My Links

Bloggernacle Links

  • Mormon Archipelago
  • Mormon Blogs
  • LDSelect
  • LDS Blogs

Article Categories

Post Categories

Archives

Other LDS Blogs

Our Individual Blogs
<< Living in a Convection Oven: Fewer Service Projects Overall? | Home | The Right Argument Against Gay Marriage >>

The Wrong Argument FOR Gay Marriage

By: The Baron

Continuing on from Monday's analysis of the gay marriage issue…

It’s important to note that the pro-gay-marriage side is no less susceptible to arguments that are weak, irrelevant, and/or mistaken as the 'anti-'s are.  Let's look at the arguments from the other side of the debate.

What the arguments for legalized gay marriage are NOT:

Legalized gay marriage benefits gays

And…legalized slavery benefits white families, especially poor white families.  So?

Just like the ‘homosexuality is a sin’ argument from earlier, gay marriage supporters often state the benefits that gays would receive from legalized gay marriage as if that inherently proves their case.  It does not.

I and millions of others would benefit tremendously from a new law that decreed that all Americans with a last name starting with B no longer have to pay income tax.   Such a law would provide immediate financial help for me and others, many of whom are undoubtedly poor and struggling, and wouldn’t “hurt” anyone else with different last names, since everyone else’s taxes remain the same (…for now).

If your last name didn’t start with B, would you vote for such a law?  I mean, why not--if you recognize that a great many others would benefit from it, with minimal impact on yourself.  (In fact, if you didn’t support it, that just proves you’re prejudiced and “hate people with names different than you”, right?)

One can conceive of any number of laws that would benefit one minority group or another.  The fact that it benefits someone is not a reason in and of itself to support such laws.  The primary questions are: (1) does this minority group objectively deserve those benefits such that society has a moral or practical obligation to provide them, and (2) would giving this group this benefit end up hurting any other minority (or majority) group—directly or indirectly—in the process?

Just pointing out that gays would benefit from gay marriage doesn’t mean much—the real question is why should secular society feel obligated to provide those benefits in the first place?   The burden of proof is still on the pro-gay-marriage side  not just to enumerate things that would be "really, really nice if we had", but to show why they should.

“People who oppose gay marriage are hypocrites…”

“…because they spend so much effort fighting gay marriage instead of abortion or any other obviously more serious societal problems that we can name, according to their own ‘moral’ standards.”

It is true that conservatives, especially religious conservatives, do get pretty riled up when the issue of gay marriage comes to the fore.  And this supposed ‘hypocrisy’ is often brought up from pro-gay marriage supporters who spend a fair amount of time complaining about the ‘moral standing’ of their opponents to oppose gay marriage in the first place, when they ‘should’ be spending their energy somewhere else.

However:

(1) “Hypocrisy” is not an argument.  It neither presents a reason why gay marriage should be legal, nor refutes any of the opposing arguments why it shouldn’t be.  It is an ad hominem attempt to create a distraction--to produce an emotional prejudice against one’s opponents to divert attention away from the real issues, without possessing any actual content that can compel others to support one’s position.  (It’s like pointing to someone and saying, “Well, he’s an adulterer, so *obviously* his views on health care reform are mistaken…”)

(2) There is a very good reason why gay marriage may seem like it receives more emphasis from many conservatives than (for example) abortion:  abortion is already legal, gay marriage is not.

There is a HUGE difference between trying to make something legal that currently isn’t, and trying to make something illegal that’s already legal and largely integrated into society.  Abortion is not going away any time soon, neither is alcohol or tobacco.  And if gay marriage ever becomes legal and widely accepted in society, it’s not going to go away any time in the future.  Both sides KNOW this, which is why the battle receives such attention today, as legalization is essentially the point of no return.

Most conservatives know very well there are many things that attack ‘family values’—quickie divorces, abortion, adultery, abuse, and the general societal trend towards self-gratification being the driving force behind all relationships.  The problem is the battle has already been lost on virtually all these fronts—what exactly are religious conservatives realistically supposed to do about any of those?  Gay marriage receives the lion’s share of attention because it’s one of the only battlegrounds that has yet to be decided.   If everything else has already been lost, where else would you expect conservatives to focus their attention?

“Heterosexual couples cheapen the institution of marriage enough as it is…”

“…through a high divorce rate, rampant adultery, quickie Las Vegas marriages that are annulled two days later, and sham marriages for money, immigration, and the like.”

This, of course, is just a variation of the ‘hypocrisy’ argument—saying that straight couples can’t honestly reject gay marriage as ‘cheapening’ the institution of marriage, while they regularly treat marriage fairly frivolously themselves.

