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

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

And might the difficulty in formulating and presenting cogent reasons why society should reject SSM indicate the weakness of the position? Why can’t people of right reason simply list the particular, observable, and measurable detrimental effects they predict from SSM?

I don’t think that the difficulty is weakness of argument, I think it’s from the newness of the phenomenon. Where has SSM ever been tried before? It’s currently being tried in Europe, and so far the results are not good. It’s hard to know for sure, because it’s so recent. As an example, it’s taken 30 years to quantify the deleterious effects of no-fault divorce because societies don’t turn on a dime. There is a sociologist named Stanley Kurtz who’s done a series of articles for National Review Online that examine SSM in Europe. You can see a list of them here: nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz-archive.asp

I’ve discussed this in another thread in the politics forum, but in a nutshell: Doesn’t it stand to reason that, if the government starts sponsoring SSM in the form of legal recognition, more people will view it as an acceptable lifestyle? When that happens we’ll have to accord SSM the same rights and obligations as marriage, childrearing being the most important of these. Do we really want our society to be neutral as to the family structure for our children? Furthermore, secular laws in many states recognize the sexual component of marriage, stating that a marriage is not complete until it has been consumated. Do we want to get into redefining what that means for SSM? Or do we just remove the sexual component completely, thus formalizing the break of marriage from procreation? What will that do to marriage? These are questions I’ve never heard SSM proponents answer.

 

[martino]

Ken:

I agree that the natural law argument is primarily dependent on procreation, and I easily agree that procreation is a benefit to society.

But, if procreation is primary, then something else must be secondary. What else is marriage ordained toward, is it covered under natural law, and does that benefit society?
.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love. This union was established by God with its own proper laws. By reason of its very nature, therefore, marriage exists for the mutual love and support of the spouses and for the procreation and education of children. These two purposes, the unitive [love-giving] and the procreative [life-giving], are equal and inseparable. The institution of marriage has a very important relationship to the continuation of the human race, to the total development of the human person and to the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family and of society. (Origens August 1 1996)

No one can put it better than Mother Church Herself. The last sentence gives the answer to your question. You may want to argue over the validity of these benefits but I believe that most reasonable people can see their value to society.
I am also opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that it is immoral and disordered. Such behavior can never foster dignity, stability, peace, or prosperity of family. The state has no interest in institutionalizing disordered behavior, that will only lead to the further destruction of our society, which should strive to uphold a certain level of morality. Homosexual unions add nothing to society that the two homosexuals could not provide individually; they can only weaken it.

If we abandon the monogamous union of husband and wife as the standard of marriage, there will be no logical argument against marriages between homosexuals as well as between polygamous heterosexuals. Government endorsement of homosexual marriages necessarily implies the acceptance of decadent polygamy and will only further undermine the moral fiber of our society.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

StJeanneDArc:

I don’t think that the difficulty is weakness of argument, I think it’s from the newness of the phenomenon. Where has SSM ever been tried before? It’s currently being tried in Europe, and so far the results are not good. It’s hard to know for sure, because it’s so recent. As an example, it’s taken 30 years to quantify the deleterious effects of no-fault divorce because societies don’t turn on a dime. There is a sociologist named Stanley Kurtz who’s done a series of articles for National Review Online that examine SSM in Europe. You can see a list of them here: nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz-archive.asp

I’ve discussed this in another thread in the politics forum, but in a nutshell: Doesn’t it stand to reason that, if the government starts sponsoring SSM in the form of legal recognition, more people will view it as an acceptable lifestyle? When that happens we’ll have to accord SSM the same rights and obligations as marriage, childrearing being the most important of these. Do we really want our society to be neutral as to the family structure for our children? Furthermore, secular laws in many states recognize the sexual component of marriage, stating that a marriage is not complete until it has been consumated. Do we want to get into redefining what that means for SSM? Or do we just remove the sexual component completely, thus formalizing the break of marriage from procreation? What will that do to marriage? These are questions I’ve never heard SSM proponents answer.

Ken, are you there?

I really enjoy your arguments. Have any thoughts on my questions?

