Illinois passes same sex marriage bill

[frobert]

From which posting of mine do you deduce the basis of my objection to SS marriage? Certainly not the one you quoted, because in that posting I gave no basis at all for my personal objections, since that posting was not about my objections.

That is not much of a concession. The law also does not compel religious ministers to perform any particular normal marriage either.

Strawman argument.

I re-read your post and I apologize for my assumption.

Please bear with me, while you appear to object to SS marriage I seem to be missing what your objections are. Can you elaborate?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

How many married post-menopausal women are there? Those are not “remote cases”. You are becoming detached from reality here. You are thrashing around, trying to find reasons to oppose civil same sex marriage, and you cannot find reasons that do not also apply to some opposite sex marriages.

I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage. I have no problems with homosexuals cohabiting

So, it is fine by you for someone like Gene Robinson, who has two children, to enter a same sex marriage because he has “a historical potential for producing children”?

Gene could enter into a homosexual relationship and bring as many children as he wants. It would be a marriage only if his new partner was of the opposite sex.

Eighty year old women had the potential for producing children but not currently in a state of opposite sex relationship.

rossum

By George…I think you got it…or you ARE getting it. It is just that the term “opposite sex relationship” is a relationship…not a marriage.

I think you should have said: " Eighty year old women had the potential for producing children but not currently in a state of marriage."

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It does that by providing general recognition of that good and by granting benefits such as subsidies and special permissions.

It sounds like your usage of “celebrate” is synonymous with how others might use the word “support.”

So when the potential for children through artificial insemination is offered as support for same sex relationships

While I understand being open to children is a requirement for sacramental marriages it’s not a requirement for civil marriages. Even if children are an impossibility (which isn’t necessarily the case between what was mentioned above and adoption) I don’t think it has much impact on those that have a permissive disposition to same sex marriage.

This may be a consequence of having a difference stance on the premise that a marriage must be open to the possibility of children being produced by the couple.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I have not read the recent prior posts and I am not pulling anyone out here but there is something I would like to add: Sometimes I wonder why we continue to debate about this. We should give some sort of consent to documents that the CDF, popes, and bishops have provided us with. To keep questioning the Church on these issues is pride. What we should never do as Catholics even if we disagree is to publicly promote something contrary to these teachings.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[LeafByNiggle]

While I understand being open to children is a requirement for sacramental marriages it’s not a requirement for civil marriages. Even if children are an impossibility (which isn’t necessarily the case between what was mentioned above and adoption) I don’t think it has much impact on those that have a permissive disposition to same sex marriage.

When you quote a part of what I wrote and then try to relate it to an argument that someone else made, the result is bound to be somewhat confusing. But since you asked, here is my take on the “open to children” issue as it relates to civil marriage.

I think the reason that society has any support for marriage at all is in recognition of the role that marriage plays in bringing new life - children - into the society. This is the general purpose of marriage as a civil institution, even though that purpose is not perfectly realized in the implementation of marriage laws. The fact that some childless marriages get recognized by society is an exception. Such marriages do circumvent the purpose of marriage laws, but not in a way that can be cost-effectively fixed.

There really was no practical way to more narrowly target the laws to achieve what I claim was the purpose of those laws. Consider some potential solutions. For example, only recognize marriages after a child is born. Clearly not practical. If there was no legal pair bonding before child is born, what is to prevent a man from fathering children of two women? And how can a binding commitment be extracted after the fact? No, clearly official recognition of marriage must come before the children arrive.

Well, how about legally recognizing marriage only when it appears children are likely to be the result? This also has problems, especially in more primitive societies where assessment of the potential for child-bearing is little better than guesswork. Some extreme cases could be decided with high probability, like an 80-year old woman. But what incentive does a society have to forbid marriage to 80-year old women? Not very much. For one thing not many 80-year old women are desired as wives. So if a few 80 year old women profit from an institution that was meant to reward child-bearing, the society loses very little from that. And no matter where the line is drawn, it is going to appear somewhat arbitrary.

So on balance societies concluded that the simplest practical marriage law would be to allow and support marriage between any man and woman. But then society recognized that such a law is too simple. It allows certain injustices and undesirable outcomes. Specifically, marriage where one or both partners are under a certain age needed to be restricted to avoid certain obvious abuses. And marriage between people too closely related was also recognized as a bad thing (although primitive societies did not fully understand why, not knowing anything about DNA and inbreeding). So a few restrictions were added. But the overall general purpose of legal recognition remained the same. It is not a societal reward for two people keeping each other company (as good and noble a thing as that may be). It is not a reward for forming an efficient economic unit. It is not a reward for two people loving each other. These things are all nice things and hopefully they are all present in a good marriage. But the promotion of these things is not the purpose of marriage laws.