The complaints about how non-gay couples often treat marriage are certainly true…but, again, completely irrelevant.  Is the pro-gay-marriage side seriously going to suggest that if gay marriage becomes accepted in society, gay couples are NOT also going to do every single thing on that list?

That:
  • No gay man or woman will ever commit adultery?
  • We won’t ever see same-sex marriages for money, immigration, or medical benefits?
  • Nor “Hollywood” marriages that disintegrate within days?
  • Gay couples will somehow be able to maintain a significantly lower divorce rate than straight couples (even though the reasons and motives for divorce will be exactly the same)?
If the gay-rights side has solid reasons other than just wishful thinking to believe any of this will be the case, I’d like to hear them.

It seems obvious that if gay marriage becomes legal, many gay couples will take their vows seriously, and many will not.  (By an astonishing coincidence, the same as opposite sex couples!)  Meaning in the end, if gay marriage is accepted and ratified, we’ll eventually see exactly the same sort of ‘hypocritical’ treatment of marriage from gays in time, and probably in approximately the same ratio, too.  Thus, this argument is another diversionary tactic to discredit the opposition with no real meat behind it.

Essentially, gays are saying, “We deserve the opportunity to treat the institution of marriage just as lightly and cheaply as you do.”  That’s...not exactly a great rallying cry to enthusiastically jump on the gay marriage bandwagon, is it?

Gay marriage will encourage fidelity among gay couples

…you mean, just like it does among straight couples?  Didn’t we just hear a second ago about how many ways straight couples DON’T take their marital vows seriously?

“Fidelity”, or ‘loyalty’, in and of itself, is not significant.  One can remain faithful to the same dentist for years and years (in comparison to being ‘promiscuous’ and visiting a different dentist every six months) but to what end?  If someone wants to remain loyal and faithful to one dentist, so be it—it’s a great benefit to that dentist, certainly--but that’s hardly something that society should feel compelled to encourage or enforce through law and social policy.

Likewise, whether or not state-recognized marriage has a significant encouraging effect on fidelity (arguable), there’s still a larger question:  why should society care whether gay couples stay together or split up?

The pro-gay-rights side rejects the assertion that homosexual behavior is sinful by saying ‘morality’ is relative and the absolute condemnation applied to them by many religions does not apply.  But by what principle can the gay community then turn around and say promiscuity and infidelity are, essentially, ‘immoral’ and need to be protected against through secular law.  Why shouldn’t gays (or anyone) be allowed to be promiscuous if they want to?  (In other words, why is gay sex okay, but LOTS of gay sex not okay?)

(Many non-LDS churches do the same thing with a relative view of the Law of Chastity, where ‘some’ pre-marital sex is okay as long as you’re not ‘promiscuous’…with absolute no way of determining where the line is between them.)

Using ‘fidelity’ as an argument is incomplete:  why should society care if gay couples stay together, or break up?  Especially if society is NOT supposed to care that many gays left their opposite sex partners to form the gay partnership in the first place.

The gay community can’t have it both ways:  If it is not only expected but encouraged for a person with same-sex attraction to leave any opposite-sex partner for a same-sex lover, then what’s wrong with that same person later leaving their same-sex spouse for another same-sex lover, if they're more attracted to the second?  Why should society expect fidelity in same-sex relationships if fidelity is entirely optional in opposite-sex relationships?

“What about the spread of AIDS and STDs?”

This has the makings of a fair argument.  Society might care about 'fidelity' if there is a significant public health component. 

Let’s divide all gay couples, though, into four groups:

  1. Gay couples that won't ever get married, whether its legal or not.
  2. Gay couples that would get married if it was legal, but are of the sort that they’re not going to remain faithful to each other over time, regardless of any marriage commitment.
  3. Gay couples that wouldn't remain faithful to each other without a binding commitment from the state such as legal marriage, but will feel compelled to be faithful if they are in such a binding legal relationship.
  4. Gay couples that are completely faithful to each other now, even without marriage, and would, of course, continue to be faithful to each other within marriage as well.
Note that from a ‘reduce promiscuity and the spread of STDs’ standpoint, legalizing gay marriage has absolutely no effect on groups (1), (2), and (4).  Therefore, any strength of the STD argument is entirely dependent on how large you think group (3) is—the couples where being in a legally binding relationship will actually produce a change in their behavior.

When you add in the fact that legalizing gay marriage has no effect on any of the four groups’ sexual behavior BEFORE they get married, the likelihood that gay marriage will have a significant impact on the STD rate among gays enough to inherently justify its existence is fairly small.

