Interesting way to frame a debate. Wide swaths of those who participated in the most difficult struggles of the civil rights movement would beg to differ with the logic here. Minorities before the civil rights movement were doing all the same things white people were doing but were being denied the natural results of their behaviors. Their civil rights were being denied and they had every moral right to fight for them.
Gay partners, on the other hand, are engaging in relationships that are inherently different from heterosexual relationships, and they are fighting for the right to have heterosexuals claim that there there is no meaningful difference between these relationships. This is a different ballgame. One was denied the results of equal behavior, one is fighting for the social equalization of unequal behavior.
I have many gay friends who I love and respect and I want their happiness. I think they should be able to live as they see fit and enter into any contractual or tax advantage that married heterosexuals enjoy. But I do not support gay marriage. Proposition 8 is about 4 California Justices reversing the will of the people of California who voted several years ago that marriage is between a man and a woman only. Prop 8 would return the law to what the legislators and people chose before. Judicial fiat is a travesty, even when you agree with the result.
But in essence, Prop 8 is about the normalization of homosexuality and the social and political reinforcements that go along with it. I believe that traditional heterosexual marriage must maintain its privileged status in order to maintain it as the gold standard. Giving homosexual unions the same social, moral and legal value as traditional marriage is the equivalent of giving silver the same legal value as gold. Calling it something it is not doesn't change its inherent worth -- it only devalues the gold.
Heterosexuals have done plenty enough damage to traditional marriage -- I don't look forward to seeing what homosexuals will do with it. In any case, it's anybody's guess as to the social ramifications of this proposal in coming decades. We think we know what we're buying while accepting gay marriage, but I suspect we'll have profound buyers remorse in decades to come, when it will be too late.
Land of the free.......but not necessarily 'freedom' for all....right?
Land of equality.......but some are more equal than others....right?
When it comes to same-sex couples paying taxes (which is okay because their money is just as good).......they get NONE of the same benefits as hetereosexual couples (which is NOT okay, because they ain't like YOU).
"What exactly is the defining quality that makes 'heterosexual marriage' the 'gold standard'?"
We have a very clear understanding of the major advantages that children have who come from intact homes with a mother and a father, ranging all the way from higher achievement, higher esteem, more happiness, etc. And it's also very clear that certain things are learned from the mother, no matter her parenting involvement or skill, and likewise for the father, and the one usually can't duplicate the contribution of the other. Go deep into sociology and psychology and that's how they've learned to look into the effects of parenting. Children born to mediocre but stable parents still enjoy many advantages over more attentive single parents.
I'm not saying gay partners can't be loving and skilled as parents. But there really isn't any understanding of what children do and do not get from two parents of the same gender. The APA and other far-left leaning groups assure people that there is no proof that homosexual parents aren't just as good as heterosexual parents, but that's because they don't have much to go on.
And then we get to the natural fact that homosexual unions never naturally result in children -- they're always from other relationships or via adoption or artificial insemination. They are just additional things that take the focus of society farther and farther from the acknowledged ideal -- children being raised by their parents. (Yes, adoptive parents are just as much parents as anyone else. Most adoptive parents only have that option because of the high number of people who see no problem with having sex with someone they're not willing to raise a family with. Which is yet another big issue.)
Bottom line is gay marriage is one step further away from the ideal for children, which is thus the ideal for society. By gay marriage activists, promiscuous heterosexuals within or without non-marital cohabitation, traditional marriage is being severely downgraded from what it has been known for thousands of years throughout the world. It was once "the bedrock of civilization and the insurer of childhood happiness. Today, too many in society see this all-important institution as nothing more than one of many viable permanent sexual lifestyles (with romantic and insurance benefits).
It's time to return traditional marriage to it's place as the gold standard. Gay marriage is a step in the opposite direction. That's what I'm talking about.
"We have a very clear understanding of the major advantages that children have who come from intact homes with a mother and a father, ranging all the way from higher achievement, higher esteem, more happiness, etc."
As you can clearly see with your new president elect an intact family is absolutely necessary to achieve anything...
"And then we get to the natural fact that homosexual unions never naturally result in children"
So infertile heterosexuals logically should not be allowed to marry.
"what it has been known for thousands of years throughout the world"
Which definition of world? The part that fits your argument or the part that was known at a certain point in history? Minus the barbarians of course who did not count.
I'm sorry, but you keep using the term "gold standard". As in money being backed by gold? That system is obsolete, our money isn't backed with ANYTHING (except our forced trust in God). One could argue that your use of this term in effect also makes your views obsolete... At least in a high school debate that could work.
You are an eloquent writer working on very illogical foundations.
"We have a very clear understanding of the major advantages that children have who come from intact homes with a mother and a father"
- first of all, this statement sounds like one based on facts. I doubt is though, prove me wrong.
- secondly, even if that were true, that does not make it okay to ban other scenarios. Is the next step to ban single parents? Does that mean that if a 'normal' family has the unfortunate passing of one of the parents that the remaining parent must give up their children for adoption?
Disagreeing with gay marriage is one thing. Banning it is something else.
