No, this is the very same argument I used in my initial post above. Scroll to the top, and look at the big bold circle with “Religious freedom” next to it. You will see exactly what I said here, in much less detail. I don’t see the gay marriage debate as something that can be broken down to one simple issue (for example, like abortion), it is a bunch of issues all into one. It is a cost/benefit analysis type discussion. In fact, I am on record stating some one of the arguments from the proponents of gay marriage that does appeal to me.

But your right, I have changed emphasis since I first started to write this. Originally, if you look at my initial post, you will see that I didn’t give the social ramifications of allowing gay marriage as much weight as I do now. The reason being because initially I didn’t think they were all that likely, but the more I researched this, the more I read about it, in preparation for Oso’s rebuttal, the more I realized how very right the conservatives are on this point, and how very bad it would be to society. So while my emphasis may have changed slightly, my overall objection to gay marriage remains unchanged, exactly how it was written in the initial post above.

I’m sure you’ll explain that this is not your “reason” or your “motivation” but, “it is abundantly clear” that this is a concern, and this is pretty much exactly what I was referring to when I said that people who defend their stance on “tradition” and the like are masking other motivations.

When you finally figure out my ‘true’ motiviations behind all of this, please tell me, because I am dying to find out what they are.

You fear that gay marriage is an attack on your religion, and an attack on your belief that homosexuality is an abomination. It may well be, but this certainly changes the debate to a place that you probably wanted to avoid. If you make this a debate about religion then you will lose because a particular religion’s (bigoted) dogma is not supposed to be reflected in our laws as a nation. It undercuts the base of your argument, which is that government is merely protecting it’s own interests.

Re-read what I said Abogado, I never made this an argument defending my religion (and I am not religious, I’ve made that clear before), I said gay marriage is an attack on religious freedom. Surely, you would agree that one can strongly defend religious freedom whether or not one agrees with those religions views, right? I am hoping that you share this strong desire to protect religious freedom just as much as I do, regardless of whether you agree with the any particular religions views.

It is the same thing with Alan Dershowitz, while he strongly dislikes Noam Chomskys anti-Israel views, he still constantly fights for Chomskys right to speak on them. Freedom of speech, much like freedom of religion, in no way implies that one only has the freedom when they speak with what we agree with.

For the record, I am worried about *every bodies* religious freedom here, whether they be Catholic, Christian, Muslim or Jew; and whether I agree with them or not. Now, can you address my claim that states that religious freedom will be threatened?

“Either way you see this, it is so abundantly clear to me that those who view gay marriage as a civil rights issue, which will certainly be more people if gay marriage is allowed, will logically follow through on their views, and with time, religions that teach against homosexuality, or against gay marriage, will be no different than KKK members today. Some proponents of gay marriage look forward to this day consciously, others are but sheep in the bigger chess game. Either way, allow gay marriage, and the road is clearly paved in that direction.”

uh-oh. Did someone let some underlying motivations escape? This is VERY different from the protection of children and sanctity of marriage points that you have been sticking to. I’m sure you’ll explain that this is not your “reason” or your “motivation” but, “it is abundantly clear” that this is a concern, and this is pretty much exactly what I was referring to when I said that people who defend their stance on “tradition” and the like are masking other motivations. You fear that gay marriage is an attack on your religion, and an attack on your belief that homosexuality is an abomination. It may well be, but this certainly changes the debate to a place that you probably wanted to avoid. If you make this a debate about religion then you will lose because a particular religion’s (bigoted) dogma is not supposed to be reflected in our laws as a nation. It undercuts the base of your argument, which is that government is merely protecting it’s own interests.

Let me try to explain another way. We all agree that there are several different types of declarations, or public announcements. One can make a public declaration to another person to be best friends (in fact, some people wear bracelets to symbolize this declaration), or to be best friends for life, to be blood brothers, or whatever. One can tell a brother, publicly, that one loves him with all his heart. In fact, one can say this to any family member. One can commit to a girlfriend that you will never love another girl as much as her; one can say the same to a boyfriend. Two people, a man and a woman, could commit to each other to date each other exclusively. Two people of the same sex could also commit to each other to date each other exclusively. You get the idea, endless are the number of public declarations people can make to each other.

