the idyllic family structure impossible, or at least ill-advised.
Your taunting and snarky suggestion that gays should "get out there and get married.. Nobody's stopping you" seems to be a somewhat juvenile way of making your point that heterosexual marriage is available to gays. I won't take the time to explain the hollowness of the argument (if you even attempted to sympathize with a gay man you would immediately understand), but I feel compelled to state that it is very irresponsible and dangerous to suggest gay men should marry women. Such a phenomenon is common in Mormon culture and the consequences are often disastrous for everyone involved (particulary the usually innocent wife and children). You say stop with the pretend marriages and go for the real thing, but there is nothing "real" about a marriage between a woman and a gay man.
As someone who has always yearned for his own children, I found the description of your progeny to be quite touching, but am confused by your motives. If it was an attempt to painfully remind me, and other gays, of what we will never have then you succeeded (and please don't proceed to tell me that no one is stopping me from having children). I'm perplexed by your insensitivity on this one. Do you also often have conversations with the blind over how beautiful the sunset is?
Throughout your comments you seem to treat gays simply as confused straights. If only we'd wake up and see the beauty of heterosexuality! Trust me when I tell you I've tried. I spent years praying, fasting, and crying in solitude before finally accepting a part of me that stubbornly refused to change. I hope you can understand why I thus find your repeated suggestion that I should just go get married (to a woman) ignorant and insensitive.
I hope your future comments might be less mean-spirited and more sympathetic. I know we don't all agree on the issue of SSM, but can't we be a little kinder to each other while we debate?
Posted by: jimmy | June 08, 2005 at 06:31 AM
Do you also often have conversations with the blind over how beautiful the sunset is?
I get what you are saying here. This question in particular seems to hit at the very core of it.
I can't say I've had the opportunity to discuss sunsets with the blind. It seems litterary references on this topic don't consider this a bad thing either. Both litterarily and in real life I find that in a confident relationship, people will often ask others to be their eyes and ears for them.
But as Sawyer Brown sings, theres a little thing called "wantin' and havin' it all". The truth about life is that none of us have it all, and we all need others help sometimes.
When my wife is carrying children I watch with utter amazement. It is something I'll never experience and, to be honest, I am flat out envious of it. She has a bond with the children I'll never have, its like she knows them well before I get to. To be able to sacrifice and go through such travail for children is amazing and sometimes I can honestly say I feel short changed.
Sexual preference is something that has switched for many people, but being able to take on the role of another gender biologically is something that has never happened. But that doesn't keep me from asking my wife constantly what it feels like. I think she gets tired of me asking sometimes.
I may never own a McClaren F1, or even a Corvette. But that doesn't stop me from reading magazines where automotive journalists spend their lives trying to describe what it feels like to drive one.
There are so many things I value though I can't every have them. As James Madison in Federalist #51 postulates, as we value diversity (which at it's core means, they have something we don't) we protect diversity. The real secret to how a society becomes *more* fair, more sensitive and more cosmopolitain is in appreciating those things that we don't have, as well as those things we do have.
As far as your worries about Homosexuality, I have one question. Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have lived when Christ was on the earth? To have had such access to answer the questions you descrive such a struggle over, I can only imagine, would be quite refreshing. We don't have a record of what Christ felt about homosexuality, but we do have a record of how he healed people's infirmities.
Yet nowadays such miraculous healings are almost impossible to dream of. Such sensitivity with absolute authority is just as scarce. Even with how great a men the apostles were, reading the Gospels shows just how much of a disparity there was between their capacity and Christ's.
Moreso than a McClaren F1, I feel envious of that access to divinity to help answer questions I need that are perhaps as difficult to answer as yours has been for you. Only once was I able to ask an apostle a question. In a young adult fireside I asked Richard G. Scott a question about how to read failure (much like your own when you get down to it) and the clarity and help the answer he gave was refreshing. The answer has become a point of gravitation and as it has been used in meditation. It seems I just keep falling back on it.
So why are people simply not healed? Why so many prayers for such good things as you and I have asked for go unanswered?
A man in my ward is crippled with siezures. As his condition worsens he is nearing the end of any use he was to his family (just barely reaching maturity and needing their Dad). Do you think he's cried and fasted and prayed for healing also? Where is his answer? (more on this later)
My marriage like so many others can fall prey to many divergent acts of selfishness. We have to cope almost unceasingly with physical and mental frailties also of a serious medical nature, though of a different sort than the man described above. I don't think that any self-reflecting soul striving for a better life and a better way is unaquainted with the grief you describe, so the insensitivity you complain about is unfortunate.
