As part of an interesting exchange with Deroy Murdock, who wonders why social conservatives fuss so much more about gay marriage than about websites that openly facilitate adultery, Maggie Gallagher sez:
...in the last five years, unmarried childearing has resumed its inexorable rise. 38 percent of all babies are born out of wedlock, which implies probably more than half of women who become mothers for the first time do so while not married. Is it mere coincidence that this resurgence in illegitimacy happened during the five years in which gay marriage has become (not thanks to me or my choice) the most prominent marriage issue in America - and the one marriage idea endorsed by the tastemakers to the young in particular?
From the National Marriage Project's latest (February 2009) "State of Our Unions" report, here's the trend in out-of-wedlock childbearing, 1960-2006.
Can you spot the effect of same-sex marriage?
Incidentally, "State of Our Unions" is an invaluable annual publication, which deserves more attention. If you look through the charts linked above, you'll find a mixed picture where the health of marriage is concerned. One trend, however, stands out as really dramatic since 2000, and that's the huge rise in heterosexual cohabitation.
As Figure 13 shows, the number of unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex couples living with one or more children has increased 60 percent since 2000 (!). Also up, though only mildly, is the percentage of high-school seniors saying that having a child without being married is "experimenting with a worthwhile lifestyle or not affecting anyone else" (Figure 17).
The two best ways I can think of to encourage cohabitation's emergence as the cultural equal of marriage are to (1) tarnish marriage as discriminatory in the minds of the young, which is what excluding gay couples from marriage is doing, and (2) turn same-sex couples who have kids into walking advertisements for out-of-wedlock parenthood, which is what excluding gay parents from marriage is doing.
More... A foretaste of what will happen if marriage is defined as that form of union which excludes gays: in California, two college students are launching an initiative effort to end marriage discrimination by ending civil marriage, replacing it with civil partnerships for all couples.
52 Comments for “Do Married Gays Cause Single Moms?”
posted by alanmt on
Ms, Gallagher is not a principled analyst. Her analysis only results in conclusions which support her principles, whether ill-founded or not.
In any event, my husband and I are expecting a baby in October, but since our surrogate is married, we certainly are not contributing to the alleged trend!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
As alanmt’s note makes clear, the problem with Maggie is not so much a lack of principle as the presence of misguided principles coupled with zealotry and a lack of scruple. I have received many overtly pleasant emails from her over the years, and once was invited to become a regular contributor to her marriage debate website. I declined with the thought that, if the considerable intellectual resources of Mr. Rauch were unavailing with her, my own energies would be more usefully directed elsewhere. To be sure, one engages with anti-marriage-equality zealots like Ms. Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz not with the expectation of winning them over, but with an eye toward those among their readership who might be receptive to countervailing arguments and evidence, especially the sorts of conservatively framed arguments Jon makes in his book “Gay Marriage.”
We need to emphasize more and more the point that, to the extent that marriage has been and is being knocked off its special pedestal by domestic partnership and civil union laws, this must be laid at the doorstep of marriage-equality opponents who have given same-sex couples no legal alternative. At the bottom of all this is a resolute denial by the right wing of gay people’s legitimate existence. That denial is increasingly preposterous, and the more it persists the more the deniers will look like flat-earthers.
posted by Fitz on
It?s important to note that the widely held thesis the Mrs. Gallagher asserts has the support of multiple marriage scholars and activists. The separation of marriage from its traditional definition both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
Rather than reinforcing committed monogamy, this reinforces the idea that traditional marriage is but one valid option among many.
Original in Dutch {8/7/04 THE HAGUE–In an open letter to this newspaper, five academics raise the alarm over the deteriorating state of marriage in The Netherlands.}
http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/105038/
English Translations
http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/07/dutch-scholars-on-ssm-new-statement.htm
posted by TS on
“Rather than reinforcing committed monogamy, this reinforces the idea that traditional marriage is but one valid option among many.”
Wow, it isn’t? Between you and John Howard, this site is truly going to fascist hell.
posted by Fitz on
The preposterous title of Jonathan Rauch speaks volumes about the deceptive mindset. ?Do Married Gays Cause Single Moms?? is to intentionally invert the argument submitted. A more intellectually fair statement would be to say, calling marriages basic concept into question; reinforces the fragmentation of the family by directly implying that multiple family forms are good for society and children.
