Homosexual "marriage" -- secular & natural law arguments against

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

1. I can see that when mores change those in favor of the change may shout down the opposition. It usually means the opposition has little support.

I think that the recent landslide vote in Missouri where only 30% of the people supported even the possibility of SSM shows that in that state very few people are in favor of the change. We can back that up with votes in very “progressive” states such as California and Hawaii that sought to codify one man-one woman marriage. It’s clear that in this country the proponents of SSM are in the minority. What I and others fear is a repeat of the abortion scenario where a minority uses the court system to push through an unpopular change and then does shout down the opposition with the usual slogans.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

**DuMaurier wrote:

“No, I still think the best alternative would to simply change rules governing common law relationships. If a gay couple manages to stay together for a certain amount of time then they can get the benefits afforded married couples with the stroke of a pen. But the gay lobby would be against this because they want us to pretend gay couples are married too.”**

Gays may be aginst the common law arrangement as social policy. That’s OK. Many heterosexuals would also be against it.

However, if your idea were implemented, it would be applied to all, both straights and gays. Gays would then accept their equal treatment under the law. Whatever the resulting institution was called, they would be part of it. They would be satisfied.

Equal treatment under the law is a frequently used argument for SSM. It doesn’t stand up, because when it comes to marriage everyone has equal treatment under the law. A homosexual has the same marriage options as I do. He or she may not like them, but that’s beside the point. Also, the laws regulating marriage apply to the relationship, not the individual. The civil rights argument fails here as well. Nobody has ever had the *right *to marry whoever whenever he wants.

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

I want to clarify this point I made some days ago. I don’t think that in the US divorce, abortion and illegitimacy are a result of SSM. It’s too new a phenomenon to be causing these things.

It is possible that in Scandinavia that the decline in marriage and the increase in illegitimacy may be due to SSM. Stanley Kurtz points out here: www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
that the decline in Dutch marriages didn’t really start until SSM was legalized. I know Ken will say that there’s no proof that SSM is causing women to have children out of wedlock. I understand this argument, and I would guess if you asked an unmarried mother why she did this she probably wouldn’t answer that SSM made her do it. However, people are a product of their culture. And if the culture devalues marriage the people will too.

Well, of course I’ll observe that there is no proof that SSM causes divorce, illegitimacy and abortion. That’s because there isn’t any. In the article you cited, Kurtz tells us that the decline in marriage in Scandanavia started before SSM. Then he says that in the Netherlands it started with SSM. So which is it? Are some societies more vul;nerable to SSM than others?

When a culture changes the rules of marriage, it is not necessarily devaluing it, and it is not valid to presume that the people getting abortions have devalued marriage because of SSM.

Keep in mind that the explosion in divorce, illegitimacy and abortion in the US are not due to SSM. We can’t even come up with a definitive answer for this explosion. Why do people think they can speak with such conviction and accuracy when it is SSM that is tapped as the culprit?

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

I think that the recent landslide vote in Missouri where only 30% of the people supported even the possibility of SSM shows that in that state very few people are in favor of the change. We can back that up with votes in very “progressive” states such as California and Hawaii that sought to codify one man-one woman marriage. It’s clear that in this country the proponents of SSM are in the minority. What I and others fear is a repeat of the abortion scenario where a minority uses the court system to push through an unpopular change and then does shout down the opposition with the usual slogans.

In discussing the issue, I have not been particularly precise in distinguishing between same sex marriage (SSM) and civil unions (CU). I have been lumping them as SSM since I see no essential difference.

I agree that the majority oppose SSM on a national level. But the majority does support civil unions. Nationally about 60% support civil unions, while only about 40% support SSM.

I expect marriage will be reserved for heterosexual couples while civil unions will be open to anyone. This has a potential to actually weaken marriage more than SSM since CU will attract heterosexual couples who would have married.

The polls also indicate that while a majority of the population disapproves of abortion, another majority thinks the decision should be left to the woman. So I don’t think it is valid to say it is unpopular to leave the decision to the mother.

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

Equal treatment under the law is a frequently used argument for SSM. It doesn’t stand up, because when it comes to marriage everyone has equal treatment under the law. A homosexual has the same marriage options as I do. He or she may not like them, but that’s beside the point. Also, the laws regulating marriage apply to the relationship, not the individual. The civil rights argument fails here as well. Nobody has ever had the *right *to marry whoever whenever he wants.

I don’t use the civil rights argument.

 

[buffalo]

StJeanneDArc:

I want to clarify this point I made some days ago. I don’t think that in the US divorce, abortion and illegitimacy are a result of SSM. It’s too new a phenomenon to be causing these things.