But as I said before:
A blind person doesn't hide the sky from others because they can't see the sunset. A person crippled with palsy doesn't demand everyone to be in a wheelchair. And a homosexual shouldn't demand that marriage's uniqueness be deprecated either. Such a move is selfish, or another way to say it, insensitive.
Camile Padiglia (lesbian commentator) shows the concern that I've seen in many homosexuals, that gay-marriage is used as a slap in the face, a needle to poke in the side of others. Just two weeks ago someone close to my family (also homosexual) expressed simular concern that homosexuals were using their sexuality as a phalanx while marching for very priveledged and insensitive demands. Steve Yuhas is a radio show host who expresses such concern.
Hmm, perhaps now is not the time to discuss what happened to the man in my ward. I hate bringing things like this up in the middle of confrontation. But there is no doubt he has struggled just as you have, and for every good reason, just as you have.
Three weeks ago he felt impressed to recieve a blessing, not from an Apostle and not even from a Bishop (though he has recieved blessings from them before). The elder was only weeks out of the MTC, from Hawaii. As naive as that elder was to his condition, and to life in general he placed his hands on the man's head and told him to get up and walk. The man did, and has ever since.
One never really gains appreciation of miracles until they see just how lives are changed by them. Why the timing and the circumstance I'll never know. Why such healing has not been granted my family situation, I don't know either. To say I don't care if I ever see such healing again is an understatement, it is great to see it in his life.
I don't know that I am laying this out like a carrot and stick asking you to change. I don't think I have any reason to do so honestly. The great thing about relating real life events is that I don't have to specify an interpretation. Which is good because I have none. But I can say that there is "a little thing called wantin' and havin' it all" and no one has it all.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 08, 2005 at 09:23 AM
A blind person doesn't hide the sky from others because they can't see the sunset. A person crippled with palsy doesn't demand everyone to be in a wheelchair. And a homosexual shouldn't demand that marriage's uniqueness be deprecated either. Such a move is selfish, or another way to say it, insensitive.
This analogy is misplaced. The homosexual would have to be demanding that everyone enter into a gay relationship to be compared to the sufferer of palsy.
The homosexual is the person in the wheelchair asking for a ramp up to the church. The same-sex marriage opponent is the person denying her that ramp because it deprecates the uniqueness of taking the stairs.
Posted by: Michael | June 08, 2005 at 12:29 PM
On Lawn,
Though i disagree with most of what you have written in that last comment, for once I see humanity in what you write, instead of snark and disdain from earlier comments.
Can I say frankly, that I was surprised to find you are LDS? In my 20 years as a Mormon (18-38), I can sincerely say that the overwhelming majority of Mormons I've known, met or loved have been kind, respectful and empathetic even when we disagree completely. The Mormons I still know today (save a very few) such as my in-laws and friends, are the same. i didn't see that respect empathy in your comments till now. Thanks for at least breaking the cycle.
i would be inclined to carry on a conversation on this thread and others if only it didn't immediately devolve into snark and disdain. Till now, that is what I've expected, though honestly 'once burned, twice shy and all that'...
Posted by: trey | June 08, 2005 at 12:40 PM
On Lawn,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. While I still disagree with the analogies you make comparing homosexuality with other "failures," I was at least able to read your response without feeling rage build up inside me. And that, I think, is progress on both sides.
I'm sorry you focused so much on my imperfect analogy about the sunset and the blind man. I was worried you'd do that.
The more important point I tried to make was the danger in advising gay men to marry women, and I didn't notice any reply on this issue. I, too, was surprised to hear you are LDS. As such you should know that President Hinckley has stated in the most emphatic terms possible that under no condition should gays be counseled to enter into heterosexual marriage in order to "cure" their condition.
To just "get married" was actually common advice given to gays by Bishops and Stake Presidents in the 50s, 60s and 70s who were ignorant to the realities of homosexuality. The Church, upon seeing the devastation that resulted, has now officially come out against this. It's my hope that you, too, can remove this particular tenet from your personal doctrine against gay marriage.