As with heterosexual relationships (where the spread of STDs is still a problem despite marriage), more evidence is needed that legalized marriage will actually have a significant impact on community health.  It is possible that some minor slowing of the spread of STDs may be a small fringe benefit of gay marriage if it comes to pass, but certainly not to the extent that it can stand as a strong argument for making gay marriage legal in the first place.

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?"

We saw previously that NOT having legalized gay marriage probably won't avoid any negative effects on children growing up in gay households.  Turning it around, then, what about positive effects on those children, in terms of 'stability'?

If we accept the statistic mentioned in the previous article, there are 1 million or so kids growing up in gay households, the vast majority of which (upwards of 95%) are the biological children of one of the gay partners.

Extrapolating an equally important statistic:  0% of those kids are the biological child of BOTH gay partners.

Which leads to the same question as the 'fidelity' issue above:  if society is supposed to care about kids having a more consistent 'partner to dad/mom' in the home for stability's sake, shouldn't society also care about dad/mom originally splitting up with those kids' other biological parent in the first place? 

If stability for children is to be the guiding principle in setting marriage policy, wouldn't having those children living in a household with their biological parents be by far the most 'stable' environment?  If so, does that point us towards or away from legalized gay marriage?

As discussed previously, it's not a given that legalized gay marriage is going to inherently cause separation from biological parents--since that's clearly happening regularly enough without it--but the fact that gay marriage only becomes a possibility after children have already been separated from their other biological parent undercuts (if not contradicts completely) the idea that 'stability for children' is the primary principle at play.

As with 'fidelity', the pro-gay-marriage side has a higher burden of proof--explaining why society should care about keeping gay couples together 'for the sake of children', but not care about those kids being separated from their biological parents to begin with...

Next: The RIGHT argument against gay marriage

Print | posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:59 AM | Filed Under [ The Baron General Politics Family ]

Comments:

#1: Nick Literski

Just pointing out that gays would benefit from gay marriage doesn’t mean much—the real question is why should secular society feel obligated to provide those benefits in the first place? The burden of proof is still on the pro-gay-marriage side not just to enumerate things that would be "really, really nice if we had", but to show why they should.

The majority of benefits which would accrue to homosexuals through marriage equality are simply a matter of giving them the same benefits already enjoyed by heterosexuals. In other words, it's not just that gays would benefit, but rather that gays would be treated equally. I think that is the more accurate, as well as more convincing, way of framing the point.

“People who oppose gay marriage are hypocrites…”
“Heterosexual couples cheapen the institution of marriage enough as it is…”

I don't see either of these as arguments for marriage equality. Rather, I see them as criticisms of the arguments against marriage equality. They point out the weakness in the most prominent conservative arguments on the subject.

As with heterosexual relationships (where the spread of STDs is still a problem despite marriage), more evidence is needed that legalized marriage will actually have a significant impact on community health. It is possible that some minor slowing of the spread of STDs may be a small fringe benefit of gay marriage if it comes to pass, but certainly not to the extent that it can stand as a strong argument for making gay marriage legal in the first place.

One difficulty here is that the public health benefit will likely be noticed over the long term, rather than the short term. Promiscuity in the gay community is largely influenced by the past refusal of society to recognize, encourage and support committed same-sex relationships. While sexual fidelity is certainly not universal in the heterosexual population, it is more common, in part because of the value society places on those heterosexual relationships. As greater recognition, support, and encouragement exists for committed same-sex relationships, I believe you'll see a gradual decline in promiscuity. It's already happening, in fact, among young gay men, who are finding themselves more fully accepted among their peers. More and more of these young men are quite vocally choosing to be celibate until they enter into committed partnership, or if legal in their jurisdiction, marriage.
5/21/2008 9:04 AM

#2: Michael

Baron,

There are a couple of things that I disagree with in your discussion above.

1) You still continue to state that 95% of children in gay households are biological children. In your previous blog, I pointed out the error in your assumption. You were under the impression that gay adoption is illegal in most states. I stated that this is incorrect. Only three states DO NOT allow for gay adoptions (Florida, Mississippi, and Utah). Even with this knowledge you continued to state above that 95% of children in gay households are biological. Your assumption does not hold water.