It is possible that in Scandinavia that the decline in marriage and the increase in illegitimacy may be due to SSM. Stanley Kurtz points out here: www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
that the decline in Dutch marriages didn’t really start until SSM was legalized. I know Ken will say that there’s no proof that SSM is causing women to have children out of wedlock. I understand this argument, and I would guess if you asked an unmarried mother why she did this she probably wouldn’t answer that SSM made her do it. However, people are a product of their culture. And if the culture devalues marriage the people will too.

Contraception and Divorce - Is there a conection?

Graph and charts.

 

[martino]

According to that chart the divorce rate has never been over 25%! I know that is not the case.

 

[Ken]

martino:

According to that chart the divorce rate has never been over 25%! I know that is not the case.

What program did you se to read the file? I can’t open it.

 

[buffalo]

Ken:

What program did you se to read the file? I can’t open it.

It’s a PDF file. Acrobat Reader

 

[StJeanneDArc]

martino:

According to that chart the divorce rate has never been over 25%! I know that is not the case.

Actually, Martino, I don’t think the divorce rate in the U.S. is as high as the 50% number you often hear bandied about. I think they get that number by dividing the number of divorces in any given year by the number of marriages in that year, which isn’t going to give you anything meaningful. You have to look at it over time to determine the real divorce rate. The number I’ve heard is that less than one-third of first-time marriages end in divorce.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

buffalo:

Quote:
 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by **StJeanneDArc**
			*I want to clarify this point I made some days ago.  I don't think that in **the US*** divorce, abortion and illegitimacy are a result of SSM.  It's too new a phenomenon to be causing these things.

It is possible that in Scandinavia that the decline in marriage and the increase in illegitimacy may be due to SSM. Stanley Kurtz points out here: www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
that the decline in Dutch marriages didn’t really start until SSM was legalized. I know Ken will say that there’s no proof that SSM is causing women to have children out of wedlock. I understand this argument, and I would guess if you asked an unmarried mother why she did this she probably wouldn’t answer that SSM made her do it. However, people are a product of their culture. And if the culture devalues marriage the people will too.

Contraception and Divorce - Is there a conection?

Graph and charts.

Thank you Buffalo, for the reference. I believe that contraception use has increased divorce because it has increased the incidence of infidelity. However, in his articles Kurtz is focusing more on the illegitimacy rate. He also notes that the divorce figures in Scandinavia don’t give the whole picture because you have family dissolution of those couples who never married. Kurtz is pro-contraception but acknowledges that contraception has done it’s part in separating marriage from procreation.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

In discussing the issue, I have not been particularly precise in distinguishing between same sex marriage (SSM) and civil unions (CU). I have been lumping them as SSM since I see no essential difference.

I agree that the majority oppose SSM on a national level. But the majority does support civil unions. Nationally about 60% support civil unions, while only about 40% support SSM.

I expect marriage will be reserved for heterosexual couples while civil unions will be open to anyone. This has a potential to actually weaken marriage more than SSM since CU will attract heterosexual couples who would have married.

The polls also indicate that while a majority of the population disapproves of abortion, another majority thinks the decision should be left to the woman. So I don’t think it is valid to say it is unpopular to leave the decision to the mother.

I agree with you that there’s really no functional difference between CU and SSM and that CU would weaken marriage. I would support some other kind of legal joining that would be open to multiple people and would have no sexual component. The example I gave earlier was that of my sister-in-law who is unmarried and completely disabled. If she could somehow be declared as a dependent of either my mother-in-law or of my husband and myself that would be the state acknowledging the care we provide and giving us the commensurate tax breaks. (Actually I want to get rid of income taxes, but that’s another thread.)

There have been polls that show a much smaller disapproval of SSM than what was demonstrated in Missouri. I don’t know for sure, but my gut tells me that CU isn’t all that popular either–particularly if it looks and acts as much as it can like marriage.

On abortion, it is unpopular to leave the decision with the mother if say she wants to go in at 7 months or so and have a partial birth abortion. Legislatures have repeatedly put in restrictions on abortion that have been overturned by the courts. Most people in this country don’t know that abortion is legal right up until full-term labor and delivery of the baby’s body (just not his head). I had a neighbor tell me that she thought abortion was acceptable until the baby’s heart started beating. I think if we phrased a question in a survey like “Do you think a mother should be allowed to abort her baby after the heart starts beating?” we might get different results.