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

I don’t think that the difficulty is weakness of argument, I think it’s from the newness of the phenomenon. Where has SSM ever been tried before? It’s currently being tried in Europe, and so far the results are not good. It’s hard to know for sure, because it’s so recent. As an example, it’s taken 30 years to quantify the deleterious effects of no-fault divorce because societies don’t turn on a dime. There is a sociologist named Stanley Kurtz who’s done a series of articles for National Review Online that examine SSM in Europe. You can see a list of them here: nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz-archive.asp

I’ve discussed this in another thread in the politics forum, but in a nutshell: Doesn’t it stand to reason that, if the government starts sponsoring SSM in the form of legal recognition, more people will view it as an acceptable lifestyle? When that happens we’ll have to accord SSM the same rights and obligations as marriage, childrearing being the most important of these. Do we really want our society to be neutral as to the family structure for our children? Furthermore, secular laws in many states recognize the sexual component of marriage, stating that a marriage is not complete until it has been consumated. Do we want to get into redefining what that means for SSM? Or do we just remove the sexual component completely, thus formalizing the break of marriage from procreation? What will that do to marriage? These are questions I’ve never heard SSM proponents answer.

1. If the SSM phenomenon is new and we don’t have information, then the answer is that we don’t know the social harm that will be caused by SSM. In that case, one cannot validly say it will harm society. However, one can list the predicted harmful effects and present cogent arguments saying why they will result from SSM.
2. SSM has been tried in the Netherlands and Scandanavian countries. Kurtz concedes that marriage was in decline for many years prior to SSM. He says its continued decline is due to SSM, but doesn’t offer reasons. Prior to SSM, marriage could not be in decline due to SSM. But since SSM, Kurtz says it is the cause.

Faced with these observations, Kurtz now says the legalization of SSM did not cause a decline in marriage, but the discussion leading up to the legalization has caused it. This position implies that a critical discussion of marriage led people to shun it.

1. SSM is being tried in Europe, but we have no basis for saying the results have not been good.
2. Legalization would result in increased homosexual activity if it were a chosen orientation with an attraction for all. For that subset of the population that makes a choice about which sex they are attracted to, I agree. For the rest of the population, I don’t see how a law can change what sex they find attractive.
3. SSM implies the same rights and obligations as marriage. However, their is no single definition of those rights and obligations. But whatever was available to straights would also be available to gays. I concede that they may try to reproduce, but I predict failure. But adoption would be open.
4. Society currently has many people who promote a mother and father as the best option for raising children. There is a minority that claims either parent can do a fine job alone. This is probably true; many parents have done a fine job alone, and their children attest to it. However, it is arguable that they could have done an even better job with a spouse of the opposite gender.

So, society allows single parents, but that hardly means it is neutral on the issue.

(continued)

 

[Ken]

(continued from above)

1. I don’t have any idea what good laws about consumation do. Nor do I have any clinical suggestions for SSM partners compliance. What good do such laws do? I’m happy to junk them. I see no reason to believe that laws about consumating marriage are the basis for the belief that procreation is a component of marriage. Are there states without such laws? Is there a different attitude in those states?
2. Procreation is currently a component of only some marriages. This this is due to choice, age, or medical condition. so there is no formal union of marriage and procreation. If we want to know what this will do, we can observe and see if we can develop valid causal relationships.

I think I hit all the questions, but don’t be shy if I didn’t.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

(continued from above)

1. I don’t have any idea what good laws about consumation do. Nor do I have any clinical suggestions for SSM partners compliance. What good do such laws do? I’m happy to junk them. I see no reason to believe that laws about consumating marriage are the basis for the belief that procreation is a component of marriage. Are there states without such laws? Is there a different attitude in those states?
2. Procreation is currently a component of only some marriages. This this is due to choice, age, or medical condition. so there is no formal union of marriage and procreation. If we want to know what this will do, we can observe and see if we can develop valid causal relationships.

I think I hit all the questions, but don’t be shy if I didn’t.

Thank you Ken, you did hit all the questions. I believe that Stanley Kurtz does develop a list of cogent reasons why SSM would be harmful to society. We all have to admit that it is hard to predict; however, do we really want to conduct this experiment that could be so detrimental to society? Things are going badly in Scandinavia, unless you think a 67% illegitimacy rate is good.

I do think that Kurtz offers reasons why SSM has further weakened the institution. IMO, the most compelling one is that the acceptance of SSM has effectively silenced the voices that support marriage as the appropriate setting for child-rearing.

