It’s been a long time coming: my response to the HP’s second argument in our series of blogger debates. For those of you new to the blog, the blogger debates between Hispanic Pundit and I evolved out of last year’s election. While I saw many progressives talking of either migrating north or “strengthening the base,” there seemed to be very little effort of reaching across the aisle to understand the other side.

I can’t say we’ve been successful in staying away from those sorts of generalizations, but I do believe we have so far done in important service (at least to ourselves) in better understanding positions we disagree with and the roots of those positions. If you are interested in reading the debate HP and I already had over abortion you can read both his side and my own. (comment on those posts are still open)

When introducing his argument on why unborn fetuses deserve the same legal protection as born babies, HP brought up the civil rights movement and extending legal protection to those previously thought unfit. In fact, I will go a step further and say previously thought biologically unfit. That is, it was assumed a black man or woman was not deserving of the same legal protection and “privileges” of a white man or woman because they were biologically inferior. Studies of IQ, cranium size, and other “genetic” tests were compiled as evidence. Likewise, an important cornerstone of the pro-choice movement is that fetuses (especially first and second trimester) are biologically inferior to their born counterparts. Here it is consciousness and perception of pain which seem to be most important.

So it seemed only natural to extend this same line of thinking to protest the discrimination of homosexuals in US legal code (which, though beyond the scope of this debate, is much more than gay marriage). But then HP made an important point which first cracked up at what I thought was his ignorance, but has since made me seriously question the foundations of our sexuality. He said that homosexuality was not a definition of someone’s biological make up – or how they are born – but rather by their behavior. Go ahead, laugh, I did too. Is this guy from the 19th century or what, I asked myself. Then, I countered his comment asking, does that mean heterosexuals are also defined only by their behavior. His reply was “sure would.”

Don’t ask me how we get into this conversation, but at one time or another, I’ve asked nearly all of my ex-girlfriends and a good number of friends if they’ve ever had an erotic dream with someone of the same sex. Almost every one of the girls admitted that yes. Not surprisingly, only one guy friend of mine admitted the same. I think I probably first got the idea of asking when I read somewhere that some psychologists actually believe that humans – as a species – are to varying degrees, bisexual.

Now let’s think about what we want out of laws. We want to be able to behave as freely and naturally as possible without causing harm to others right? We must come to a compromise. I should be able to drive as fast as I’d like on a freeway so long as it doesn’t put others in danger. So in California we come to a compromise around 70 mph and in Utah around 55. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how two men or two women married and raising a family could possibly cause harm to others. Perhaps you may be bothered by homosexuality, but certainly not harmed.

In terms of the debate, my position doesn’t change whether you believe homosexuality is biologically determined or a psychological choice: your either discriminating against someone’s DNA or their behavior. Neither one is something that should be practiced in America or any other country. HP asks, why extend the meaning of a tradition that has endured millenia. I ask, why wouldn’t you? That much seems simple enough. But what I really hope to get out of this conversation (and I hope everyone comments uninhibitedly and respectfully) is what you believe the nature of homosexuality is? And for that matter, what the nature of heterosexuality is?

Blog buddy Myke seems to agree with HP’s definition of homosexuality – in other words, if you do, you are:

Have you ever noticed there are degrees of gayness? I don’t mean like you can be say 70% homosexual and 30% heterosexual or vice versa or anything like that. To me, you’re either gay or you’re not. It’s simple, if you’d sleep with men, you’re gay. If you adamantly wouldn’t, you’re not. Plain and simple. That’s not to say that even if you are gay, you wouldn’t ever sleep with a woman, either. Some would. Some very much do. However, I do firmly believe that a heterosexual man would simply NOT sleep with another man, period. Simple distinction.

Up until 1973 homosexuality was seen – according to the APA – as a psychiatric disorder which should be treated. Then:

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after intense debate. They stated that homosexuality “does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder.” Effectively, this saw its official acceptance as a viable sexual orientation and saw the increase in gay liberation throughout the Western world.

Many other associations across the world followed suit soon after. The American Psychoanalytic Association made similar steps and began accepting openly homosexual men and women. However, it wasn’t until 1992 that the World Health Organization ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, followed by the UK Government in 1994, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association in 2001.¹

As Steven Kotler points out, there are generally two foundations to the idea that homosexuality is abnormal while heterosexuality is normal:

The first came from the Bible. The King James Version of Leviticus 18:22 is quite clear: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: It is abomination.”

Darwin, whose theory of evolution says that all life originated from a common ancestor, made the other frequently cited argument against homosexuality. The reason the tree of life is so varied is because reproduction is an inexact process. Mutations arise that either help or hinder existence. Helpful ones create new lineages; harmful ones die off.

While I can’t argue with the first, many studies have been done in response to Darwin’s assertion that homosexuality is an “abberation.”

From plasticbag.org:

Author Bruce Bahemihl, in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and natural diversity, has cataloged over 200 vertebrate species in which same-sex genital contact regularly occurs. In some species, homosexuality is not very common – around 1 to 10 per cent of all mating. In others, such a bonobos, homosexual mating occurs as often as heterosexual mating. In some species only males participate, in others only females, in still others both sexes.

In humans, moreover, homosexuality is much too common for it to be considered a genetic aberration.

According to this website:

43% of Americans believe that ‘young homosexuals became that way because of older homosexuals’

But as J.M. Bailey pointed out as early as 1992:

No one has ever found a postnatal social environmental influence for homosexual orientation – and they have looked plenty’

There seems to be plenty of evidence to support the theory that our sexual orientation and/or preference is genetically determined:

One of the most frequently cited studies of homosexuality was that of Kallmann in 1952. He reported a one hundred percent concordance in identical twins for homosexuality, and only twelve percent concordance in fraternal twins.

Furthermore, sexual orientation in fruit flies has been changed by replacing a single gene. (Zhang SD. Odenwald WF. Misexpression of the white (w) gene triggers male-male courtship in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-9, 1995 Jun 6)

And in the most thorough collection of research revealing the genetic correlation with sexual orientation, Dean Hamer found that the DNA marker Xq28 on the X chromosome is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals. (Hu S. Pattatucci AM. Patterson C. Li L. Fulker DW. Cherny SS. Kruglyak L. Hamer DH. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics. 11(3):248-56, 1995 Nov.; Hamer, D.H.. S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science 261(1993): 321-27.)