2) You state that because the battle is lost on divorce, adultery, out-of-wedlock births, sexualization of children, shacking up before marriage, fornication and other various destructive elements to straight marriage, we just need to give up on them and concentrate all our efforts on not providing equal benefits to gay and lesbian couples which comprise 3% to 4% of all marriages. This is the most preposterous argument I have heard in a long time. If 98% of the problem with marriage is the disrespect shown by straights then it is incumbent upon conservatives to fight tooth and nail with every particle of energy they have to reverse that trend.

I am sorry but your two posts on this subject are full of illogical and inconsistent arguments.
5/21/2008 12:07 PM

#3: Eric Nielson

I disagree with Michael. I think you have been very logical in your presentation thus far. I can not vouch for statistics, but the general presentation is very sound so far.
5/21/2008 12:37 PM

#4: John Mansfield

A 2006 Pediatrics article includes a summary of 2000 Census data: "Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children)." "Six percent of same-gender couples are raising children who have been adopted compared with 5.1% of heterosexual married couples and 2.6% of unmarried heterosexual couples." (From "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children .")

This post gives too much credit to the hypocrisy argument. It's not true that homosexuality "receives the lion's share of attention" from those who oppose homosexual marriage. Comparing states of the United States, thre are wide differences in rates of such things as cohabitation, birth outside marriage, and abortion. (My post last week at Millennial Star looks at some rankings.) For example, California is responsible for over a quarter of all U.S. abortions, while Utah has the lowest rates of cohabitation and illegitimacy. Broadly speaking, support among heterosexuals for homosexual marriage comes from those who show in other ways their indifference regarding marriage.
5/21/2008 12:41 PM

#5: Sam B.

John,
Your California example doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You argue, I suppose, some correlation between abortion and, I don't know, lack of support for marriage? I've not heard your 25% number, but even if true, it doesn't say anything to me. You haven't pointed out even a correlation, much less causeation, between anything. (Are you implying that high abortion rate correlates to support for gay marriage? Because it wasn't public support in California; rather, it was the state constitutions.) Similarly, that Utah has the lowest rate of cohabitation and illegitimacy doesn't say or prove anything.

You assert baldly that support for gay marriage comes from those who otherwise show their indifference to marriage. Again, says what? California voted for Prop. 22; it was a legal argument, not a popular one, that permitted gay marriage in CA. Ditto in Massachussets. Anecdotally, my closest and most liberal friends are, largely, married or engaged. While they probably support gay marriage, they also support--and participate in--heterosexual marriage.

All this to say, What were you saying?
5/21/2008 12:51 PM

#6: John Mansfield

Sam B., if you want the data, go to my Millennial Star post. Links to the CDC and Census reports are there. You make it sound like everyone across the nation supports marriage equally. They don't. Some view cohabitation as an acceptable alternative, and others don't. Some bring children into the world without benefit of married parents, and others don't. Some abort, and some don't.
5/21/2008 1:19 PM

#7: The Baron

You still continue to state that 95% of children in gay households are biological children. In your previous blog, I pointed out the error in your assumption. You were under the impression that gay adoption is illegal in most states. I stated that this is incorrect.


You're correct (I assume) about the states that allow and don't allow gay adoptions--I didn't look that up. However, my off-the-cuff statement about how many states allow it notwithstanding, the stat about the ratio between biological children versus adopted/foster home children was taken directly from the census data linked to in the first article, not just a random guess from me. If you want to argue the ratio is closer to 85/15 or 75/25 or something you certainly can--all statistics can be quibbled about--but the data seems pretty clear that the majority of gay parents in the US today happen to be parenting their own biological children. And I don't see how that's particularly controversial, because that's actually a defense for the gay community from attacks against gay people's ability to be a good parent from the more extreme religious objectors. (And, for the record, I don't oppose gay adoption...)

But, like I said, *IF* gays are parenting their own kids that's a double-edged sword: it refutes many of the objections that gay marriage will 'harm kids'...but also raises other questions about statements that gay marriage 'benefits kids' as well...
5/21/2008 4:41 PM

#8: The Baron

The majority of benefits which would accrue to homosexuals through marriage equality are simply a matter of giving them the same benefits already enjoyed by heterosexuals. In other words, it's not just that gays would benefit, but rather that gays would be treated equally. I think that is the more accurate, as well as more convincing, way of framing the point.


*If* that way of framing the argument is correct... Is gay marriage an 'equal rights' issue? Is there a right that I have that a gay man does not? (Change 'gay' to 'black' and before the civil rights era, the answer to that question would be obvious... It's not at all obvious here.)