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

I agree with you that there’s really no functional difference between CU and SSM and that CU would weaken marriage. I would support some other kind of legal joining that would be open to multiple people and would have no sexual component. The example I gave earlier was that of my sister-in-law who is unmarried and completely disabled. If she could somehow be declared as a dependent of either my mother-in-law or of my husband and myself that would be the state acknowledging the care we provide and giving us the commensurate tax breaks. (Actually I want to get rid of income taxes, but that’s another thread.)

There have been polls that show a much smaller disapproval of SSM than what was demonstrated in Missouri. I don’t know for sure, but my gut tells me that CU isn’t all that popular either–particularly if it looks and acts as much as it can like marriage.

On abortion, it is unpopular to leave the decision with the mother if say she wants to go in at 7 months or so and have a partial birth abortion. Legislatures have repeatedly put in restrictions on abortion that have been overturned by the courts. Most people in this country don’t know that abortion is legal right up until full-term labor and delivery of the baby’s body (just not his head). I had a neighbor tell me that she thought abortion was acceptable until the baby’s heart started beating. I think if we phrased a question in a survey like “Do you think a mother should be allowed to abort her baby after the heart starts beating?” we might get different results.

My tax experience doesn’t cover the case you present, but I believe a person qualifies as a dependent if they have a certain percentage of their care provided by another. Best to check with a CPA.

I’m actually surprised by the different social perceptions of SSM and CU. But every poll I read reflects it. I speculate that while people don’t want to be involved in an institution that includes same sex partners, they don’t feel involved if it is called something else. It may be a bit like the folks who personally oppose abortion, but leave it to the mother to decide.

I agree that approval of leaving the decision to the mother is a function of the age of the fetus. Approval is much higher at the one week stage than at the nine month stage. When the question is asked in terms of trimesters, the approval falls from the first to the third. This makes it difficult to discuss abortion without adding a bunch of qualifying footnotes.

 

[cestusdei]

Abortion isn’t difficult to decide about at all. After conception if you kill the child it is murder. Doesn’t matter if it is one month or nine months.

 

[Ken]

cestusdei:

Abortion isn’t difficult to decide about at all. After conception if you kill the child it is murder. Doesn’t matter if it is one month or nine months.

It’s not that clear to the general society. That’s why we have abortions.

Each side takes an extreme position. Pro-abortion people say all abortions should be available. Anti-abortion people say no abortions should be available.

The population has simply decided that government should stay out of the question.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

In discussing the issue, I have not been particularly precise in distinguishing between same sex marriage (SSM) and civil unions (CU). I have been lumping them as SSM since I see no essential difference.

I agree that the majority oppose SSM on a national level. But the majority does support civil unions. Nationally about 60% support civil unions, while only about 40% support SSM.

I expect marriage will be reserved for heterosexual couples while civil unions will be open to anyone. This has a potential to actually weaken marriage more than SSM since CU will attract heterosexual couples who would have married.

The polls also indicate that while a majority of the population disapproves of abortion, another majority thinks the decision should be left to the woman. So I don’t think it is valid to say it is unpopular to leave the decision to the mother.

I’m reviving this discussion after I’ve been away from it for a few days. The talk of CU or “marriage-lite” reminds me of a fairly new structure in Louisiana called convenant marriage. This has interested me because I was married in Louisiana (before this was in effect) and now I live in nearby Texas. I think the idea of a covenant marriage is that if the couple chooses to enter it they would not be able to obtain an easy divorce. I’m curious as to how many couples have taken advantage of it and whether it’s had an effect, although it may be too new to tell.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

I don’t use the civil rights argument.

I’m sorry, I thought I remembered you using that argument in a previous post, but I guess I was wrong.

Ken, are you a libertarian? The reason I’m asking is that your arguments and the way you present them reminds me remarkably of one of my brothers. He’s not a declared libertarian, but he definitely leans that way and gets a childish delight out of shocking my mother with his political views (not that you would ever do anything like that, of course).

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

It’s not that clear to the general society. That’s why we have abortions.

Each side takes an extreme position. Pro-abortion people say all abortions should be available. Anti-abortion people say no abortions should be available.

The population has simply decided that government should stay out of the question.

I would qualify this a little more. While I believe that the population believes that the government has and should stay out of the question, that’s not actually what happened. The government stepped in and declared that the humanity of the unborn child is unknowable and irrelevant. It then delegated that decision to the mother. So government did and does not stay out of the question. It just doesn’t manage individual abortions like say China does.

The same thing is true with SSM or CU. If these are legalized, then the government has stepped in and endorsed these relationships.