But there is one public declaration, one public pronouncement that stands apart. When a man and a women promise to love each other ‘until death do us part, for better or for worse’, that is a separate and unique public declaration than the ones above. That declaration, because of the very nature of the two, and the strong promise involved, points to the likelihood of children. And because of the connection to children, and because this union happens so frequently in society, the government has a vested interest in this union.

Think of the government as one big entity, whereas the only way you could get its attention is by doing something that is in the interest of the government. If I went outside tomorrow, and yelled my public love for George W. Bush, the government could careless. That big entity would have no reason to turn around and recognize my public declaration. However, if tomorrow I go to Church and announce my public and deep love for, say, Cindylu. Well, that union is very different from the government’s perspective. The government knows that a loving commitment, especially a life long (in theory at least) commitment is a commitment that will likely lead to children. By our very nature, male and female, produce children, and when you add that to a public declaration of the twos love, and life long commitment, you are declaring the beginning of a family, a family that begets children.

So the government, in looking out for its future citizens, has a vested interest in that public declaration. It gets involved in it because it knows that babies come from there, and it happens so often. It is a quick and dirty way to take care, in one simple procedure, all the paperwork and legalities involved in a family. A family that is likely to produce children. It gives that union tax breaks to encourage their continuation. etc…etc..

On the other hand, the public declaration of two best friends, or a boyfriend and girlfriend, or a homosexual couple does not get the same attention from the government. The government has no vested interest in recognizing that union. From the government’s perspective, who cares if my roommate is now my best friend? Who cares if I have a girlfriend, and who cares if two gay people form a lifelong commitment? The government only cares, and should only care, for what interests it. And clearly, encouraging the proper upbringing of its future citizens, its most defenseless citizens, is of the utmost importance to the government.

Now, what about those who don’t have kids? Well, like I said above, the government only cares for the possibility of children, not the encouragement of children. Clearly, only with two heterosexual couples, declaring a lifelong commitment to one another gives the strong possibility of children. And because children are likely to come, certainly more likely than with any other public declaration, the government has a vested interest to keep that union together, both before children and certainly after. With all other declarations, that possibility is either significantly reduced, or completely not there.

You bring up the issue of raising children, separately from marriage. Certainly a single parent raising a child, much like my little sister, gives the government a vested interest. Of course the government prefers the child be raised with both parents, but that may not always be possible, and the child should than be raised with one of its parents. The government still has an incentive to encourage the proper upbringing of that child, say by tax breaks that give that parent the needed extra money to provide for that child, but this is another example of the same thing it does with marriage. For example, say for the sake of argument I agreed with you that it was absolutely harmless for a gay person to raise a child; in that case I would argue for a tax break for that person, just as much as I would argue for a tax break for my sister. Both are caring for children, both are in need of extra money to care for their child, so both should be given the tax break, since both situations equally satisify the objective (purpose) at hand.

However, say, for example, that I wanted the same tax break that my sister gets, how would you feel about that? Remember, I don’t have any children, my sister does. Would it be fair for me, someone who doesn’t serve the interest of the government in the same way my sister does, to get the same recognition from the state? In other words, should child tax credits be given out to both, parents who have children and parents who don’t? Of course not!! Well, in the same way, marriage declarations should not be given to both types of unions, those that do produce children and those that don’t. Yes, gay couples can adopt, but so can heterosexual couples. In other words, a heterosexual couple, by their nature, has something that all other unions do not have, the inherent ability to produce children. And therefore, because of this unique difference, they should be recognized differently.

Look, I agree that no-fault divorce, the surge in divorces, and the high amount of married partners cheating on their partners has weakened the institution of marriage. Clearly, a public declaration that states ’til death do us part, for better or for worse’ and really means it is the strongest commitment one can make towards one another, and more importantly, the union that is most likely to produce children. But as weakened as no-fault divorce and the others have made marriage, nothing would weaken it more, and nothing would drastically change it more, than allowing gays the same title as heterosexual unions. Marriage would than have nothing to do with children, and would be reduced to nothing but a declaration of commitment (not even lifelong at that). Essentially, marriage would be a state sanctioned love commitment, no different than those with bracelets on their arms. And what this will teach the next generation, and what it will result in, puts our next generation of children in great danger.