Many on the gay rights side mention the benefits without making the case for being truly unequal (and thus 'deserved' rather than just 'nice if...'), which as you and I both note, is the key part of the argument. (And discussed more in the next section...)
5/21/2008 4:50 PM

#9: TK

Baron,

I don't understand your statement: "*IF* gays are parenting their own kids that's a double-edged sword: it refutes many of the objections that gay marriage will 'harm kids'...

Just because a gay person is parenting their own child doesn't mean that child is well adjusted or not. There have not been any studies. That means we only have opinions. Proponents say there is no negative effect on children and opposing parties disagree.

The only thing we do know from a number of studies; those parent that are divorced or single parents do have a significantly higher rate of children with academic problems, drug and alcohol abuse and crime.

I have seen statistics that homosexuals have anywhere from 5% - 27% higher number of sexual partners than heterosexuals. If the number of sexual partners is representative of relationship stability then there is a possibility that homosexual relationships will have a higher number of broken relationships with children.

5/21/2008 10:58 PM

#10: Steven B

Baron,

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?"

I fail to grasp your logic here. Surely the children being raised in same-sex households would benefit from the protections of marriage, would they not? How is thinking of the children NOT a good argument for marriage equality? Simply because you think that gays will be even more likely to separate than straights?

Let me remind you that homosexuals have been encouraged for centuries to NOT form stable relationships. Instead, both church and state have functionally encouraged homosexuals to live dishonest, double, hidden lives of furtive encounters in public restrooms and back alleys. Only when society begins to respect gay people as they are, and encourage them to form stable, long-term same-sex partnerships, will homosexuals rise up out of dysfunctional behaviors and the promiscuous culture that developed from years of demonization and stigma.

"Let’s divide all gay couples, though, into four groups"
". . . legalizing gay marriage has absolutely no effect on groups (1), (2), and (4)"

I beg to disagree. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will encourage those in group 1 to marry and encourage those in group 2 to stay faithful -- in both cases decreasing promiscuity and the spread of STD's. In the case of group 4, their lives would be improved by having all the rights and obligations of marriage. Plus, fewer of their friends would be living with HIV. Sounds like a better world to me.
5/22/2008 1:18 AM

#11: Steven B

". . . why is gay sex okay, but LOTS of gay sex not okay."

Your logic assumes that fidelity in marriage is only about morality/sin. I suspect there are plenty of atheists in this world who take their marriage vows seriously. Does it not occur to you there are many reasons that society places value on marriage loyalty and fidelity that are not about sin and morality? And comparing marriage fidelity to going to the dentist is just plain insulting. You can't be serious.
5/22/2008 1:48 AM

#12: austin s

In regards to your first "bad" argument (Legalized gay marriage benefits gays), then why does the government issue heterosexual marriages? Why should straight people be given legalized marriage? Just beause it's the status quo? Did they ever prove that it would not only be nice, but that they deserve it? It seems to me that any benefits society receives from legal marriage (and I do believe such benefits exist) would be equally beneficial to society if marriage were extended to gay couples. It would make more families, more fundamental units of society, right? Also, I agree with Nick that giving homosexuals the right to marry would just make them equal with heterosexuals. It's not giving them something more, it's giving them the same as everyone else. Of course, this assumes that a person has the right to marry someone they love, regardless of that person's sex. You might dispute that, but then explain why you think society can just come out and say it's OK for a man to live with a woman and start a family with her, but not with another man. As you have pointed out in later arguments, a gay couple isn't likely to be any different from a straight couple in regards to fidelity etc., so why the unjust treatment if they act the same? It feels to me like the burden of proof is more on you in this regard.

With the “Heterosexual couples cheapen the institution of marriage enough as it is…” argument, I agree that this isn't necessarily an argument for gay marriage as it is a good response to the bad argument against gay marriage (Legalized gay marriage will "destroy families") that you brought up in your previous post.

Gay marriage will encourage fidelity among gay couples

…you mean, just like it does among straight couples? Didn’t we just hear a second ago about how many ways straight couples DON’T take their marital vows seriously?


I don't think this is a fair rephrasing of the previous argument. You established that marriage does not ensure fidelity to one's spouse for straight people any more than it would for gay people. Much too often spouses are unfaithful to each other. I agree, and think that that is a shame. But just because infidelity isn't eradicated once two people are married doesn't mean that marriage doesn't encourage fidelity. It's a lot less serious to break up with your girlfriend than to divorce your wife, in my opinion. I believe that most people think a lot harder about ending a marriage than ending a more casual relationship. Maybe these days not that much harder, unfortunately, but more nonetheless.