You concede that acceptance of SSM would allow some people to engage in that behavior. I know that most people don’t choose a sexual orientation; but many do experiment and social and legal taboos are an effective way to reduce undesirable behavior.

For those who think that a homosexual couple are appropriate guardians for a child, I have a question: are there any family settings that would be inappropriate?

I know that there are children that come out of undesirable environments that do fine. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t as an individual and we as a society do what’s appropriate to create the best environment possible.

The reason I brought up the consumation laws was to refute the arguments some have that marriage is a religious institution. It’s more than that–even the secular state throughout history and worldwide has recognized marriage as the setting for procreation and childrearing.

Although not every married couple can and does procreate, that doesn’t change the purpose and definition of marriage. A homosexual couple can never procreate and thus can never fulfill the purpose of marriage.

Marriage has already been weakened by the sexual revolution and the contraceptive mentality. Fiddling with the definition of it would only weaken it further.

Do you think that the state should endorse SSM?

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

Thank you Ken, you did hit all the questions. I believe that Stanley Kurtz does develop a list of cogent reasons why SSM would be harmful to society. We all have to admit that it is hard to predict; however, do we really want to conduct this experiment that could be so detrimental to society? Things are going badly in Scandinavia, unless you think a 67% illegitimacy rate is good.

I do think that Kurtz offers reasons why SSM has further weakened the institution. IMO, the most compelling one is that the acceptance of SSM has effectively silenced the voices that support marriage as the appropriate setting for child-rearing.

You concede that acceptance of SSM would allow some people to engage in that behavior. I know that most people don’t choose a sexual orientation; but many do experiment and social and legal taboos are an effective way to reduce undesirable behavior.

For those who think that a homosexual couple are appropriate guardians for a child, I have a question: are there any family settings that would be inappropriate?

I know that there are children that come out of undesirable environments that do fine. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t as an individual and we as a society do what’s appropriate to create the best environment possible.

The reason I brought up the consumation laws was to refute the arguments some have that marriage is a religious institution. It’s more than that–even the secular state throughout history and worldwide has recognized marriage as the setting for procreation and childrearing.

Although not every married couple can and does procreate, that doesn’t change the purpose and definition of marriage. A homosexual couple can never procreate and thus can never fulfill the purpose of marriage.

Marriage has already been weakened by the sexual revolution and the contraceptive mentality. Fiddling with the definition of it would only weaken it further.

Do you think that the state should endorse SSM?

1. Kurtz tells us that marriage and society will be harmed by SSM. However, he does not say exactly what the paticular harm will be, nor does he develop a causal connection to SSM. That’s why he has fallen back on the argument that it is the discussion of SSM, and the attendant examination that is a problem. But even there he has not developed a causal connection between the harm and the discussion.
2. Pair-bonding has evolved in the Scandanavian countries. There are contractual relationships available that are not classified as marriage. But they do provide a two parent family that successfully raises children.
3. How does accepting SSM silence anyone from advocating marriage? What is the causal relationship? Has legal SSM in Massachusetts silenced advocay for marriage? Who has been silenced? Who silenced them? How did they manage it?
4. There are many family settings that are not appropriate for raising children. These include spousal assaults, continual bickering, alcoholism, drug abuse, and child abuse. These can be failings of both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
5. The purpose and definition of marriage are all over the speculative spectrum. What do you say is the purpose? Whose purpose? Definition?
6. When you say marriage has been weakened, what do you mean? What are three phenomenon that come under the general classification of a weakened state?
7. I think the state should establish civil unions. The word used to describe it doesn’t matter, but since so many people do find the word important, let them have it exclusively for heterosexuals.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Before I address these points I want to note that I"m not a sociologist (are you?) and so I’m not well versed in why something may or may not be a causal relationship.

I do know that the state prefers marriage because married couples provide a critical function–namely the rearing of the next generation of citizens. This cannot be done well by the state and could never be done cheaply by the state. We’re either going to have strong families or a strong state.