A corollary of Mr. Rauch headline were those who framed the welfare debate of the Clinton years by saying conservatives though ?Welfare causes woman to have Children? ? The more accurate statement would be ?The presence of welfare discourages women from not having children out?of?wedlock?
Consistant with these elisions are Richard J. Rosendall comment
We need to emphasize more and more the point that, to the extent that marriage has been and is being knocked off its special pedestal by domestic partnership and civil union laws, this must be laid at the doorstep of marriage-equality opponents who have given same-sex couples no legal alternative.
The broader and fairer would not isolate the decline of marriage as starting with the gay ?marriage? debate. Rather it would look at the cultural lefts antipathy toward marriage and the multiple ways that the libertine & feminist projects have undermine family formation. It would understand that men & woman need clear standards they can relate with. That separating marriage from its biological, legal, historical and cultural heritage simply asserts its modern irrelevance.
The cry of – ?help us before we undermine marriage again? rings futile in the face of multiple legal & cultural substitutes for gay couples and the gay movements utter unwillingness to settle for anything less than full ?marriage? rights.
?At the bottom of all this is a resolute denial by the right wing of gay people’s legitimate existence. That denial is increasingly preposterous, and the more it persists the more the deniers will look like flat-earthers.?
I am aware of no marriage defender who thinks gay people do not exist. I am aware of many who don?t want to conflate gay couples with the foundational social institution of marriage. The self involvement of a small minority when confronted by an institutional norm that effects the entire populace seems like ?flat earthers? ? with purely selfish motivations.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz, marriage was already legally decoupled from reproduction before gay marriage emerged as an issue. Look at the series of privacy-based SCOTUS rulings from Griswold v. Connectict through Eisenstadt v. Baird to Roe v. Wade. Those constitutional rulings mirrored societal changes. It is both disingenuous and pointless to blame SSM advocates for changes that began long before we came along.
TS, in legal terms, prior to the passage of DP and civil union laws, marriage WAS the only legal game in town. Those of us who are focused on winning civil marriage equality are seeking just the one change of letting same-sex couples into the institution, not demanding all conceivable changes. There is no reason why marriage equality needs to be coupled with the broader and more radical “Beyond Marriage” cause. Insisting nthat the fight for gay equality be saddled with other, much less popular causes is a good way of ensuring that nothing is accomplished. Let those other causes be pursued on their own merits, separately from the effort to remove sexual orientation discrimination from our civil marriage laws. Doing so is simply practical politics, not fascist hell. It is awfully boorish to call people names merely for not embracing one’s favored agenda.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz wrote, “I am aware of no marriage defender who thinks gay people do not exist.”
I did not say the right wing denied our existence, I said they denied our *legitimate* existence. Please pay attention. Obviously they know we exist enough to fight our legal equality at every turn. My point is that they insist that we do not *legitimately* exist–that is, we are really just heterosexuals suffering from a pathology. They do not accept the legitimacy of homosexuality as a sexual orientation. They are relentless in their determination to make and keep gay couples utter strangers under the law. They claim during ballot initiative fights to be concerned only with keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual, but then use the results of such initiatives to deny any and all benefits to domestic partners.
posted by Fitz on
Richard J. Rosendall
?Fitz, marriage was already legally decoupled from reproduction before gay marriage emerged as an issue. Look at the series of privacy-based SCOTUS rulings from Griswold v. Connectict through Eisenstadt v. Baird to Roe v. Wade. Those constitutional rulings mirrored societal changes. It is both disingenuous and pointless to blame SSM advocates for changes that began long before we came along.?
Griswold v. Connecticut (interestingly enough) roots the right to contraception in the privacy of the marriage bed. Subsequent cases make decoupled marriage and procreation (as indeed mass acceptance of contraception does) This simply proves traditionalists prophecies as valid, as you must know.This in turn makes future prophecies about same-sex “marriages” effect on the institution that much more salient and believable.
Secondly and more importantly, those constitutional rulings did not so much ?mirrored societal changes? as reinforce negative trends and prevented democratic compromise. This is precisely the playbook that gay ?marriage? advocates are using today. Forcing change through the courts while claiming implausibly a societal mandate.
Thirdly it cannot be ?disingenuous and pointless to blame SSM advocates for changes that began long before we came along? when I expressly blame the broader cultural left in general in my post above. This current movement(ss”m”) is indeed part and parcel of those who want to separate marriage & procreation.