And I'm with Steven B. on #11. Marriage fidelity and dentist fidelity are two very, very different things. I do believe that families are the fundamental unit of society, and the government does have an interest in fostering them. If not, again, why have the government issue marriages at all? Without families, things fall apart pretty quick. Your kids aren't going to grow up to be much more likely to have social/psychological/commitment problems if you switched dentists four times like they are if you remarry four times.

Sorry for the long comment but I really like these two posts and can't wait for the finale, and I just had to add in my two cents.
5/22/2008 11:50 AM

#13: TK

I believe this issue is about life style choice and the cost it will have on the tax payer.

Since 1970, the number of children living in a single parent family has doubled. In fact, statistics from 1992 indicate that single parent families represent 30% of U.S. households, while 25% represent two parent households. Based on current trends, there are predictions that upwards of 70% of children born since 1980 will spend some time living in a single parent home before their 18th birthday. Some statistics say that 25% of homosexual relationships have lasted 10 years, if I turn that statistic around that means 75% have not. Some research has estimated the divorce rate among homosexual couples to be 75% or higher. That means an increase in the number of children at risk with divorce and one parent families.

Here are just a few of the many statistics:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse” –Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993.
——————————————————————————————
Children growing up in single-parent households are at a significantly increased risk for drug abuse as teenagers. –Source: Denton, Rhonda E. and Charlene M. Kampfe. “The relationship Between Family Variables and Adolescent Substance Abuse: A literature Review.” Adolescence 114 (1994): 475-495.
——————————————————————————————
Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home. –Source: Stanton, Warren R., Tian P.S. Oci and Phil A. Silva. “Sociodemographic characteristics of Adolescent Smokers.” The International Journal of the Addictions 7 (1994): 913-925.
——————————————————————————————
Children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems. –Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics.”National Health Interview Survey.” Hyattsville, MD, 1988.
——————————————————————————————

I have hired a number of gays for my department. I have friends and a relative through marriage that is gay. I’m first in line to support their rights. However, I also know how the children have suffered from an “up close and personal” knowledge. Each of my friends and associates that I personally know has been divorced or is in multiple relationships. The children have struggled deeply, not because their gay parents don’t love them, or because the children struggle with their sexual identity. It’s because the children are shipped to and fro between house holds confused and burdened. It’s no different then children who are struggling with divorced and single heterosexual parents.

There are costs to society for these children who struggle. Costs for health care, rehabilitation, poverty due to a lack of education, prisons and the list goes on. Are we prepared or can we handle these additional costs to our society?

Currently between 8 and 9% of our GDP is spent on social programs. A few years ago it was half that cost. At what point does our economic structure start to unravel? Don’t get me wrong, I believe a healthy, wealthy civilized country should have programs and laws to protect individuals. However, there is a point where the magnitude of the help that is needed will exceed our ability to pay.

5/23/2008 8:45 AM

#14: TK

I apologize for the quick double post, but here is a link to recent research in the Science Daily. This again identifies the risk of one parent house holds on children.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080516094416.htm


Will gay marriage help stabilize this problem or increase it?
5/23/2008 8:53 AM

#15: The Baron

Good comments from everyone...

Surely the children being raised in same-sex households would benefit from the protections of marriage, would they not? How is thinking of the children NOT a good argument for marriage equality? Simply because you think that gays will be even more likely to separate than straights?


Those benefits need to be elaborated upon... If we assume, again, most of the children in question have a direct biological relationship with one parent in a gay household, but no biological relationship with the other, then the question isn't whether the children need marriage in order to protect their relationship with their biological parent (that remains the same regardless) but whether there's any benefit from binding their non-biological parent to their biological parent.

It isn't a matter of two parents versus one parent in terms of children (that's a gay adoption question), but whether and how it matters to children that their parent and his/her new partner stay together...especially since the kid has already been separated from their original biological parent and that's apparently okay.

Again, the question: if children benefit from stable marriages, shouldn't society be encouraging the biological parents to stay together, same-sex attraction notwithstanding? If they do not, or the benefit is pretty minimal, then why should society care from the children's standpoint if gay marriage is legal or not?

You don't think it's a little ironic that the gay rights side says on one hand that "Marriage has NOTHING to do with children" in response to the "gays can't procreate" argument...but says on the other hand that "Marriage has A LOT to do with children" when it comes to the percentage of gays that already have children? Can't have it both ways...

Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will encourage those in group 1 to marry and encourage those in group 2 to stay faithful -- in both cases decreasing promiscuity and the spread of STD's. In the case of group 4, their lives would be improved by having all the rights and obligations of marriage.