To the extent that these laws do not perfectly promote child raising, they fail to perfectly achieve their purpose. But they do pretty well, considering the limitations of civil law. They are simple enough for any society to implement, and they do accomplish their purpose most of the time. There being no simple modification to these laws that would make them accomplish their purpose any better, the society tolerates the imperfection.

Now consider adding same-sex marriage. On their own, no homosexual couple can produce a child. So adding same-sex marriage takes an already imperfect law and make it even more imperfect. The purpose of promoting child raising is circumvented even more. But what about adoption, artificial insemination, and surrogacy? Even if we allow this possibility, society can still decide that it is more desirable for children to be raised by a mother and a father. Therefore society can reasonably decide that recognition of gay marriage does not benefit the purpose for which marriage was established to warrant the costs of that recognition.

 

[rossum]

I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage. I have no problems with homosexuals cohabiting

So, your issue is lexicographical. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. All we are seeing now is yet another redefinition of civil marriage. The previous major redefinition in the US was in 1967 in Loving v Virginia. Change is not something new.

Do you object to electronic computers because they required a redefinition of the word “computer”?

A language is a living thing, it changes.

rossum

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So, your issue is lexicographical. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. All we are seeing now is yet another redefinition of civil marriage. The previous major redefinition in the US was in 1967 in Loving v Virginia. Change is not something new.

Loving vs Virginia was a case of interracial marriage between two people of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with redefining marriage.

Do you object to electronic computers because they required a redefinition of the word “computer”?

At my age, I have not completely accepted “computers”. Period

A language is a living thing, it changes.

rossum

Apples and oranges are living things…they don’t change.

 

[rossum]

Loving vs Virginia was a case of interracial marriage between two people of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with redefining marriage.

It redefined civil marriage. The law changed so couples that were not previously allowed to legally marry could now legally marry. That redefined civil marriage.

Apples and oranges are living things…they don’t change.

An apple starts very small, at the centre of a flower. It grows a lot larger, and if you leave it long enough it will fall and decay. Of course it changes.

Are you still unchanged from when you were born? Do you weigh the same?

rossum

 

[kanrok]

It redefined civil marriage. The law changed so couples that were not previously allowed to legally marry could now legally marry. That redefined civil marriage.

I disagree. Loving did not “redefine” marriage. It set the constitutional bounds for the state’s police power. In Loving, CJ Warren stated as follows:

“While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State’s police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).”

Striking down anti-miscegenation laws affirmed marriage.

I know of no studies suggesting that inter racial parenting is harmful to children.

I am aware of multiple studies showing how children are hampered emotionally, socially, educationally and, yes, physically, when they are not raised by their own mother and father. But isn’t this the gist of same sex marriage?

Being lectured about the injustice suffered by gays and lesbians because they cannot marry is persuasive. Not because it is logical. It is purely, solely and singularly emotional.

As rational adults we should not be swayed by illogical arguments.

 

[Ben_Carmine]

I am aware of multiple studies showing how children are hampered emotionally, socially, educationally and, yes, physically, when they are not raised by their own mother and father. But isn’t this the gist of same sex marriage?

For that argument to hold up you’d have to find studies that showed children from same-sex couples ended up worse off. All research done shows that’s not the case.

There’s a reason why you said “not by their own mother and father” (which would include adopted and step children) and didn’t say “not by two parents”.

 

[kanrok]

For that argument to hold up you’d have to find studies that showed children from same-sex couples ended up worse off. All research done shows that’s not the case.

See here:

Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X120006

See also:
Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

 

[rossum]

See here:

Mark Regnerus…

The Regnerus study is fundamentally flawed. See UT Austin Denounces Mark Regnerus’ Anti-Gay Study:

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.

See also:
Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,”

Which says nothing at all about the quality of same sex parenting. It only talks about the quality of studies of same sex parenting.

rossum

 

[kanrok]

The Regnerus study is fundamentally flawed. See UT Austin Denounces Mark Regnerus’ Anti-Gay Study:

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.

Which says nothing at all about the quality of same sex parenting. It only talks about the quality of studies of same sex parenting.

rossum

There is a lot of pressure to be politically correct in this day and age, especially in “academia.”

You have to all row in the same direction, otherwise you get ostracized.

Regnerus was criticized because he had the temerity to publish a study in a peer reviewed journal.

It never ceases to fascinate me how people get so upset by fundamental truths.