What is disingenuous is to cite those very cases that are in such heated and recognized dispute as somehow being a legitimate foundation for further innovations. The ability to drive family breakdown by a single ideological movement over a generation is exactly the broader argument you seek to avoid. The fact that these changes have been undemocratically imposed through judicial fiat neither makes them humane nor valid law.
posted by Jeff Chang on
This is the same tired old dribble Ms. Gallagher has been sprouting for years past.
As aforementioned the title already seeks to prejudice anyone reading the article before the have a chance to ACTUAL read it. (Not a surprise coming from Ms. Gallager.)
Interestingly enough this I just listened to what amounts to the same topic yesterday from the Cato Institute.
Here s the link:
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2935
Points of Interest are that in Countries with Gay Marriages/ Civil Unions the rate of Out of Wedlock births have gone down, as have single mothers.
posted by esurience on
“However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands.”
So it’s not allowing gay couples to get married that is harmful, it’s having to fight over it that causes harm. Hrmm… so for people who support marriage, wouldn’t the wise course of action be to _stop_ fighting against legally recognized same-sex marriage?
For many gay people and their straight allies, this is a civil rights cause. So we’re not going to stop fighting for it, but if the fight in itself is damaging (more so than the actual legalization of it), then that means anti-SSM types are willing to damage the institution of marriage just because of their anti-gay animus. If the fight against equality is harmful to marriage, then there can be no other motivation than anti-gay animus.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz, we all know that Roe v. Wade is controversial, but the notion that Griswold is controversial makes sense only in a universe dominated by Rick Santorum. I am sorry to break it to you, but if you regard even Griswold as an outrageous bit of judicial tyranny, you are in a very, very small minority. Insisting upon overturning not only Roe but Eisenstadt and Griswold amounts to a demand for a reversal of the legal equality of women. I will not accept the notion that the survival and well-being of our society depends upon treating women and gay people as second-class citizens. As to court rulings being un-democratic, I am sorry but you should go back to civics class. We have three branches of government in the United States, and the courts are part of that structure whether you like it or not. Pure majoritarianism, in which the majority can run roughshod over the interests of an unpopular minority, runs counter to our system of government and our history which has been one of the gradual enfranchisement of more and more people. I regard that very much as a good thing. As to the value of reproduction, there are a great many same-sex couples who are parents. Granting them equal protection of the law is in the best interests of their children. One of my favorite children is Sam, the 5-year-old son of my friends Alan and Will, whose wedding ceremony I wrote and for which I officiated in 1994. Sam is about the luckiest child alive. I defy anyone to explain in an informed and respectful way how Alan and Will’s desire for legal marriage, and their devotion to raising their son (who otherwise would have languished in an orphanage), is anything but a positive social good. To insist that, no, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, the drive for civil marriage equality is an effort to undermine marriage–that is simply pernicious. To lump such couples in with leftists who want to upend social institutions is like blaming gay servicemembers for the anti-military hostility of some gays. That is not honest. It is not true. And to persist in opposing the legal equality of gay families is doing real harm to real families.
posted by BobN on
Maggie’s always good for a chuckle. I love her line about the first 20 years of her blah, blah, blah struggle for the blah, blah, blah sanctity of marriage.
Never a mention of her intentional out-of-wedlock son.
What a gasbag.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am sorry to break it to you, but if you regard even Griswold as an outrageous bit of judicial tyranny, you are in a very, very small minority. Insisting upon overturning not only Roe but Eisenstadt and Griswold amounts to a demand for a reversal of the legal equality of women.
Fitz did not say that any of those were outrageous bits of judicial tyranny. He pointed out that the reasoning behind the first of those was that the government had no business telling married couples that they could not have access to contraception, and the reason was to respect private conduct. Unfortunately, these decisions have resulted in several negative social consequences, including increased promiscuity, abortion, and STDs at epidemic levels.
Furthermore, the legal equality of women works quite independently of contraception. You simply are trying the usual rationalization for promiscuity, abortion, and irresponsibility typical of gay leftists by insisting that anything that might in any way prevent a woman from doing exactly what she wants whenever she wants regardless of social or other consequences is somehow a denial of her “equality”. Given that men aren’t allowed to unilaterally kill their children in the same fashion that women can, it should be obvious to anyone that “equality” is among the least of the concerns of abortion supporters like yourself.
I defy anyone to explain in an informed and respectful way how Alan and Will’s desire for legal marriage, and their devotion to raising their son (who otherwise would have languished in an orphanage), is anything but a positive social good.