Not surprisingly, as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality is quick to point out, there is more at hand than one’s DNA. If I were to have sex with a guy … let’s say, just for experimentation … then according to both HP and Myke, I should be considered gay because of my action. Even if I will never, my entire life, have sex or even thoughts of sex again with a man. Furthermore, where do bisexuals fit in?

Taking all of the science into account, it is tempting to conclude – as this undergraduate student did in 1994 – that our sexual orientation and/or preference is 50% genetic and 50% constructed. This makes sense to me and would explain why many men consider themselves straight and even remain married to their wives while having sex with other men. The same, of course, is also true with women. It would also explain why some groups claim success in “curing” homosexuality and why many straight men have sex with other men in prison.

I know that I feel 100% heterosexual. I am wildly attracted to women (one in particular) and have never once had any erotic thought, desire, or dream of a man. So I would assume that genetically I am heterosexual, but I have also been raised in a society and culture where it was very clear during my sexual development that I should be staring at, touching, and whistling at women, but never men. If it were the other way around, I can’t say with any certainty I wouldn’t also have relations with men. Reading Beat literature of the 1950′s is interesting because they formed a small community where sexual definitions were questioned. And you end up having someone who seems the quintessential heterosexual American male – Jack Kerouac – having sexual relations with both men and women.

In terms of my debate with HP, however, what is most important to keep in mind is that whether our sexual preference/orientation is biologically determined or socially constructed, no one should be negated the 1,049 benefits of marriage either way. I will answer his own arguments (which I realize I don’t even bring up here) one by one as a comment on his post, but what I’d like to see discussed on this post are reactions, ideas, comments, and violent dissent about how our sexual orientation and/or preference is formed. If there is new or different research or theory out there, please bring it up. Let’s help enlighten each other on a topic that doesn’t get dissected enough – whether it be because of political correctness or lethargy or just apathy.

Finally, as a progressive, I’ve got to say this feels like a hopeful and optimistic time to be writing this post. If our great-great-great-grandchildren do in fact read our blogs 150 years down the road I hope they will look back at the discussions taking place today in Massachusetts, South Africa, D.C., Spain, and Holland and see that they mark the long overdue change of tide when humans started accepting humans as humans. Have at it.

It’s been a long time coming: my response to the HP’s second argument in our series of blogger debates. For those of you new to the blog, the blogger debates between Hispanic Pundit and I evolved out of last year’s election. While I saw many progressives talking of either migrating north or “strengthening the base,” there seemed to be very little effort of reaching across the aisle to understand the other side.

I can’t say we’ve been successful in staying away from those sorts of generalizations, but I do believe we have so far done in important service (at least to ourselves) in better understanding positions we disagree with and the roots of those positions. If you are interested in reading the debate HP and I already had over abortion you can read both his side and my own. (comment on those posts are still open)

When introducing his argument on why unborn fetuses deserve the same legal protection as born babies, HP brought up the civil rights movement and extending legal protection to those previously thought unfit. In fact, I will go a step further and say previously thought biologically unfit. That is, it was assumed a black man or woman was not deserving of the same legal protection and “privileges” of a white man or woman because they were biologically inferior. Studies of IQ, cranium size, and other “genetic” tests were compiled as evidence. Likewise, an important cornerstone of the pro-choice movement is that fetuses (especially first and second trimester) are biologically inferior to their born counterparts. Here it is consciousness and perception of pain which seem to be most important.

So it seemed only natural to extend this same line of thinking to protest the discrimination of homosexuals in US legal code (which, though beyond the scope of this debate, is much more than gay marriage). But then HP made an important point which first cracked up at what I thought was his ignorance, but has since made me seriously question the foundations of our sexuality. He said that homosexuality was not a definition of someone’s biological make up – or how they are born – but rather by their behavior. Go ahead, laugh, I did too. Is this guy from the 19th century or what, I asked myself. Then, I countered his comment asking, does that mean heterosexuals are also defined only by their behavior. His reply was “sure would.”

Don’t ask me how we get into this conversation, but at one time or another, I’ve asked nearly all of my ex-girlfriends and a good number of friends if they’ve ever had an erotic dream with someone of the same sex. Almost every one of the girls admitted that yes. Not surprisingly, only one guy friend of mine admitted the same. I think I probably first got the idea of asking when I read somewhere that some psychologists actually believe that humans – as a species – are to varying degrees, bisexual.

Now let’s think about what we want out of laws. We want to be able to behave as freely and naturally as possible without causing harm to others right? We must come to a compromise. I should be able to drive as fast as I’d like on a freeway so long as it doesn’t put others in danger. So in California we come to a compromise around 70 mph and in Utah around 55. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how two men or two women married and raising a family could possibly cause harm to others. Perhaps you may be bothered by homosexuality, but certainly not harmed.

In terms of the debate, my position doesn’t change whether you believe homosexuality is biologically determined or a psychological choice: your either discriminating against someone’s DNA or their behavior. Neither one is something that should be practiced in America or any other country. HP asks, why extend the meaning of a tradition that has endured millenia. I ask, why wouldn’t you? That much seems simple enough. But what I really hope to get out of this conversation (and I hope everyone comments uninhibitedly and respectfully) is what you believe the nature of homosexuality is? And for that matter, what the nature of heterosexuality is?

Blog buddy Myke seems to agree with HP’s definition of homosexuality – in other words, if you do, you are:

Have you ever noticed there are degrees of gayness? I don’t mean like you can be say 70% homosexual and 30% heterosexual or vice versa or anything like that. To me, you’re either gay or you’re not. It’s simple, if you’d sleep with men, you’re gay. If you adamantly wouldn’t, you’re not. Plain and simple. That’s not to say that even if you are gay, you wouldn’t ever sleep with a woman, either. Some would. Some very much do. However, I do firmly believe that a heterosexual man would simply NOT sleep with another man, period. Simple distinction.

Up until 1973 homosexuality was seen – according to the APA – as a psychiatric disorder which should be treated. Then:

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after intense debate. They stated that homosexuality “does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder.” Effectively, this saw its official acceptance as a viable sexual orientation and saw the increase in gay liberation throughout the Western world.