1. Kurtz contends that the illegitimacy rate is the societal harm that will occur with SSM. Illegitimate children are less likely to be reared by a mother and a father in a committed relationship. He establishes causality by comparing different counties in Norway, the one which showed a higher degree of acceptance of SSM also had a higher illegitimacy rate.
2. The contractual relationships not classified as marriage are less likely to successfully raise children. They show a lower level of commitment to the family unit.
3. When Kurtz mentions being silenced, he’s not talking about censorship. I think the pharse he used is “effectively silenced”. He was talking about this in the context of conservative protestant ministers being fired from their positions because of their advocacy for traditional marriage.
4. I agree with your statement, and I would add active homosexuality to the list as well as heterosexual promiscuity. The real question is who gets to decide when a setting is bad enough that a child should be removed from the home.
5. I say the purpose is for the procreation and rearing of children. I believe that is the natural law definition. I think it’s significant that every culture in history has built its societies around that definition. I don’t understand why current post-modern societies seem to think that they have a better understanding of human nature.
6. 4 phenomena: 1) Increased divorce rate; 2) Increased illegitimacy rate; 3) SSM movement; 4) increased abortion rate.
7. If the state does establish civil unions, I would like to see it extended to include other extended family type relationships or caretaker relationships. Of course it would then be beyond the 2 person model and the whole sexual component should be removed as an aspect of these relationships.

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

Before I address these points I want to note that I"m not a sociologist (are you?) and so I’m not well versed in why something may or may not be a causal relationship.

I do know that the state prefers marriage because married couples provide a critical function–namely the rearing of the next generation of citizens. This cannot be done well by the state and could never be done cheaply by the state. We’re either going to have strong families or a strong state.

1. Kurtz contends that the illegitimacy rate is the societal harm that will occur with SSM. Illegitimate children are less likely to be reared by a mother and a father in a committed relationship. He establishes causality by comparing different counties in Norway, the one which showed a higher degree of acceptance of SSM also had a higher illegitimacy rate.
2. The contractual relationships not classified as marriage are less likely to successfully raise children. They show a lower level of commitment to the family unit.
3. When Kurtz mentions being silenced, he’s not talking about censorship. I think the pharse he used is “effectively silenced”. He was talking about this in the context of conservative protestant ministers being fired from their positions because of their advocacy for traditional marriage.
4. I agree with your statement, and I would add active homosexuality to the list as well as heterosexual promiscuity. The real question is who gets to decide when a setting is bad enough that a child should be removed from the home.
5. I say the purpose is for the procreation and rearing of children. I believe that is the natural law definition. I think it’s significant that every culture in history has built its societies around that definition. I don’t understand why current post-modern societies seem to think that they have a better understanding of human nature.
6. 4 phenomena: 1) Increased divorce rate; 2) Increased illegitimacy rate; 3) SSM movement; 4) increased abortion rate.
7. If the state does establish civil unions, I would like to see it extended to include other extended family type relationships or caretaker relationships. Of course it would then be beyond the 2 person model and the whole sexual component should be removed as an aspect of these relationships.

I am not a sociologist, however, that is not necessary to critique Kurtz’s work.

Correlation simply indicates that two variables occur at the same time, or that one preceeded the other.

Causality demonstrates that one variable influences the other. One must identify the mechanism and relationships between the two variables before one may say there is a causal relationship.

It is quite possible that two correlated phenomena may be the results of a third variable that is unknown to the researcher.

There are far more accurate explanations available, and I apologize if I have trampled the noble science of statistics.

For example, I observe that as automobile mileage has risen, so has the divorce rate. This is a simple correlation. Both phenomena happened at the same time. However, were I to claim that auto mileage caused the increase in divorce, I would have to identify the mechanism and the relationships between the two.

Correlation provides the opportunity for one variable to effect another. Causality tells how and why if effects it. My example is silly, but far too many people make that mistake.

This is Kurtz’s problem. He only identifies correlations, and doesn’t show causality. If one is preaching to the chior, the chior often cheers and accepts the notion. But a much more rigorous treatment is necessary to make a valid case.