Here’s the problem, Rosendall.
— If Sam is truly “the luckiest child alive”, then he demonstrates quite convincingly that the child’s welfare exists quite independently of marriage.
— If Sam is somehow harmed by the fact that his adoptive parents are not married, then it should be obvious that his adoptive parents deliberately put a child into a situation that they openly admit is harmful to him.
Which is it?
We won’t even get into the irony of you trying to use a child as propaganda that, had you been advising his mother, would have ended up on the floor of an abortion clinic under the rationalization that he wasn’t really human, was “unwanted”, and would obviously lead a horrible life.
posted by esurience on
ND30,
Sam is better off with Alan and Will than at an orphanage. It’s probable that he’d be even better off if Alan and Will were allowed to be married.
Simple enough for you?
posted by Jorge on
I thought from the title of this posting it would be about Jim and Dana McGreevey.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 writes,
“If Sam is truly “the luckiest child alive”, then he demonstrates quite convincingly that the child’s welfare exists quite independently of marriage.”
There is about zero chance that you honestly took my comment literally as opposed to a bit of hyperbole. Yes, indeed, the whole family would be better off if Alan and Will could marry, but they have prepared all the legal devices available to provide them the maximum protection available, D.C. (where they live) recognizes same-sex-couple adoption, Alan and Will have highly supportive families, and they are financially secure. The latter tends to insulate people from the hazards faced by folks of average means. (BTW, can you restrain for once the compulsion to be snarky? Would it harm you to be minimally civil?)
“If Sam is somehow harmed by the fact that his adoptive parents are not married, then it should be obvious that his adoptive parents deliberately put a child into a situation that they openly admit is harmful to him.”
What a reprehensible thing to say. Gay people cannot stop living our lives because we face discrimination. Based on your logic, any oppressed minority should be blamed for their own condition, or at least for continuing to live and raise families despite the adversity. That would have monstrous implications. But Alan and Will cannot fairly be said to be bringing harm to Sam on account of the legal situation is less than optimal. They are doing everything they can for him, and in any case he is far better off than he was previously.
“We won’t even get into the irony of you trying to use a child as propaganda that, had you been advising his mother, would have ended up on the floor of an abortion clinic under the rationalization that he wasn’t really human, was ‘unwanted’, and would obviously lead a horrible life.”
But you just did get into it, obviously. First: There are few lines of argument more obnoxious than slamming people as “propagandists” or “publicity seekers” for using their real-life examples as illustration of what they are talking about. This is not propaganda, this is people’s lives we are talking about. Second: where in anything I have written did you get the idea that I am an evangelist for abortion? You can repeat endlessly the claim that being pro choice equals advocating abortion, but that will not make it so. I think that everything short of coercion should be done to minimize abortions, starting with preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But I think that, once a woman is pregnant, giving her child up for adoption is preferable to having an abortion, assuming she is not in danger of dying in childbirth. So, all other things being equal, if I were in the position of advising her I would counsel giving the child up for adoption. But it is none of my business at that personal level (as distinct from expressing my views in a wider forum), and I think that coercing a woman into having an abortion would be just as wrong as forcing her to bear a child against her will. It is a pity that some opponents of abortion rights insist on going beyond the dispute itself to slandering their opponents more generally, as with the suggestion that their love of children is any less than that of the so-called pro-lifers. There is something deeply obnoxious in the notion that my beliefs cannot be sincerely held if I do not seek to impose them on my neighbors.
posted by Fitz on
Richard J. Rosendall
?Fitz, we all know that Roe v. Wade is controversial, but the notion that Griswold is controversial makes sense only in a universe dominated by Rick Santorum. I am sorry to break it to you, but if you regard even Griswold as an outrageous bit of judicial tyranny, you are in a very, very small minority.
When I examine the ruling in Griswold; after you bring it up to justify same-sex ?marriage, I am doing so as a matter of legal thought. It is proper to say that Griswold is still controversial in legal circles as a matter of legal reasoning. Just because something is culturally accepted does not mean that it is covered in the constitution much less a matter of proscribed constitutional protection.
It was in Griswold and then Eisenstadt that the ?right to privacy? was conjured up as ?emanating from a penumbra? . Upon this chimera came the right to abortion. Upon that ? this house of cards built Lawrence.
No wonder you try and dismiss the broken foundation as solidly reasoned and valid law.
Griswold is to Roe ? What Lawrence is to Goodridge. None of this is constitutionally protected or democratically legitimate. On the contrary this goes to the heart of what is called the ?culture wars?.