Many other associations across the world followed suit soon after. The American Psychoanalytic Association made similar steps and began accepting openly homosexual men and women. However, it wasn’t until 1992 that the World Health Organization ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, followed by the UK Government in 1994, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association in 2001.¹

As Steven Kotler points out, there are generally two foundations to the idea that homosexuality is abnormal while heterosexuality is normal:

The first came from the Bible. The King James Version of Leviticus 18:22 is quite clear: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: It is abomination.”

Darwin, whose theory of evolution says that all life originated from a common ancestor, made the other frequently cited argument against homosexuality. The reason the tree of life is so varied is because reproduction is an inexact process. Mutations arise that either help or hinder existence. Helpful ones create new lineages; harmful ones die off.

While I can’t argue with the first, many studies have been done in response to Darwin’s assertion that homosexuality is an “abberation.”

From plasticbag.org:

Author Bruce Bahemihl, in his book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and natural diversity, has cataloged over 200 vertebrate species in which same-sex genital contact regularly occurs. In some species, homosexuality is not very common – around 1 to 10 per cent of all mating. In others, such a bonobos, homosexual mating occurs as often as heterosexual mating. In some species only males participate, in others only females, in still others both sexes.

In humans, moreover, homosexuality is much too common for it to be considered a genetic aberration.

According to this website:

43% of Americans believe that ‘young homosexuals became that way because of older homosexuals’

But as J.M. Bailey pointed out as early as 1992:

No one has ever found a postnatal social environmental influence for homosexual orientation – and they have looked plenty’

There seems to be plenty of evidence to support the theory that our sexual orientation and/or preference is genetically determined:

One of the most frequently cited studies of homosexuality was that of Kallmann in 1952. He reported a one hundred percent concordance in identical twins for homosexuality, and only twelve percent concordance in fraternal twins.

Furthermore, sexual orientation in fruit flies has been changed by replacing a single gene. (Zhang SD. Odenwald WF. Misexpression of the white (w) gene triggers male-male courtship in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-9, 1995 Jun 6)

And in the most thorough collection of research revealing the genetic correlation with sexual orientation, Dean Hamer found that the DNA marker Xq28 on the X chromosome is more prevalent in homosexuals than heterosexuals. (Hu S. Pattatucci AM. Patterson C. Li L. Fulker DW. Cherny SS. Kruglyak L. Hamer DH. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics. 11(3):248-56, 1995 Nov.; Hamer, D.H.. S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science 261(1993): 321-27.)

Not surprisingly, as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality is quick to point out, there is more at hand than one’s DNA. If I were to have sex with a guy … let’s say, just for experimentation … then according to both HP and Myke, I should be considered gay because of my action. Even if I will never, my entire life, have sex or even thoughts of sex again with a man. Furthermore, where do bisexuals fit in?

Taking all of the science into account, it is tempting to conclude – as this undergraduate student did in 1994 – that our sexual orientation and/or preference is 50% genetic and 50% constructed. This makes sense to me and would explain why many men consider themselves straight and even remain married to their wives while having sex with other men. The same, of course, is also true with women. It would also explain why some groups claim success in “curing” homosexuality and why many straight men have sex with other men in prison.

I know that I feel 100% heterosexual. I am wildly attracted to women (one in particular) and have never once had any erotic thought, desire, or dream of a man. So I would assume that genetically I am heterosexual, but I have also been raised in a society and culture where it was very clear during my sexual development that I should be staring at, touching, and whistling at women, but never men. If it were the other way around, I can’t say with any certainty I wouldn’t also have relations with men. Reading Beat literature of the 1950′s is interesting because they formed a small community where sexual definitions were questioned. And you end up having someone who seems the quintessential heterosexual American male – Jack Kerouac – having sexual relations with both men and women.

In terms of my debate with HP, however, what is most important to keep in mind is that whether our sexual preference/orientation is biologically determined or socially constructed, no one should be negated the 1,049 benefits of marriage either way. I will answer his own arguments (which I realize I don’t even bring up here) one by one as a comment on his post, but what I’d like to see discussed on this post are reactions, ideas, comments, and violent dissent about how our sexual orientation and/or preference is formed. If there is new or different research or theory out there, please bring it up. Let’s help enlighten each other on a topic that doesn’t get dissected enough – whether it be because of political correctness or lethargy or just apathy.

Finally, as a progressive, I’ve got to say this feels like a hopeful and optimistic time to be writing this post. If our great-great-great-grandchildren do in fact read our blogs 150 years down the road I hope they will look back at the discussions taking place today in Massachusetts, South Africa, D.C., Spain, and Holland and see that they mark the long overdue change of tide when humans started accepting humans as humans. Have at it.

Why I Am Against Gay Marriage

Lets start off with some history of the non-religious reasons marriage is in government in the first place.

Because the union of man and woman tends to produce offspring, and human offspring require a high level of nurture for a long period of time, and a stable household with a father and mother provides for that need better than other arrangements. Children raised in this way tend, on average, to be better cared for, and thus tend to be physically and emotionally healthier. They tend to be more productive and better educated than children raised in other ways. Furthemore, they are less likely to become dependents of the state, or delinquents and criminals, etc.

Society thus has, and has always had, a vested interest in supporting the stable union of man and woman in a way that it does not have, and has never had, a vested interest in other domestic arrangements. And that is what marriage as a basic human social phonemonon IS, and has always been. That is what the word refers to.

With that in mind…

The legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage are predicated on the historical socio-anthropological basis for marriage as a civil institution relating to the procreation and adequate nurturing and rearing of children.

Susan Shell, professor of political science at Boston College, explains it this way(the whole article is great btw),

Whatever else it may accomplish, marriage acknowledges and secures the relation between a child and a particular set of parents. Whether monogamous or polygamous, permanent or temporary, marriage never fails to address this relation — at least potentially. It establishes a legal or quasi-legal relation of parenthood that draws on, even as it enhances and modifies, the primary human experience of generation and the claims and responsibilities to which it naturally gives rise. A husband is, until otherwise proven, the acknowledged father of his wife’s offspring, with recognized rights and duties that may vary from society to society but always exist in some form. And a wife is a woman who can expect a certain specified sort of help from her husband in the raising of her offspring. 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.