No, because by definition, group 1 will NOT get married even if gay marriage becomes legal and even if they are 'encouraged' to do so. That's who group 1 is. Surely you don't believe ALL gay couples will automatically get married if legalized?

And group 2, by definition, will NOT remain faithful even after marriage. That's who group 2 is, despite being 'encouraged' to do so. I made no predictions as to what the size of each group would be before or after legalized gay marriage, only that there's only a small subset of all gay couples where the opportunity of marriage will actually change their behavior in terms of fidelity and promiscuity.

There's nothing preventing gay couples from being completely faithful to each other today--a great many already do (group 4). And group 4 would benefit from gay marriage--that point is already a given, same as me and my last name tax cut. Does marriage encourage couples who are already inclined to break up, to stay together (group 3)? If so, does society care that they feel constrained to stay together longer than they would have without marriage? That's the question: but if it is group 3 and only group 3 where legalized gay marriage has any impact at all, whether on kids, or in STD spread, it's fair to ask if that is a significant enough benefit to society (not to gays themselves) to justify redefining laws and policies in all 50 states...

Your logic assumes that fidelity in marriage is only about morality/sin. I suspect there are plenty of atheists in this world who take their marriage vows seriously. Does it not occur to you there are many reasons that society places value on marriage loyalty and fidelity that are not about sin and morality? And comparing marriage fidelity to going to the dentist is just plain insulting. You can't be serious.


The objection to gay marriage (and homosexual behavior in general) is about morality and sin. Gays reject the morality argument in terms of same-sex relationships in general...but then can't argue that 'fidelity' is inherently important a principle to protect through marriage, because we've rejected any sense of absolute morality that would support 'fidelity' as a fundamental principle to strive to achieve without a practical basis. Without another practical, secular reason (like STDs) for doing so, fidelity by itself is not important enough as an abstract principle to justify the change in current policy. (And, again, the effect of marriage on 'fidelity' is arguable...)

The gay-rights side (correctly) asks how two men in California affects my marriage with my wife in Utah. It doesn't.

But do those same two men breaking up after a brief relationship affect my marriage and my family, either? No, it doesn't...

If them wanting to be together doesn't affect me, how does them NOT wanting to be together affect me? Let them do whatever they want... Gay couples are free now in every state in the US to stay together or not stay together at their leisure--to treat their relationship as seriously or as lightly as they want. Why should society care whether gay couples break up--if in fact they want to break up? This is where the burden of proof lies--demonstrating WHY society should care that gay couples stay together, in comparison to keeping people and their dentists together (which society has shown no interest in doing, and has no effect on me, either...)

Sorry if you found that comparison offensive, but it's the pro-gay-marriage side's responsibility to show *why* that's not a good comparison--why one matters more to society than the other...
5/23/2008 1:13 PM

#16: austin

Baron, I'm really struggling to grasp some of your arguments in #15. You say
Again, the question: if children benefit from stable marriages, shouldn't society be encouraging the biological parents to stay together, same-sex attraction notwithstanding? If they do not, or the benefit is pretty minimal, then why should society care from the children's standpoint if gay marriage is legal or not?


I don't think the benefits of marriage are minimal, and I think society is doing what it can to encourage biological parents to stay together... through the institution of marriage! Society can't help it if some people choose to disregard that encouragement. Marriage offers benefits (social status, tax breaks) and imbues a sense of duty and responsibility on the couple. I agree that it's unfortunate that these days people don't take marriage as seriously as they should, but that's not a very good argument to let some people not enter into marriage. And the point here is that the previous marriage has already ended. That is a bad thing, I agree, but now society can't go back and fix that. Society has to do the best it can with what's left, and I say that the best thing would be for children to be raised in a home with married parents.

You also seem to be assuming that the only children who have gay parents are the biological child of one from a previous heterosexual marriage/relationship. What of gay couples who do adopt? Do they not deserve for their children to have married parents like hetero couples who adopt? What of gay parents who use in-vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers or whatever form of modern technology to have biologically related children while in a committed relationship with their partner?

But even with regard to gays who have a child from a previous marriage I can't follow your logic. You respond to Steven B.'s question:
Surely the children being raised in same-sex households would benefit from the protections of marriage, would they not? How is thinking of the children NOT a good argument for marriage equality? Simply because you think that gays will be even more likely to separate than straights?


Those benefits need to be elaborated upon... If we assume, again, most of the children in question have a direct biological relationship with one parent in a gay household, but no biological relationship with the other, then the question isn't whether the children need marriage in order to protect their relationship with their biological parent (that remains the same regardless) but whether there's any benefit from binding their non-biological parent to their biological parent.