Posted by: Jimmy | June 08, 2005 at 05:37 PM
Just to reemphasis what Jimmy has said...
there are many LDS men, all the way into the 80's (and some now, but thankfully not much) who were not only encouraged to get married to women, but were told it was all they needed to be 'cured'
The pain and suffering this has caused all parties in the marriage, men, women and children, has been something I've witnessed too many times. The Church and LDS social services now do not recommend marriage for gay men or women, they've learned the hard way through bad experience.
I was told to marry when I was in my mid-20's (1984) by both my Bishop and a LDS SS therapist. Both said it would 'work itself out' (Bishop's words) and 'awaken my latent hetersexuality" (therapist's words). I dated, got engaged... and then a couple months before the wedding became fearful. After 10 years of therapy, prayer and work I still hadn't 'changed'.. I was afraid that I was going to drag that sweet woman into my struggle.
I'm glad (as is she now) that I ended the engagement. Later watching and hearing from men who did and the pain and suffering the went through and were the cause of... well.. I'm just glad I was able to avoid that added suffering in my life.
The comments on this blog (and many other places) that you can 'choose marriage' and 'just get married to a woman' are either flippant, ignorant or just not particularly thoughtful. It's not really an option that would make anyone happy.
Posted by: trey | June 08, 2005 at 06:34 PM
Michael:
The homosexual would have to be demanding that everyone enter into a gay relationship to be compared to the sufferer of palsy.
The analogy is about deprecating capacities because their existance was considered by some posters here as mean to those that don't have them. The blind can't see the sunset, the palsied can't walk, and the homosexual cannot love someone of the opposite sex? If one feels that their sexuality is based in biology and not psychology, and that biology is keeping them from finding someone of the opposite sex to marry then the analog would be the palsy itself. One needn't say the sufferer of palsy would wish everyone suffered palsy also, just that "a homosexual shouldn't demand that marriage's uniqueness be deprecated either."
The homosexual is the person in the wheelchair asking for a ramp up to the church. The same-sex marriage opponent is the person denying her that ramp because it deprecates the uniqueness of taking the stairs.
Having missed the analogy, it isn't a suprise that you have to construct an external ediface to represent the capacity of marriage. It isn't a suprise that in the analogy you use handicapped benefits for your own purpose. And I also notice that the "ediface" is something to simply be adored and entered into, serving no productive purpose.
Problems with your analogy aside, procreation is not an external appendage of marriage. If anything in that broken analogy it is the very altar of worship, the function of the building. For your analogy to hold, the person helped into the church would end up in the same church he had been striving to enter with the same altar. The "ramp" on the outside would equate to helping the individual overcome the obstacle that has prevented entry. The biological or psychological impairment to loving someone of the opposite sex to form a marriage would be overcome.
Trey:
...for once I see humanity in what you write, instead of snark and disdain from earlier comments.
It is unreasonable to assume your changed perceptions are the result of an actual change in OnLawn. More likely it is due to a changed circumstance. By talking openly and frankly, jimmy met with productive conversation. You have talked about whether I accept your relationship and feel slighted when I deal with that accusation rather than with some underlying meaning you have yet to reveal. Hiding your true agenda behind a mask you should hardly be surprised that people address the mask and miss your true agenda.
jimmy:
The more important point I tried to make was the danger in advising gay men to marry women, and I didn't notice any reply on this issue.
Marriage is not a therapy for homosexuality, adultery, juvenility, or any other form of selfishness. It is a goal to go after and these things need to be overcome for marriages to be successful. You and Trey are very keen on that point, but recall Trey's comment was "I choose marriage" not "you choose marriage for me, mmmkay?"
Some goals are hard. Some goals you may never achieve. If marriage is your goal, and I'm not saying it is, who knows whether you will ever achieve it. But then who is to say that you will not? People like Galois have their own reasons for telling you you will not, but it is not because they know any better than you your own situation.
Choose your goals and go after them. If a goal is not important to you, then drop it and find something that is. Don't disgrace yourself by trying to move the finish line back to where you are. Don't impede other runners or try to convince them to stop with you. Cheating is only cheating yourself. Just find something that is important to you and go after that.Trey, again:
The comments on this blog (and many other places) that you can 'choose marriage' and 'just get married to a woman' are either flippant, ignorant or just not particularly thoughtful.
As you are the author of the statements in question, I will defer to your assessment of them.
Posted by: op-ed | June 08, 2005 at 07:20 PM