Now, onto some of your other objections. You write,

In fact, it reminds me of another Harvard professor, Samuel Huntington. It also reminds me of the Strom Thurmond anti-desegration types who claim not to be racist, only that inclusion will bring about more problems.

I’ve already addressed the, IMHO, false civil rights comparison here, but here, if you want more proof, allow me to provide it. In fact, religious intolerance because of gay marriage is happening much sooner than I had expected and I plan to blog on it in the upcoming days, for examples of current “intolerance and discrimination” towards the religious because of gay marriage go here.

I find the threat of religious intolerance and discrimination so obvious, so likely, that I can’t believe you can’t see it as clearly. For example, if you think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, as I am sure you and a majority of your readers do, than on what basis would you allow for religions to prohibit it? Or for religious people to speak out against it? Or for members of society to find it wrong?

Proponents of gay marriage currently have a very difficult time distinguishing between bans on actions, and bans on non-actions. Do you think this will get better after gay marriage is allowed? No, it clearly will get worse, especially with the next generation. After gay marriage is allowed, with each passing generation, more and more people are going to see a ban on gays, equal to a ban on race, or gender, or nationality. Let me ask you this Oso, how would you see a religion that bans black people from its membership? Clearly there would have already been people who would have argued to remove the tax exempt status from that religion, who would argue that any politician who belongs to that religion be removed from office, one would publicly chastise members of that religion.

What’s to make you think the same thing wouldn’t happen to religions that continue to teach against homosexuality, and homosexual marriages? Religious people who believe that homosexuality is wrong, whose religion does not allow gay marriage, will be reduced to current members of society that are against black people. Sure, they are allowed to speak publicly, they still have free speech rights after all, but like racists today, they will be rebuked by society, seen as a fringe group of individuals that are out of the mainstream, that don’t deserve to be heard. In short, members of the Catholic Church tomorrow, will be seen like members of the KKK today.

Since Abogado, Myke, and Eric, all got conspiracy theory on me, allow me to break one of my online discussion rules, and get conspirarcy theory as well. If you asked me what is the primary motive behind several proponents of gay marriage, specifically those groups of people that absolutely hate religion. For example, the people that hate it when President Bush mentions Jesus, that hate it when he brings religious overtones into his discussion, and that hate the religious side of the conservative party. You know which ones I am referring to, the ones that have that European perspective in the way they strongly dislike religion in politicians. If you asked me, I would say that their primary motive behind gay marriage is not because they care about gays, it is not because they want gays to be recognized publicly, it is primarily because of their dislike for religious politicians, and they know that by bringing in gay marriage, they are indirectly pushing out religious politicians from public discourse. They know that by pushing gay marriage, they are also pushing religious politicians out of office, and thereby furthering their secular utopia.

Of course there are those who are in favor of gay marriage because of their desire to destroy marriage in general, but there is probably a large overlap between these people and the people mentioned above, the people that want religion out of the public arena period.

Either way you see this, it is so abundantly clear to me that those who view gay marriage as a civil rights issue, which will certainly be more people if gay marriage is allowed, will logically follow through on their views, and with time, religions that teach against homosexuality, or against gay marriage, will be no different than KKK members today. Some proponents of gay marriage look forward to this day consciously, others are but sheep in the bigger chess game. Either way, allow gay marriage, and the road is clearly paved in that direction.

All other functions of marriage borrow from or build upon this one. Even marriage among those past child-rearing age or otherwise infertile draws on notions of partnership and mutual aid that has its primary roots in the experience of shared biological parenthood.

If a heterosexual couple can get married without wanting to raise a family, than a homosexual couple should be able to also. Furthermore, I am sure plenty of gay couples do actually draw their notions of partnership and mutual aid in the experience of shared biological parenthood. And they should be able to. Just like heterosexual couples should be able to adopt children if they so choose.