(continued)

 

[Ken]

(continued from above)

1. So, in Norway, he has shown correlation, but not causality. He fails to explain why illegitimacy was rising for years prior to SSM. And he fails to show how SSM causes single women to choose pregnancy, abandon birth control, or have more sex. This would demonstrate causality.
2. I don’t think we know how the contractual relationships compare to marriage on a longevity scale.
3. If some ministers were fired, then they were silenced from speaking from those pulpits. But, how widespread is this? Can we say it covers everyone in society? What is the extent? How many ministers? If this is what he is doing, then he has more work to do before saying the societal opposition has been silenced. Maybe the cosiety has been silenced. That should be easy to demonstrate.
4. The easy answer to who gets to remove a kid from a bad setting is Social Services. But given their horrible track record in many casess, I seriously doubt their abilities. I don’t have a good answer.
5. Modern societies have removed many of the basic threats to survival through technology and economics. We are all well fed, have shelter, clothes, educational opportunity, etc. In most of the past, such basic survival was a day to day struggle. This allows us to investigate aspects of our nature that were not necessary in the past for survival. I think we may be expanding our understanding of man’s nature through the rather novel situation in which we now find ourselves.
6. Bold answer to what phenomena are classified as weakening marriage. Most people won’t list them. So, if divorce, illegitimacy, and abortion are the result of SSM, then one can reasonably ask just how SSM induces married heterosexuals to divorce? How does SSM induce women to abort? How does SSM convince single women to choose pregnancy, abandon birth control, or have more sex? To demonstrate this is to develop a causal relationship between SSM and divorce, abortion, and illegitimacy.
7. Civil unions demand no sexual component. I theory, two elderly, widowed sisters might form a union. It all depends on the laws. Initially, I suspect they will mirror marriage.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

1. Bold answer to what phenomena are classified as weakening marriage. Most people won’t list them. So, if divorce, illegitimacy, and abortion are the result of SSM, then one can reasonably ask just how SSM induces married heterosexuals to divorce? How does SSM induce women to abort? How does SSM convince single women to choose pregnancy, abandon birth control, or have more sex? To demonstrate this is to develop a causal relationship between SSM and divorce, abortion, and illegitimacy.

I must have misunderstood your original challenge as to how we might know marriage is weakened. I don’t believe for a minute that divorce, abortion and illegitimacy are a result of SSM; but they are an indicator of the weakened state of marriage. My original point is that marriage is a weakened institution and SSM will weaken it further. My list includes the SSM movement because the very fact that a society would even contemplate a completely radical change to a millenia-old institution is an indicator of the weakness of the insitution.

I’ll address the other points later–I’m going swimming with my family

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

I must have misunderstood your original challenge as to how we might know marriage is weakened. I don’t believe for a minute that divorce, abortion and illegitimacy are a result of SSM; but they are an indicator of the weakened state of marriage. My original point is that marriage is a weakened institution and SSM will weaken it further. My list includes the SSM movement because the very fact that a society would even contemplate a completely radical change to a millenia-old institution is an indicator of the weakness of the insitution.

I’ll address the other points later–I’m going swimming with my family

Fair enough. My original question didn’t ask specifically for phenomenon collectively classified as weakening marriage through SSM.

My approach should be obvious. If one says that SSM will weaken marriage, then one must identify each particular and observable phenomenon classified as a weakener of marriage and show the causal relationship to SSM. However, one does not have to demonstrate that all weakeners of marriage are effected by SSM.

So, if SSM will further weaken marriage, exactly which observable phenomenon that are collectively classified as weakening marriage will SSM increase?

You have a good point that SSM probably wouldn’t have much of a chance if the environment hadn’t been prepared by divorce and contraception. I think they increase the probability of SSM success because their acceptance led to a more diverse set of observable definitions for marriage.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

(continued from above)

1. So, in Norway, he has shown correlation, but not causality. He fails to explain why illegitimacy was rising for years prior to SSM. And he fails to show how SSM causes single women to choose pregnancy, abandon birth control, or have more sex. This would demonstrate causality.
2. I don’t think we know how the contractual relationships compare to marriage on a longevity scale.
3. If some ministers were fired, then they were silenced from speaking from those pulpits. But, how widespread is this? Can we say it covers everyone in society? What is the extent? How many ministers? If this is what he is doing, then he has more work to do before saying the societal opposition has been silenced. Maybe the cosiety has been silenced. That should be easy to demonstrate.