I have no problem with a church deciding that they will not label a gay union as 'marriage' in their congregation. That's how exclusive clubs work. But to tell someone outside of that church what they can and can't do is unconstitutional.
Prop. 8 is no different in principle from banning books. Essentially, the supporters of Prop 8 don't like that someone else is promoting different ideas, so they're going to ban it.
"We have a very clear understanding of the major advantages that children have who come from intact homes with a mother and a father" - first of all, this statement sounds like one based on facts. I doubt is though, prove me wrong."
Not in the mood to research this, but this is one of the basic generalities of social science, with decades of studies that back it up. Boys who grow up without a father's influence are statistically at a high disadvantage, even equalizing for income and parenting skill of their alternate guardians, in terms of crimes, education, anti-social behavior, attitudes toward women, etc. Girls have fewer disadvantages than boys in terms of education and crime, far more disadvantages in terms of self-esteem, promiscuity, and abusive relationship. From late childhood on, Obama was raised without a father (never by his natural father), but he is on the lucky end of the statistical curve.
I'm not talking about "banning" any type of parenting. Gay people have and will continue to raise their own kids (as they should -- their kids need them). That's not the same question as gay marriage.
When I call tradition marriage the gold standard, I'm calling it the perfect template -- what we should be aiming at because that's what's best for children and Society. Parents who are single through death and divorce are managing a situation they didn't ask for -- they started out under the template and had that removed due to unwelcome circumstances. I place gay marriage in the same "non-gold-standard" category as heterosexual co-habitation and as bearing children out of wedlock. None are inherently the same as traditional marriage, and I don't consider them as advantageous for children as traditional marriage. While people get to choose what they do with their lives, the rest of society should have a choice as to whether they have to accept deviations from the ideal as equal to the ideal. That's what proposition 8 addresses.
If you're gay and want to move in with the love of your life, share insurance benefits, hospital rights, probate rights, etc., I have no problem with demanding those rights, and I don't think I should have a say in that matter. But if someone is telling me that I have to accept their template for family life as exactly the equal of traditional marriage (which I strongly argue has a different value to society), and that my children have to grow up where everyone but me is going to tell them that only bigots can see a difference, I have the right to fight back. That can and does affect me and my children. 70% of California blacks voted for Prop 8, so don't tell me only a bigot with no sympathy for civil rights could think the way I'm thinking.
I want my children growing up in a society that cherishes traditional marriage as the template for happiness, and to see deviations from that standard as such. The alternative is for them to grow up thinking that traditional marriage is not really that important -- nothing more than a really old idea. That's a bad thing, and I'm going to fight that.
Again: I'm not anti-gay or anti-civil rights. I'm pro traditional marriage. I believe introducing gay marriage to the definition of traditional marriage will weaken the institution for all. It's not about "denying their rights," it's about fighting for my own.
FYI. I never mentioned religion -- it informs my views, but my arguments are secular because we're talking about a state matter. I firmly believe in separation of church and state. Churches can lobby for their views like anyone else, but the laws must remain secular in nature.
Ah, I see. I'm religious, and therefore my views, whether they be religious or not, are irrational even when they are not. I wish I could say that's the first time I've heard a response that essentially comes down to that. If it makes you feel better to think that religious folks are somehow less intelligent and rational than those who are not, you're welcome to that. I am free to think that such a line of thinking is, in itself, irrational.
Oddly enough I don't need to make it up that (many) religious people are less intelligent or rational, it gets demonstrated all too often, just like in this case.
Basically this whole topic boils down to the question who the fuck gives you the right to decide how other people should live?
21rst CENTURY!!! OMGods!!! What year is it in the USA anywho??? I was taught that the USofA was where people could live and worship as they please....
damn... lied to by the schools again. ;)
I aint one for watching guys kiss ...or most women for that matter either.... but what does marriage actual mean? LOVE! lots of LOVE! naught else really matters does it? if people want to be treated like a couple in love then more power to them. If people want to ban something they should ban divorce! Then marriage may actually MEAN something to fight about again. Marriage has to be eternal... or what's the point? without the commitment it's just a contract... and a temp one at that.
Looks like this shit has passed. It is a shame that such a proposition was even making it to the stage of being voted about much more so being accepted.
ya see it is all about money. eliminate tax credit for marrieds, etc and gsy wouldnt care about being married. Average sex partners for gays 500 to average sex partners for straights 12. it ai all about the monwey
Democracy is fine, immature voters are not, but there is not much one can do about this except educating them.
You know, this is the same thing as you US Americans not being happy with the guy they elected in Iran. This is the bad thing about democracy: You don't get what you want, you get what the majority votes for (they don't get what they want either...). Guess how pissed we were in Europe when you reelected Bush.
Psy
You might be wasting your time.
Read some of his other brilliance.
I do see his and others solution, though: When one cannot get ones way by convincing the majority one must usurp demoracy and, while the diapers are still wet, get a judge to create laws where previously they did not exist.
Fine, you got me on this one. Maybe the immature voters are not wrong all of the time?
The bottom line is that much of the stuff going on in the USA (and being accepted as normal) would cause only unbelieving head scratching in central Europe.
Comments (36)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.