What you’re really arguing, whether you put it that way or not, is whether a homosexual couple can care for their children as well as a heterosexual couple can. For each article you find saying they can’t, I can find at least one saying they can. Or even that they care for their children better. But the issue is too charged on both sides to trust the research as unbiased. And frankly, I really don’t care. You could fight your entire life over whether Mexican-Americans or European-Americans make better parents, but why?

if babies didn’t require such intensive nurture for such a long period of time, marriage would not exist, either as a socio-anthropological category or as a religious institution.

I don’t really see the relevance of this section. Again, if the principal characteristic of marriage is procreating, than it should be reserved for those who procreate. As an aside, I disagree with you that marriage wouldn’t exist were it not for procreation. I’d say marriage is a contract/ritual of commitment which is founded in jealousy much more than raising children.

Secondly, “marriages” in the gay community, because they are inherently unable to produce children, will never offer society the same benefits and return on the social investment as true marriages of men and women.

If we’re talking economics, this is a pretty silly argument. It is true that many countries (and companies) offer benefits and tax breaks to couples that procreate. Which is why our parents listed us as dependents for so long. But what is a benefit for having children and what is a priviledge of being married should be two very different things. And finally, I’ll repeat myself for the fifth time, if marriage is just that – an investment on a couple’s offspring – rather than a ritualistic contract and declaration of love, than it truly should be reserved for couples with children. I see no reason why a man and a woman should be allowed to marry and not have kids.

I’m pretty amazed by Mary Ann Glendon’s quote that gay marriage would

usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before

In fact, it reminds me of another Harvard professor, Samuel Huntington. It also reminds me of the Strom Thurmond anti-desegration types who claim not to be racist, only that inclusion will bring about more problems.

We should try solving today’s issues, and not add more from history’s blurry past.

Striving to make a point by pointing out errors of people from the past shouldn’t be a good thing.

Now, let’s get back on topic. Why is the government concerned about banning gay marriage? People are shocked that the government is involved in something that is more of a moral debate than a legal one. For ages we’ve all thought that whatever good the government did was because a human person did that good job/deed.

That is why lately, a more human side of the law prevents greedy fleecing bitches from winning in court.

So, you see… the government can’t help getting involved in deciding what’s good or bad morally (which the Church, throughout history, pointed out).

Well, anyways… that’s my POV.

I didn’t just quote from Boston College Eric, I also quoted professors from Harvard University and Princeton University….but this is irrelevant to your main point.

You write,

Marriage, as an institution, served one primary purpose for millennia – alliances among the aristocratic and military elites.

Assuming for the moment I buy (I don’t, but assuming) your rant against marriage (and religion), you still forgot a critical element in your response…if this is so, than again, why should gays be included in marriage? If your point here is that marriage is not at all tied to children, and therefore somewhat arbitrary, than where do you draw the line? Do you also support polygamous marriages? If not, why not? In other words, from the governments perspective, why should the government be involved in marriage at all if it has nothing do with children? And, more importantly, how does this reason also include gay unions?

And there’s by no means conclusive proof that such a unit produces better, more stable off-spring.

As someone who closely follows abortion debates, I am well aware of the large amount of liberals who do not believe that the traditional man and women, mother and father, union is the best for children. However, this is a small percentage of the population, and the great majority of people, and the overall consensus in academia, is that the two parent, mother father household, is the ideal living condition for children.

But let us assume that this is not the case, that the traditional union of father and mother has some problems, even if we assume that is the case, it is still not a settled topic that gay unions are good for parenting. So whatever problems the traditional family unit may have, it seems, atleast for now, gay unions have more so.

Get a grip. Your opposition is conditioned solely on your religious biases, not on historical or anthropological fact.

Well, since were throwing wild accusations at one another, allow me the same. You get a grip, your opposition to traditional marriage is conditioned solely on your hatred towards the traditional marriage unit, and anti-religious biases, not on historical or anthropological fact.