1. Kurtz actually does state that the cause for the previous rise in illegitimacy is due to the welfare state and the treatment of marriage in the tax structures of Scandinavia. I think that showing causality in sociological studies may be somewhat of an art. I admit I’m relying on Kurtz’s expertise as a sociologist and I’m predisposed to accept his case because of my opposition to SSM. Would you admit to being skeptical because you are for (or at least agnostic about) SSM?
   How would we know that couples are deciding to have illegitimate children because of SSM? What would be an acceptable level of proof to you? Would someone have to interview these people and judge their responses? We have to make some baseline assumptions about human nature, one of which is that people are affected by the culture in which they live.
2. We do know that the “marriage-lite” type arrangements in Scandinavia are more likely to break up than real marriage. Kurtz covers this in one of his articles.
3. Kurtz was using the Norwegian ministers as an example of what happened when the acceptance of SSM became a reality. Those opposed to it **do **get shouted down and I believe that this vocal opposition may actually be rendered illegal with some of the hate-speech legislation in those countries. We’ve already seen it happen in Canada.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Ken:

1. Modern societies have removed many of the basic threats to survival through technology and economics. We are all well fed, have shelter, clothes, educational opportunity, etc. In most of the past, such basic survival was a day to day struggle. This allows us to investigate aspects of our nature that were not necessary in the past for survival. I think we may be expanding our understanding of man’s nature through the rather novel situation in which we now find ourselves.

So do you think we should legalize SSM to further our understanding of human nature? Forgive me, but I must work as hard as possible to prevent the onset of this Brave New World.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

I think Ken and I are the only people having this discussion.

Another thing just hit me. I and like-minded people should not have to defend marriage against such a radical change. The burden should be on SSM proponents to show why SSM would be **benefical **to society.

The only person I know of to even attempt this is Andrew Sullivan. He has been arguing for society to approve his relationship with his male lover. Sullivan has asserted that SSM will actually tame the homosexual sex drive and strengthen marriage. Of course, he offers no supporting data, much less proof–only his own arguments and assertions.

I hope that my references to Stanley Kurtz’s articles has helped MBryanBooks with showing the light to his co-worker.

 

[Ken]

1. Kurtz actually does state that the cause for the previous rise in illegitimacy is due to the welfare state and the treatment of marriage in the tax structures of Scandinavia. I think that showing causality in sociological studies may be somewhat of an art. I admit I’m relying on Kurtz’s expertise as a sociologist and I’m predisposed to accept his case because of my opposition to SSM. Would you admit to being skeptical because you are for (or at least agnostic about) SSM?
How would we know that couples are deciding to have illegitimate children because of SSM? What would be an acceptable level of proof to you? Would someone have to interview these people and judge their responses? We have to make some baseline assumptions about human nature, one of which is that people are affected by the culture in which they live.

1. We do know that the “marriage-lite” type arrangements in Scandinavia are more likely to break up than real marriage. Kurtz covers this in one of his articles.
2. Kurtz was using the Norwegian ministers as an example of what happened when the acceptance of SSM became a reality. Those opposed to it do get shouted down and I believe that this vocal opposition may actually be rendered illegal with some of the hate-speech legislation in those countries. We’ve already seen it happen in Canada.

1. Demonstrating a causal relationship between generous state payments for having a child and illegitimacy is not an art. Payments make life for a single mother much easier. They allow here to raise the kid with all the advantages other kids in society have. She does not need the economic support of a husband. It is even profitable for some women to have kids.
2. One can find a sociologist on any side of the issue. That’s why it’s important to evaluate the work of the sociologist. The argument from authority fails here.
3. My personal bias has no bearing on the merits of the agruments for and against gay marriage.
4. There is nothing wrong with observing that one is effected by the culture, but one cannot validly assume particular causal relationships without evidence. That’s why I ask why SSM will increase divorce, illegitimacy, and abortion. Perhaps the difficulty in getting such evidence means the responsible answer is that we don’t know.
5. 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.

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

So do you think we should legalize SSM to further our understanding of human nature? Forgive me, but I must work as hard as possible to prevent the onset of this Brave New World.

I was responding to your statement that current post-modern societies seem to think that they have a better understanding of human nature. I provided a speculation that the demands we face today differ from most of humanity’s past, and that we might be discovering more to human nature than our ancestors did.

 

[Ken]

StJeanneDArc:

I think Ken and I are the only people having this discussion.

Another thing just hit me. I and like-minded people should not have to defend marriage against such a radical change. The burden should be on SSM proponents to show why SSM would be **benefical **to society.

The only person I know of to even attempt this is Andrew Sullivan. He has been arguing for society to approve his relationship with his male lover. Sullivan has asserted that SSM will actually tame the homosexual sex drive and strengthen marriage. Of course, he offers no supporting data, much less proof–only his own arguments and assertions.