"Those benefits need to be elaborated upon"? Let me see if I understand you correctly here. If there is a child from a previous hetero marriage, does the state not have an interest in promoting this second couple's attempt at a stable relationship? Or does the couple need to elaborate upon what benefits the children will receive before the state recognizes this new marriage? It sounds like you are arguing that if one child is from a previous marriage society shouldn't care if the new couple stays together. After all, they have no biological relationship with one of these new parents. Are you advocating a man who has gotten divorced from a woman not be allowed to remarry another woman? If divorce between a man and a woman is legal, and so is remarriage, what is the difference with gays marrying for the first time? The children are still only related to one parent in that situation, so why should society care if the new husband/wife stay together? I must be misunderstanding you here somewhere and I want to know where. Your arguments here, if applied consistently, would say that society shouldn't allow remarriage between straight people.

I guess it kind of boils down to this (though maybe you would rather address this fully in the next post about the right argument against gay marriage): will you state definitively whether or not you believe society has any interest in promoting marriage (in whatever form)? If marriage has any value to society (and you seem to think it must if traditional marriage should be defended), I don't think you have explained why gay people shouldn't be able to partake of those blessings. True, there will be divorce and infidelity, but if gays are the same as straights in that regard, why give one category benefits but not the other? Is that not the definition of discrimination--two groups of people who act the same treated very differently? If marriage doesn't have any true value, why have government sanction marriage at all? I'm not married and I don't want other people getting tax breaks from the government for doing nothing, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I say marriage is a benefit to society and to the couples who choose to take that commitment upon themselves. Therefore, let the gays benefit and let society benefit along with them.
5/23/2008 4:42 PM

#17: Steven B

No, because by definition, group 1 will NOT get married even if gay marriage becomes legal and even if they are 'encouraged' to do so. That's who group 1 is. Surely you don't believe ALL gay couples will automatically get married if legalized?


Sorry Baron, but this little straw man argument you are building is absurd. You don't know what portion of gays will be swayed toward marriage fidelity should it be available. Saying that the few pesky gay couples who might benefit are not worth the trouble is just plain demeaning and bigoted.
5/24/2008 2:56 AM

#18: Nemesis

Okay. I've read both posts and all the comments. On this post, you mentioned some arguments for same sex marriage and I agree, they are certainly weak arguments.

Austin in #12 and #16 makes the closest hit at the argument that I have for gay marriage- it is a civil right and in this country we illegally and unconstitutionally deny that civil right to gay couples.

The benefits are legal, and given by the government. The government, if it is going to be in the marriage business, and offer other perks and protections such as tax breaks and the right to make medical decisions (among many other rights given by the government to spouses) needs to offer those same rights to all consenting adults, not just to those in the majority (opposite sex marriages).

The tyranny of the majority, the religious beliefs and in some cases the ick factor feelings of the majority notwithstanding, if the government offers this right to some adults it should offer it to all adults. It is a civil right.

Notice I'm also staying away from the concept of religious marriages, here. If a church/religion believes that this is a sin, they have every right and obligation to refuse to perform a same sex marriage. A religion is allowed its prejudices, a government is not.

Great posts, good discussion.
5/24/2008 10:07 AM

#19: The Baron

Sorry, I'm not seeing this so-called 'straw man'--not all gay couples are going to get married even if it becomes legal in all states. (How is this a controversial statement?) Those couples are called "group 1" for the purposes of this discussion--I made no statement or implication as to how large or small that group would be if gay marriage becomes legal. Only that that group is non-zero. And that for that group, legalized gay marriage, by definition, has no effect on their sexual behavior, therefore the members of that group serve little to no purpose in arguing for gay marriage because of any impact on fidelity or STDs.
5/26/2008 10:43 PM

#20: Steven B

. . . not all gay couples are going to get married even if it becomes legal in all states . . . And that for that group, legalized gay marriage, by definition, has no effect on their sexual behavior, therefore the members of that group serve little to no purpose in arguing for gay marriage because of any impact on fidelity or STDs.
This is like saying that not all straight couples will have children. And therefore, society's interest in the encouragement of responsible parenting isn't worth the trouble.

Baron, you and I will just have to disagree on this. I think this is one area where extending marriage to gays and lesbians will have an enormous, positive effect for good, both for same-sex couples, for the LGBT community and for society in general.
5/28/2008 2:24 AM

Post Comment:

Name  
Email
Url
Comment   
Please add 4 and 6 and type the answer here:

Powered by:

Copyright © The Baron