Same-sex unions are inherently unable to produce children. I would say that society has no stake in supporting the stability of such arrangements and would be opposed to offering any privileges to same-sex living arrangements that happen to be conjugal over other living arrangements that happen not to be conjugal, such as two siblings of same or mixed gender living together, a parent and child, platonic roommates, etc

So to summarize, without bringing religion into this, marriage is primarily involved in government only in so far as the governments interest lies in its future citizens. Since it’s a scientific fact that only the union of man and women can inherently produce children, only that union is unique in the eyes of the government. The union of homosexual partners does not have this inherent quality, therefore does not serve the same purpose in the government’s perspective.

Let me address some common objections to this…

Gay Couples Raise Children As Well.

To that I would answer there might be a child being raised within the context of any other domestic arrangements as well, i.e., two siblings of same or mixed gender living together, a parent and child, platonic roommates, or brother and sister. We certainly aren’t going to stipulate the actual presence or absence of a child as the basis for whether or not to grant marital privileges and rights. So I see no conceivable reason to privilege gay couples above other domestic arrangements.

In addition, it is still an open debate whether or not gay couples make good parents.

People Marry For All Sorts Of Reasons, Not Necessarily To Procreate.

To that I would answer that the larger point is that if the union of man and woman were not where babies come from, and 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.

In specific cases there may be, for one reason or another, no actual possibility of offspring, or very little possibility of offspring, or no intention of producing offspring, etc., but it is not society’s job to make such distinctions or to inquire into the likelihood, ability, and interest of this man and this woman in reproduction.

This is completely different from the case of two individuals of the same sex, which is inherently not where babies come from.

How Does Gay Marriage Undermine Traditional Marriage By Being Included In The Marriage Act?

To that I would respond that traditional marriage would be undermined because society supports marriage as an investment, with a cost. By privileging married couples in certain legal and financial ways in order to support their stable union and potentially benefit any offspring that may result, society makes an investment in us as a couple, with the understanding that we are participating in an institution that exists for the good of society through the engendering and long-term nurture of children.

By definition, two gay men down the street cannot participate in the reality of that institution. However, it is true that society can privilege them in the same way as it does us.

However, this benefit to them will come at an additional cost to society, and by substantially expanding the pool of living arrangements considered as “marriage,” society will have fewer resources to benefit each family individually.

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.

Sociologically, too, civil acceptance of gay unions probably has deleterious consequences for marriage and family. Legal recognition of gay “marriage” further erodes the connection between marriage and child-rearing, thus creating less impetus for heterosexual couples to marry simply because they want to live together and possibly to procreate. This will lead to children being raised by couples who never bothered to marry, which will lead to more separations and more harm to the children.

I feel that that the case I have presented is in itself sufficient to deny gay marriage. However, I’d like to offer up other arguments that I think add to the case against gay marriage. They are not necessary, but I consider them worth mentioning.

• Religious freedom

Given the strong emotional element of this issue, and the ignorance of the public at large, there is a strong likelihood that those opposed to gay marriage will be seen as bigots or something on the order of ‘racist’. Therefore, granting marriage to gays only increases that belief and may eventually start to threaten religious freedom.

Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law At Harvard University, writes,

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

• Cost

Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law At Harvard University, writes,

The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

• Negative effects on society, and more importantly, children

There is significant amount of evidence that suggests granting gay marriage will further blur the line between marriage and non-marriage, thereby increasing out-of-wedlock births. Which is a less than ideal living environment for children.

Stanley Kurtz, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, writes,

Today, marriage is in trouble in the Netherlands. In the mid-1990s, out-of-wedlock births, already rising, began a steeper increase, nearly doubling to 31 percent of births in 2003. These were the very years when the debate over the legal recognition of gay relationships came to the fore in the Netherlands, culminating in the legalization of full same-sex marriage in 2000. The conjunction is no coincidence.

A careful look at the decade-long campaign for same-sex marriage in the Netherlands shows that one of its principal themes was the effort to dislodge the conviction that parenthood and marriage are intrinsically linked. Even as proponents of gay marriage argued vigorously–and ultimately successfully–that marriage should be just one of many relationship options, fewer Dutch parents were choosing marriage over cohabitation. No longer a marked exception on the European scene, the Dutch are now traveling down the Scandinavian path.

Before we get into a long discussion of the merits of the above case I want to point out that it is not necessary to prove conclusively the negative effects on society, my point here is to show that there is atleast a risk involved.

Often at this stage in the discussion someone will bring up the economic consequences of two homosexuals who are not allowed to marry. What about hospital visitations, what about insurance rights, what about inheritence rights?

To that I would respond that I am not against civil unions per se, but against civil unions that are specific to homosexuals. There are many forms of unions that would also need these same benefits, and any civil union plan should include them as well. Widowed sisters living together and looking after each other, or an unmarried adult son taking care of his elderly father, may have the need for domestic partner benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and insurance rights as well.

Robert P. George, Professor Of Law at Princeton University, explains it this way,

It is important to protect the substance of marriage, but a sound amendment need not, however, forbid states from enacting certain forms of domestic partnership. It need only ensure that laws do not treat nonmarital sexual relationships as if they were marital by making such relationships the basis for allocating benefits. An amendment protecting the substance of marriage would ensure that neither the federal government nor the states may predicate benefits, privileges, rights or immunities on the existence, recognition or presumption of nonmarital sexual relationships.

In other words, domestic partnerships, if states elect to have them, should be nondiscriminatory and inclusive. They should be available to people based on needs, not on sex. The law certainly should not discriminate in favor of those unmarried people who are in sexual relationships over those with the same needs who, though committed to caring for each other, are not sexual partners. Widowed sisters living together and looking after each other, or an unmarried adult son taking care of his elderly father, may have the need for domestic partner benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and insurance rights.

A constitutionally sound domestic partnership law would not discriminate against such people by excluding them from eligibility simply because their relationships are not sexual–just as a nondiscriminatory and inclusive law would not undermine marriage by treating unmarried sexual partners as if they were married.