Or, to quote prominent ‘feminists’,

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” (Shiela Cronan, feminist leader)

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” (Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education and director of the Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College)

“A mother is she whose body is used as a resource to reproduce men and the world of men. …Motherhood is dangerous to women because it continues the structure within which females must be women and mothers…it denies to females the creation of a …. world that is open and free.” (Jeffner Allen, feminist philosopher)

“Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostution, marriage, and sexual harrassment. Compare victims reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike…In this light the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot see anything wrong with it”. (Catherine MacKinnon, professor of law, University of Michigan Law School)

“No women should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children…Women should not have the choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one”. (Simone de Beauvoir, existentialist philosopher, acknowledged founder of modern feminism, and author of “The Second Sex”)

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession…the choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that”. (Vivian Gornick, feminist author)

“Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women…We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men. …All of history must be rewritten in terms of opression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.”(“The Declaration Of Feminism”, 1971)

….you get the idea.

The ancestors of most of us were poor peons who were, man and woman alike, viewed as chattel – animals bound to the land. And animals needed no rites of marriage. This only began to change as mercantilism began to transform into capitalism during the middle ages, when the politcal and commercial elites realized that they needed a way to control all those peasants who were being freed from bondage to the land and flocking to the growing industrial centers to labor in the production of goods other than foodstuffs. Yet again, the church conspired; spreading marriage to the masses became, purely and simply, a record-keeping process; a way keep track of the pairings of two peasants and record the future laborers their “union” produced. And, as if that’s not damning enough for the institution of marriage, it wasn’t until this time that child rearing became the duty of a male-female unit. And there’s by no means conclusive proof that such a unit produces better, more stable off-spring. One need only examine the anthropological literature to discover the falsehoods in that premise. Most all primitive peoples – in the past and those still existing – do not view child rearing as the duty and sole purview of the biological parents; *everyone* in the tribal band is responsible for caring for and protecting and nurturing the childern of the tribal band. Jesus, you can watch the tv specials on the Yanamamo of Amazonia, or any of the other primitive tribes – in Java, say – still being studied to learn that basic fact.

Get a grip. Your opposition is conditioned solely on your religious biases, not on historical or anthropological fact.

Ok, now that I mentioned that obligatory quote… Oso: this is a great article, and a great point.
Other dudes and dudettes… sorry… I’ll eventually read all the comments… for now I’ll just strive to make a point.

First off, people have been tampering with the meaning of ’stuff’.

‘Spanglish’ speakers, can read a post here I made a short while ago, which in part dealt about ‘la tergiversación’ of word’s meanings. ‘Tergiversar’, in spanish, means “Dar una interpretación forzada o errónea a palabras o acontecimientos.” which in english would mean something like “to f*ck up a word’s meaning or an event’s facts”.

So, where I’m hinting at is this: A lot of people change either the meaning, spiritual significance, objective in life, of stuff.

For instance. Some might say that cooking is about pleasure. The sheer taste of del.icio.us del.icaci.es on our tastebuds might make us forget that cooking’s purpose is merely to make a portion of raw material into an edible material.

Marriage is then, a symbological commitment in which a man and a woman agree to procreate, and thus give birth to as many a child they are able.

Nevertheless, gay people exist for a reason. As for male gays… I’m going to venture and say that perhaps anal sex… isn’t that bad. But since some women may not be open to ‘experimentat’ with their men, they freak out and then the guys turn gay. As always there are some exceptions. But I wonder if taking it in the ass is exclusively a gay activity. I mean, it’s an UN-NATURAL activity… but if I were to play those kind of ’sex games’ with my girlfriend… would it be gay?

As for the female homosexuals, or lesbians… they’re ok. They look so hot, afterall. LOL. Just kidding.

And, Oso, WTF is up with my emoticon… it shows as a cowgirl. Oh well, perhaps it’ll change if I post this long comment.

That example was in reference to the difference between a behavioral attribute as opposed to a non-behavioral attribute. I was not referring to, either in the affirmative or in the negative, whether or not homosexual acts are genetic/from birth or not.

To explain myself further, let’s say we are talking about ‘left handed’ people. This is a behavioral attribute, meaning that you define those type of people (left handed) by actions they perform. Now, does this imply that people who are left handed are born that way? No, it doesn’t speak to that. Whether they are left handed by birth, or left handed by choice (as my old boss at work is, he says switching is good for brain communication or something like that) the statement remains the same.

When I say ‘homosexual’ people, I am referring to people who engage in homosexual acts, period.