I hope that my references to Stanley Kurtz’s articles has helped MBryanBooks with showing the light to his co-worker.

The reason the opposition to SSM is always defending their position is because they take such extreme positions. We hear that SSM will destroy marriage, destroy the family, eliminate the foundation of society, and some say destruction similar what Sodom experienced. Others say it is a plot to eliminate sexual age of consent laws, and usher in socially approved pedophilia, polygamy, and beastiality.

Now, these are hard positions to defend. As we have seen, when asked how particular, observable phenomena will be encouraged by SSM, the opposition has little to say. Most of their arguments resonate with others in opposition, but they have not stood up well in critical analysis.

So, the SSM proponent does the same thing over and over again. He just asks how all these dire things will happen, and why they will happen. At that point the opposition often falls back on tradition, saying it’s always been that way, and always should.

On the other hand, the SSM proponents simply say that SSM is socially benign. It will help some, and hurt none. This is a much less ambitious argument than that marshalled by the opposition. It is an argument that relies on the absence of something. To defeat it, the opposition must demonstrate the presence of something. They must demonstrate the presence of observable and particular harmful phenomena. So the cycle starts over.

Now, you have asked what are the benefits to SSM. First, the SSM argument does not rely on demonstrating benefits. It relies on the socially benign character of SSM.

But it’s a fair question, and deserves an answer. In general the benefits to society from SSM are the same as the benefits to society from the marriage of people who have no children for one reason or another. If society benefits from the marriage of two fifty-five year old heterosexuals, then the same benefits accrue to society from the marriage of two gays.

But what are they?

1. Establishing economic and emotional support networks increases the probability that each individual will be more successful, and contribute more to society through their occupation, volunteer work, economic activity, and community participation. SSM is a basic social network.
2. Sexual diseases are decreased to the exotent that monogamy is observed by the partners.
3. The formal social support systems are less likely to be employed by SSM partners since they can rely on the support of each other.

Do these in any way measure up to the importance of producing and raising children? No. But they are social benefits.

 

[Rosalinda]

The financial security and emotional well-being of two individuals participating in SSM is not a justification. The argument that ‘nobody is being harmed’ is not an argument which can be proven either; it is nothing more than a meaningless mantra repeated ad nauseum in letters to- the-editor. Even shop lifters use that excuse to justify stealing.
Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” made predictions that forsaw the degradation of the status of women; how violence, abuse, abortion, adultery, divorce and even euthansia would all ensue as a result of the proliferation of the contraceptive mentality. Those dire warnings were given thirty-six years ago and the situation we find ourselves in today with the SSM debate is parallel. History has taught us the lesson repeatedly: sin has consequences and we’re going to learn that lesson first hand in short order.
Contemporary man in his hubris however, likes to think he has discovered a new level of tolerance, sensitivity and pluralism of life-style choices. Proponents of SSM pride themselves on being sophisticated, even intellectually superior.
It is wrong to assume no one is going to be hurt by SSM. Sin is not private because it injures everybody. These unions are not “sacred” - as some have advocated in their eagerness to bend over backwards- because they are intrinsically unholy and disordered.
SSM couples are going to use surrogate mothers, in-vitro fertilization, adoption, divorce (from their heterosexual spouses): any means necessary to prop up their illusion that they are just normal, benign families. All of this- reduces human beings to commodities to be bought and sold. This lack of respect for the dignity of human life with its’ origin in God inevitably diminishes all mankind. That so many are willing to allow children to become part of this great, social experiment is profoundly disturbing.
No, this represents a new low.

 

[kimie]

mbryanbooks:

His brief rebuttal was to make a parallel between the position, once widely legislated in the USA (and held by some Christians), that inter-racial marriage was illegal and immoral, on the one hand, and opposition to homosexual marriage, on the other. For him, it was the scales of bigotry blinding the eyes in both cases.
In time, state legislatures overcame that earlier bigotry, and it ought to be obvious that it is mere bigotry in the latter.

That case of bigotry was still a marriage between a MAN AND A WOMAN of different races and many of the “alternative lifestyle” folks compare this to “homosexual bigotry” of today. Point out the difference to your friend: We may have been wrong with the race issue, but it was a marriage between a male and female which is not immoral. Marriage between male/male, female/female is and goes against the marriage covenant…