Susan Shell, professor of political science at Boston College, writes,

Most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement could be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage. Many sorts of individuals, and not just gay couples, might be allowed to form “civil partnerships” dedicated to securing mutual support and other social advantages. If two unmarried, elderly sisters wished to form such a partnership, or two or more friends (regardless of sexual intimacy) wanted to provide mutually for one another “in sickness and in health,” society might furnish them a variety of ways of doing so — from enhanced civil contracts to expanded “defined benefit” insurance plans, to new ways of dealing with inheritance. In short, gay couples and those who are not sexually intimate should be permitted to take legally supported vows of mutual loyalty and support. Such partnerships would differ from marriage in that only marriage automatically entails joint parental responsibility for any children generated by the woman, until and unless the paternity of another man is positively established. (emphasis added)

So to summarize, I see several negative reasons to legalize gay marriage and see no positive reason given for allowing gay marriage, short of the religious. Reasons I have heard often emphasize the love homosexuals have for each other, or the life long commitments they all would like to make to each other, each of which I don’t doubt to be true. But from the governments perspective, these are no reasons at all. The government shouldn’t be in the business of handing out certificates of love orr certificates of life-long commitment. A Mormon for example, could argue for his ability to marry several different wives for the very same reason the gay marriage proponents do, yet I am against legalized polygamy as well. Which brings up the obvious question, if gay marriage is allowed, why not polygamy? It seems to me that polygamists have a stronger case to marry than homosexuals, since polygamists can produce children. I see no reason to allow gay marriage while denying the same to polygamists.

So in other words, the costs of legalizing gay marriage overwhelming outweight the benefits.

*For a more detailed critique of gay marriage based on liberal principles, read this well written article.

**For the record, I took bits and pieces of my argument from several sources and where I found the argument presented better than I could have, I used their wording sometimes verbatum. So I am in no way claiming that this is my argument against gay marriage. It is only the argument presented by others that I found most convincing.

Why I Am Against Gay Marriage

Lets start off with some history of the non-religious reasons marriage is in government in the first place.

Because the union of man and woman tends to produce offspring, and human offspring require a high level of nurture for a long period of time, and a stable household with a father and mother provides for that need better than other arrangements. Children raised in this way tend, on average, to be better cared for, and thus tend to be physically and emotionally healthier. They tend to be more productive and better educated than children raised in other ways. Furthemore, they are less likely to become dependents of the state, or delinquents and criminals, etc.

Society thus has, and has always had, a vested interest in supporting the stable union of man and woman in a way that it does not have, and has never had, a vested interest in other domestic arrangements. And that is what marriage as a basic human social phonemonon IS, and has always been. That is what the word refers to.

With that in mind…

The legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage are predicated on the historical socio-anthropological basis for marriage as a civil institution relating to the procreation and adequate nurturing and rearing of children.

Susan Shell, professor of political science at Boston College, explains it this way(the whole article is great btw),

Whatever else it may accomplish, marriage acknowledges and secures the relation between a child and a particular set of parents. Whether monogamous or polygamous, permanent or temporary, marriage never fails to address this relation — at least potentially. It establishes a legal or quasi-legal relation of parenthood that draws on, even as it enhances and modifies, the primary human experience of generation and the claims and responsibilities to which it naturally gives rise. A husband is, until otherwise proven, the acknowledged father of his wife’s offspring, with recognized rights and duties that may vary from society to society but always exist in some form. And a wife is a woman who can expect a certain specified sort of help from her husband in the raising of her offspring. 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.

Same-sex unions are inherently unable to produce children. I would say that society has no stake in supporting the stability of such arrangements and would be opposed to offering any privileges to same-sex living arrangements that happen to be conjugal over other living arrangements that happen not to be conjugal, such as two siblings of same or mixed gender living together, a parent and child, platonic roommates, etc

So to summarize, without bringing religion into this, marriage is primarily involved in government only in so far as the governments interest lies in its future citizens. Since it’s a scientific fact that only the union of man and women can inherently produce children, only that union is unique in the eyes of the government. The union of homosexual partners does not have this inherent quality, therefore does not serve the same purpose in the government’s perspective.

Let me address some common objections to this…

Gay Couples Raise Children As Well.

To that I would answer there might be a child being raised within the context of any other domestic arrangements as well, i.e., two siblings of same or mixed gender living together, a parent and child, platonic roommates, or brother and sister. We certainly aren’t going to stipulate the actual presence or absence of a child as the basis for whether or not to grant marital privileges and rights. So I see no conceivable reason to privilege gay couples above other domestic arrangements.

In addition, it is still an open debate whether or not gay couples make good parents.

People Marry For All Sorts Of Reasons, Not Necessarily To Procreate.

To that I would answer that the larger point is that if the union of man and woman were not where babies come from, and 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.

In specific cases there may be, for one reason or another, no actual possibility of offspring, or very little possibility of offspring, or no intention of producing offspring, etc., but it is not society’s job to make such distinctions or to inquire into the likelihood, ability, and interest of this man and this woman in reproduction.

This is completely different from the case of two individuals of the same sex, which is inherently not where babies come from.

How Does Gay Marriage Undermine Traditional Marriage By Being Included In The Marriage Act?

To that I would respond that traditional marriage would be undermined because society supports marriage as an investment, with a cost. By privileging married couples in certain legal and financial ways in order to support their stable union and potentially benefit any offspring that may result, society makes an investment in us as a couple, with the understanding that we are participating in an institution that exists for the good of society through the engendering and long-term nurture of children.

By definition, two gay men down the street cannot participate in the reality of that institution. However, it is true that society can privilege them in the same way as it does us.

However, this benefit to them will come at an additional cost to society, and by substantially expanding the pool of living arrangements considered as “marriage,” society will have fewer resources to benefit each family individually.

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.

Sociologically, too, civil acceptance of gay unions probably has deleterious consequences for marriage and family. Legal recognition of gay “marriage” further erodes the connection between marriage and child-rearing, thus creating less impetus for heterosexual couples to marry simply because they want to live together and possibly to procreate. This will lead to children being raised by couples who never bothered to marry, which will lead to more separations and more harm to the children.

I feel that that the case I have presented is in itself sufficient to deny gay marriage. However, I’d like to offer up other arguments that I think add to the case against gay marriage. They are not necessary, but I consider them worth mentioning.

• Religious freedom

Given the strong emotional element of this issue, and the ignorance of the public at large, there is a strong likelihood that those opposed to gay marriage will be seen as bigots or something on the order of ‘racist’. Therefore, granting marriage to gays only increases that belief and may eventually start to threaten religious freedom.

Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law At Harvard University, writes,

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don’t go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

• Cost

Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law At Harvard University, writes,

The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

• Negative effects on society, and more importantly, children

There is significant amount of evidence that suggests granting gay marriage will further blur the line between marriage and non-marriage, thereby increasing out-of-wedlock births. Which is a less than ideal living environment for children.

Stanley Kurtz, research fellow at the Hoover Institution, writes,

Today, marriage is in trouble in the Netherlands. In the mid-1990s, out-of-wedlock births, already rising, began a steeper increase, nearly doubling to 31 percent of births in 2003. These were the very years when the debate over the legal recognition of gay relationships came to the fore in the Netherlands, culminating in the legalization of full same-sex marriage in 2000. The conjunction is no coincidence.

A careful look at the decade-long campaign for same-sex marriage in the Netherlands shows that one of its principal themes was the effort to dislodge the conviction that parenthood and marriage are intrinsically linked. Even as proponents of gay marriage argued vigorously–and ultimately successfully–that marriage should be just one of many relationship options, fewer Dutch parents were choosing marriage over cohabitation. No longer a marked exception on the European scene, the Dutch are now traveling down the Scandinavian path.

Before we get into a long discussion of the merits of the above case I want to point out that it is not necessary to prove conclusively the negative effects on society, my point here is to show that there is atleast a risk involved.

Often at this stage in the discussion someone will bring up the economic consequences of two homosexuals who are not allowed to marry. What about hospital visitations, what about insurance rights, what about inheritence rights?

To that I would respond that I am not against civil unions per se, but against civil unions that are specific to homosexuals. There are many forms of unions that would also need these same benefits, and any civil union plan should include them as well. Widowed sisters living together and looking after each other, or an unmarried adult son taking care of his elderly father, may have the need for domestic partner benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and insurance rights as well.

Robert P. George, Professor Of Law at Princeton University, explains it this way,

It is important to protect the substance of marriage, but a sound amendment need not, however, forbid states from enacting certain forms of domestic partnership. It need only ensure that laws do not treat nonmarital sexual relationships as if they were marital by making such relationships the basis for allocating benefits. An amendment protecting the substance of marriage would ensure that neither the federal government nor the states may predicate benefits, privileges, rights or immunities on the existence, recognition or presumption of nonmarital sexual relationships.

In other words, domestic partnerships, if states elect to have them, should be nondiscriminatory and inclusive. They should be available to people based on needs, not on sex. The law certainly should not discriminate in favor of those unmarried people who are in sexual relationships over those with the same needs who, though committed to caring for each other, are not sexual partners. Widowed sisters living together and looking after each other, or an unmarried adult son taking care of his elderly father, may have the need for domestic partner benefits such as hospital visitation privileges and insurance rights.

A constitutionally sound domestic partnership law would not discriminate against such people by excluding them from eligibility simply because their relationships are not sexual–just as a nondiscriminatory and inclusive law would not undermine marriage by treating unmarried sexual partners as if they were married.

Susan Shell, professor of political science at Boston College, writes,

Most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement could be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage. Many sorts of individuals, and not just gay couples, might be allowed to form “civil partnerships” dedicated to securing mutual support and other social advantages. If two unmarried, elderly sisters wished to form such a partnership, or two or more friends (regardless of sexual intimacy) wanted to provide mutually for one another “in sickness and in health,” society might furnish them a variety of ways of doing so — from enhanced civil contracts to expanded “defined benefit” insurance plans, to new ways of dealing with inheritance. In short, gay couples and those who are not sexually intimate should be permitted to take legally supported vows of mutual loyalty and support. Such partnerships would differ from marriage in that only marriage automatically entails joint parental responsibility for any children generated by the woman, until and unless the paternity of another man is positively established. (emphasis added)

So to summarize, I see several negative reasons to legalize gay marriage and see no positive reason given for allowing gay marriage, short of the religious. Reasons I have heard often emphasize the love homosexuals have for each other, or the life long commitments they all would like to make to each other, each of which I don’t doubt to be true. But from the governments perspective, these are no reasons at all. The government shouldn’t be in the business of handing out certificates of love orr certificates of life-long commitment. A Mormon for example, could argue for his ability to marry several different wives for the very same reason the gay marriage proponents do, yet I am against legalized polygamy as well. Which brings up the obvious question, if gay marriage is allowed, why not polygamy? It seems to me that polygamists have a stronger case to marry than homosexuals, since polygamists can produce children. I see no reason to allow gay marriage while denying the same to polygamists.

So in other words, the costs of legalizing gay marriage overwhelming outweight the benefits.

*For a more detailed critique of gay marriage based on liberal principles, read this well written article.

**For the record, I took bits and pieces of my argument from several sources and where I found the argument presented better than I could have, I used their wording sometimes verbatum. So I am in no way claiming that this is my argument against gay marriage. It is only the argument presented by others that I found most convincing.

First, I have a problem with Alan Keyes’ analogy between abortion and slavery. That analogy equates yet to be developed fetuses with fully developed Africans and African-Americans. It argues that a collection of dividing cells (see picture¹) deserves the same rights and protection as fully grown adults.

In fairness, as HP points out, Susanne’s analogy between a fetus and an adult with “no brain activity” is also flawed. A fetus has the potential to become a living human being while a comatose adult does not.

My earlier three arguments for choice all relied on the assumption that a fetus is not a human being and does not deserve the same protection as a new born baby. But then I realized I needed to draw a line marking where life starts and when it should be protected. And as Peter Singer and HP point out, what’s the difference between a prematurely born baby and a yet to be born fetus?

Finally something clicked and I felt like I was able to see the abortion debate for what it is. I believe that each camp (pro-choice and pro-life) has its own guiding moral principle. Those in the pro-choice camp seek to diminish suffering as much as possible. Those in the pro-life camp seek to protect each individual life.

Pro-choicers realize that an unwanted pregnancy could cause suffering for the mother, father, the child, society, and the environment. They also understand having an abortion can cause suffering for the mother and father, but they don’t believe (and science supports this), that it causes suffering to the fetus (at least, not in the first two trimesters). In the end, they believe it is up to the individual to choose whichever decision would cause less suffering. This argument also applies to brain dead adults (to end suffering versus protecting life) and to Keyes’ slavery analogy. That is, slavery was abolished to end suffering; not because one day the world realized that Blacks were now part of the human species.