Keep up the good work rossum.

Maybe one day you’ll change the minds of faithful Catholics at a Catholic forum!

Just not today.

 

[frobert]

There is a lot of pressure to be politically correct in this day and age, especially in “academia.”

Wow. Can you back up your statement that UT Austin denounced Mark Regnerus’ study because it was politically correct for them to do so?

 

[kanrok]

Wow. Can you back up your statement that UT Austin denounced Mark Regnerus’ study because it was politically correct for them to do so?

Sure. Here’s a story written by a Professor of Sociology at Notre Dame who chaired Regerus’ dissertation at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The article is entitled
“An Academic Auto-da-Fé: A sociologist whose data find fault with same-sex relationships is savaged by the progressive orthodoxy.” It can be found here: chronicle.com/article/An-Academic-Auto-da-F-/133107/

Here is another article, this one from the Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion, entitled “A Social Scientific Response To The Regnerus Controversy.” It can be found here: baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/

Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will at least question whether Regnerus was treated fairly for having the temerity to publish what we all know intuitively to be the truth.

 

[frobert]

Sure. Here’s a story written by a Professor of Sociology at Notre Dame who chaired Regerus’ dissertation at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The article is entitled
“An Academic Auto-da-Fé: A sociologist whose data find fault with same-sex relationships is savaged by the progressive orthodoxy.” It can be found here: chronicle.com/article/An-Academic-Auto-da-F-/133107/

Here is another article, this one from the Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion, entitled “A Social Scientific Response To The Regnerus Controversy.” It can be found here: baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-social-scientific-response-to-the-regnerus-controversy/

Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty will at least question whether Regnerus was treated fairly for having the temerity to publish what we all know intuitively to be the truth.

Neither the Institute of Religion nor Christian Smith are exactly disinterested parties.

I do take your point though, there is legitimate controversy over whether he was treated properly or not and it would be uncharitable not to think so.

I also agree with the Institute of Religion:

To be clear: We do not think that these new studies settle the nation’s ongoing debate about gay parenting, same-sex marriage, and the welfare of children. - See more:

 

[kanrok]

Neither the Institute of Religion nor Christian Smith are exactly disinterested parties.

I do take your point though, there is legitimate controversy over whether he was treated properly or not and it would be uncharitable not to think so.

I also agree with the Institute of Religion:

To be clear: We do not think that these new studies settle the nation’s ongoing debate about gay parenting, same-sex marriage, and the welfare of children. - See more:

It is true that neither author is disinterested. It would be unusual for someone disinterested in the issue to publish an article about it.

I agree that these studies do not settle the issue.My initial post with respect to them was not to prove anything other than that one poster claimed that there were no studies of this type.

Parenthetically, there was a study that I saw in passing recently that suggested gay parents were, in many ways, *superior *to a child’s biological parents. The most telling part of that study was that there was no blow back on the author. I’m sure that most academics involved in the field just nodded, took a few thoughtful puffs on their pipe, and went on about their day.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It redefined civil marriage. The law changed so couples that were not previously allowed to legally marry could now legally marry. That redefined civil marriage.

See Kanrok # 185. Excellent response.

An apple starts very small, at the centre of a flower. It grows a lot larger, and if you leave it long enough it will fall and decay. Of course it changes.

Are you still unchanged from when you were born? Do you weigh the same?

rossum

My fault, I should have more clear. I was referring to the Apples and oranges “argument”.

“You (civil government or whomever) can call an apple an orange…but that does not change an apple into an orange.” They may be fruits but they are different.

You can call a same sex relationship a marriage but that does not make it a marriage. They are both relationships but they are very different.

 

[kozlosap]

So, your issue is lexicographical. Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. All we are seeing now is yet another redefinition of civil marriage. The previous major redefinition in theUS was in 1967 in Loving v Virginia. Change is not something new.

Do you object to electronic computers because they required a redefinition of the word “computer”?

A language is a living thing, it changes.

rossum

Yes you are right Rossum! I was able to log on to Westlaw since my daughter is a young attorney and has the access.
Loving v. Virginia was decided on two of the clauses in our Constitution, Due Process & Equal Protection.

 

[rossum]

You can call a same sex relationship a marriage but that does not make it a marriage. They are both relationships but they are very different.

A civil marriage is a marriage conducted according to civil law. There is no change in definition. The relevant civil law does change from time to time, but the definition of a civil marriage does not.

A religious marriage is a marriage conducted according to the relevant religious law.

Both a civil marriage and a religious marriage are marriages. This despite that fact that a marriage valid under one law may not be valid under the other.

rossum