Pro-lifers are guided by a different moral principle and that is the protection of life. The absolute protection of each individual life trumps the suffering it might cause. Obviously, forcing a 13-year-old girl who was raped by her father to go ahead and have the child causes much more suffering than aborting the fetus would. But it is in order to protect the developing human being which has already been created, no matter what the circumstances.

Once I understood the two guiding moral objectives of each side, I realized – at a philosophical level – that neither one was more “right.” Instead they are just different. Do we want to diminish personal, subjective suffering or do we want to enforce societal, objective protection of life.

It’s a personal decision and something that should be kept in mind when you vote. In the end, I agree with HispanicPundit in that we should do whatever the majority of our democracy wants. I will always vote and advocate free choice because I personally believe diminishing suffering is more important than protecting life. But that is a personal choice and thanks to our discussion here, I understand the other side much better.

If you disagree with me. Or if you have any thoughts at all about my take, please leave a comment. I know a lot of you are sick of discussing abortion and want to move on to the next topic. Well, we do to. But we’re going to wait just a couple days more to let people respond to both HP’s take and this post here and then we’ll move on. I think economic policy is next, then school vouchers, and then we’ll leave it open to suggestions.

First, I have a problem with Alan Keyes’ analogy between abortion and slavery. That analogy equates yet to be developed fetuses with fully developed Africans and African-Americans. It argues that a collection of dividing cells (see picture¹) deserves the same rights and protection as fully grown adults.

In fairness, as HP points out, Susanne’s analogy between a fetus and an adult with “no brain activity” is also flawed. A fetus has the potential to become a living human being while a comatose adult does not.

My earlier three arguments for choice all relied on the assumption that a fetus is not a human being and does not deserve the same protection as a new born baby. But then I realized I needed to draw a line marking where life starts and when it should be protected. And as Peter Singer and HP point out, what’s the difference between a prematurely born baby and a yet to be born fetus?

Finally something clicked and I felt like I was able to see the abortion debate for what it is. I believe that each camp (pro-choice and pro-life) has its own guiding moral principle. Those in the pro-choice camp seek to diminish suffering as much as possible. Those in the pro-life camp seek to protect each individual life.

Pro-choicers realize that an unwanted pregnancy could cause suffering for the mother, father, the child, society, and the environment. They also understand having an abortion can cause suffering for the mother and father, but they don’t believe (and science supports this), that it causes suffering to the fetus (at least, not in the first two trimesters). In the end, they believe it is up to the individual to choose whichever decision would cause less suffering. This argument also applies to brain dead adults (to end suffering versus protecting life) and to Keyes’ slavery analogy. That is, slavery was abolished to end suffering; not because one day the world realized that Blacks were now part of the human species.

Pro-lifers are guided by a different moral principle and that is the protection of life. The absolute protection of each individual life trumps the suffering it might cause. Obviously, forcing a 13-year-old girl who was raped by her father to go ahead and have the child causes much more suffering than aborting the fetus would. But it is in order to protect the developing human being which has already been created, no matter what the circumstances.

Once I understood the two guiding moral objectives of each side, I realized – at a philosophical level – that neither one was more “right.” Instead they are just different. Do we want to diminish personal, subjective suffering or do we want to enforce societal, objective protection of life.

It’s a personal decision and something that should be kept in mind when you vote. In the end, I agree with HispanicPundit in that we should do whatever the majority of our democracy wants. I will always vote and advocate free choice because I personally believe diminishing suffering is more important than protecting life. But that is a personal choice and thanks to our discussion here, I understand the other side much better.

If you disagree with me. Or if you have any thoughts at all about my take, please leave a comment. I know a lot of you are sick of discussing abortion and want to move on to the next topic. Well, we do to. But we’re going to wait just a couple days more to let people respond to both HP’s take and this post here and then we’ll move on. I think economic policy is next, then school vouchers, and then we’ll leave it open to suggestions.

He said this during his bid for President in 2000,

“You see, people wonder why it is Alan, everywhere he goes, he always brings up this issue of abortion and I never go anywhere without mentioning it. Why? Because abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required.

Slavery was what discarded and rejected and denied the fundamental principle of right and justice in America, and what was done in the name of slavery then is done for the sake of abortion now. And the paradigm of it is quite clear. What is it that is the argument made in favor of abortion? You can see it in Roe versus Wade and everything else. It’s a privacy argument, and privacy based on what? Well, this is the woman’s body and she has the right to decide what goes on with it. You start from that. And this child, this babe, this fetus in the womb, what is it? Well, it’s a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will.

We don’t recognize what that’s saying? What that’s saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother’s choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power.

Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust. And I see this all the time.

I was down in South Carolina not long ago. I was down in South Carolina not long ago and a young lady comes up to me after I had given a talk just like this, and she says “I was listening to your speech and I want to know how come you can prefer the rights of potential persons to those of actual persons.” I’ll never forget that moment because she was the very paradigm–if you want to think of some little slip of the thing that projected the very wonderful wholesome air of American womanhood. And she was speaking to me in what; in the chilling language of holocaust and atrocity. And she didn’t even know what she was doing. I looked at her and I said, “You know, I have a 17-year-old son. How old are you?” And she said, “Nineteen.” And I said, “You know, you make a very rash assumption in what you ask me there.” She looked me quizzically, and I said, “Because given my experience with my 17-year-old son, I have to tell you there are many days on which I am not entirely sure that people of your age are actual persons at all.” And then to drive the point home even further, I looked at her and I said, “I hope you don’t think that I will hear those words and forget that 120, 130 odd years ago Frederick Douglass had to go in front of audiences with a speech entitled “That the Negro is a Man.” To prove that he and others like me were actual persons.”

See, why do people forget this? They speak this cold-blooded language to people like myself as if we’re too stupid to remember that the day before yesterday we were not considered actual persons. And that if today we deny the principle on which we stood in order to demand respect for our humanity, if we deny it to those human beings in the womb, it will be denied once again to us and to others. Because then it just becomes a matter of who you can get on your side to draw the line between humanity and nonhumanity, personhood and nonpersonhood, and then the majority can oppress and the powerful can abuse. And those who end up on the wrong side have nothing.”

¹ I realize that Alan Keyes is closely associated with the religious wing of the Republican party. However, even though he himself may be associated with that side, I take his quote to stand alone for its arguments, and is not meant to be seen as a religious argument against abortion. Since I strongly believe that abortion is not a religious issue.

He said this during his bid for President in 2000,

“You see, people wonder why it is Alan, everywhere he goes, he always brings up this issue of abortion and I never go anywhere without mentioning it. Why? Because abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century, and if anyone of conscience went anywhere in the 19th Century and did not confront the American people with the evil of slavery, then they were not doing what statesmanship required.

Slavery was what discarded and rejected and denied the fundamental principle of right and justice in America, and what was done in the name of slavery then is done for the sake of abortion now. And the paradigm of it is quite clear. What is it that is the argument made in favor of abortion? You can see it in Roe versus Wade and everything else. It’s a privacy argument, and privacy based on what? Well, this is the woman’s body and she has the right to decide what goes on with it. You start from that. And this child, this babe, this fetus in the womb, what is it? Well, it’s a part of her body utterly dependent on her body, not viable apart from her body. She has, therefore, absolute power over this being, and given that absolute power she has the absolute right to dispose of it according to her will.

We don’t recognize what that’s saying? What that’s saying is that power makes for right. Might makes for right. If I have you in my power, I may dispose of you and your life according to my will. And if that argument is now accepted, and we have embraced it as a fundamental principle of law, then we have rejected the right principle. For if our right, our most basic and conditional right, the right to life itself comes to us not from God but from our mother’s choice, then there is no human right that transcends in its claim, human choice and human power.

Abortion is the paradigm, the ultimate paradigm of despotism, tyranny, oppression, slavery, holocaust. And I see this all the time.

I was down in South Carolina not long ago. I was down in South Carolina not long ago and a young lady comes up to me after I had given a talk just like this, and she says “I was listening to your speech and I want to know how come you can prefer the rights of potential persons to those of actual persons.” I’ll never forget that moment because she was the very paradigm–if you want to think of some little slip of the thing that projected the very wonderful wholesome air of American womanhood. And she was speaking to me in what; in the chilling language of holocaust and atrocity. And she didn’t even know what she was doing. I looked at her and I said, “You know, I have a 17-year-old son. How old are you?” And she said, “Nineteen.” And I said, “You know, you make a very rash assumption in what you ask me there.” She looked me quizzically, and I said, “Because given my experience with my 17-year-old son, I have to tell you there are many days on which I am not entirely sure that people of your age are actual persons at all.” And then to drive the point home even further, I looked at her and I said, “I hope you don’t think that I will hear those words and forget that 120, 130 odd years ago Frederick Douglass had to go in front of audiences with a speech entitled “That the Negro is a Man.” To prove that he and others like me were actual persons.”

See, why do people forget this? They speak this cold-blooded language to people like myself as if we’re too stupid to remember that the day before yesterday we were not considered actual persons. And that if today we deny the principle on which we stood in order to demand respect for our humanity, if we deny it to those human beings in the womb, it will be denied once again to us and to others. Because then it just becomes a matter of who you can get on your side to draw the line between humanity and nonhumanity, personhood and nonpersonhood, and then the majority can oppress and the powerful can abuse. And those who end up on the wrong side have nothing.”

¹ I realize that Alan Keyes is closely associated with the religious wing of the Republican party. However, even though he himself may be associated with that side, I take his quote to stand alone for its arguments, and is not meant to be seen as a religious argument against abortion. Since I strongly believe that abortion is not a religious issue.

The fact is, the California constitution is written, approved, and amended by elected representatives. It’s a much more democratic process than on the federal level and it should be up to state representatives rather than individual judges to write state law. As overpundit, points out, illegally granting same sex marriage licenses is from a legal perspective no different than Alabama justice, Roy Moore’s putting up the Ten Commandments monument despite state protests.

(Here comes a huge contradiction) So … while I don’t agree with San Francisco ‘s decision to skirt around the law, I give them huge props for doing just that. They (I think knowingly) managed to create the media circus that tells society how to think and how to vote once something gets on the ballot. Unfortunately though, the media has become exponentially more conservative in recent years and I am way curious to see how this whole thing will play out.

I read a few days back that one of the first gay couples to be granted with a marriage license was a couple of 80 year old lesbian activists who had been partners for more than forty years. If nothing else, thank god that have been legally (or quasi-legally) recognized as a married couple.

California and Massachusetts … it’s too bad we’re at opposite ends of the country and too bad we’re so far ahead of the rest of the country. I hope they catch up soon. And I hope that California stops sliding down to conservativism.

Last night Mario and Jessica invited us over for some of Mario’s famous mole (actually his abuelita’s recipe.) It was good to catch up. Laura and I had seen Mario in Queretaro in December, but it had been more than two months since I had seen Jessica and probably more than two years since I had seen her family. I have to give them a hand – Mario and Jessica always have the international crowd at their place: Mario and Laura from Mexico , Jess and I from San Diego, Yuri and Etsuko from Japan, and Juan from Bogota , Colombia . I was in charge of the margaritas and Mario more than came through with the mole, rice, and salad. As soon as he emails me with the recipe (15 ingredients) I’ll put it up on the blog.

I put a translator up on most pages of the site. I’m still stumped on how to translate the forum and I still have to finish up the Mexico part of the travel section, but my goal is to finish by next Friday and then finally email it out to everyone. Usually, I come up with some kinda project like this, it turns out to be nothing like what I had envisioned and I give up. With this website though, the more I do, the more ambitious I get. I really want to make this thing work. I’m stoked that the translator works in six languages … thanks to colonialism that covers quite a few countries and a lot of potential friends/contributors. I want this site to be grassroots (but not hippie) and completely non-corporate. Like what the internet is supposed to be like – free networking around the world and without advertisements.

I’m trying to come up with a logo idea … something having to do with a bear. If anyone has any ideas, leave a comment or email me. I’m going to print out business cards and stickers with the logo and website address and pass them out/ put them up all over the place while traveling. I hope you guys support this and help make it work. My first priority is to get the forum filled up. In the next few days I’ll hopefully be filling it up with ideas, projects, and some of my favorite places I’ve come across on my travels. If anything sparks your interest, please post something so others won’t be timid when they come to the site for the first time.