To base your plea for what you consider your ?rights? not in the assent of the people, – but in widely held both popularly and legally as consistent judicial overreach exposes the very mechanism of usurpation of democracy you hope to bring to bear on your latest legal outrage.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz, climb down from your ivory tower. Do you really think that a repeal of Griswold is politically viable? And yes, I cited Griswold and Eisenstadt because I was well aware that they were precursors to Roe and Lawrence. Notwithstanding Scalia’s objection in Lawrence, I think marriage equality will require more than the privacy-based argument in Lawrence. Anyway, whether you like it or not, courts have a role in our system. Strict majoritarianism has never been the American way, bluster though you will about usurpations. Next I expect to read your rant about the interstate commerce clause.
posted by Fitz on
That?s a clever bit of obfuscations but it doesn?t answer the undemocratic character of the ideology being driven. It is not “strict majoritarianism” that elected Barack Obama. Nor was it “strict majoritarianism” that voted on and ratified the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, or 26th Amendments to the Constitution.
Neither was it the licit work of judicial interpretations that gave us the Lockner era, Dredd Scott, or Roe v Wade. You have managed to answer nothing except to say ? ?we have the power and we intend to abuse it.?
The question of the proper definition of marriage is one of public policy & is properly left to our legislative branches. As California is about to reaffirm, the people are the sovereigns of their country.
So to address the proper public policy question as outlined in the topic of this post ? ?What effect will redefining marriage have on family formation?
David Popenoe, ?Can the Nuclear Family be Revived?? Society 35, no. 5 (July ? August 1999)
One important book highlights the failure (one could say) of the our judicial branch to support & maintain basic safeguards to families and children has been only recently published.
This critique focuses on American law
The Book is: Freedom’s Orphans: Contemporary Liberalism and the Fate of American Children (New Forum Books)
by David L. Tubbs -fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, former associate editor of the American Journal of Jurisprudence and professor of politics at King’s College in New York City.
The publishers provide a sample chapter of the introduction. Available here: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8569.html
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz writes, “The question of the proper definition of marriage is one of public policy & is properly left to our legislative branches. As California is about to reaffirm, the people are the sovereigns of their country.”
No. The exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage raises questions of equal protection under the Constitution and is a proper matter for the judiciary to redress. As to the people being sovereign, will you be saying that when we eventually win a California ballot initiative? Because we will, and soon, and there will be no going back.
For a source of information related to sexual orientation and the law, see The Williams Institute.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BTW, what sense does it make to have a concept of inalienable rights if they can be removed by a simple majority vote? In its ruling last spring, the CA Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right, echoing its decision in Perez v. Sharpe 60 years before. If you are talking about one fundamental right being weighed against another, it is hard to see how popular sovereignty trumps individual liberties. This amounts to saying, you have an inalienable right to equality under the law, unless we don’t like you.
posted by Fitz on
Thanks for the link…I will look into it, but am an attorney myslef..
As to your claim “No. The exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage raises questions of equal protection under the Constitution and is a proper matter for the judiciary to redress.”
You are misreading the Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Judge Graffeo noted?.
1 – Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
posted by Adam on
Fitz,
You got the cite wrong. Its volume 36 not 35. (Sorry, law review OCD.)
David Popenoe, ?Can the Nuclear Family be Revived?? Society 36 no. 5 (1999): 28-31.
In that same issue we also find…
“Are children better or worse off if their parents have never lived together, apart from the obvious economic penalty associated with single-parenthood? Many of the unmarried mothers in the Baltimore study were aided by their own parents in raising the child. Does the presence of a stable relative substitute in any way for the absence of the biological father or mother? There is simply insufficient evidence to reach any firm conclusions; however, I would speculate that surrogate parents only compensate for missing ones when they are skilled, get along with the residential parent, and when their presence is stable and enduring.
In other words, both the parental structure (who resides with the child and how responsibilities for child care and support are shared) and parenting processes (warmth, control, autonomy) affect the course of children’s development. Yet, ideology can easily creep into the assessment of family structure and processes: we must remind ourselves that the nuclear family is not invariably a superior kinship form for raising children. The structure of the family need not necessarily consist of two biological parents so long as other surrogate parents occupy a stable presence in the child’s life, are competent care givers, are willing to invest resources in the child, and can collaborate effectively with a residential parent. Throughout the world, children are raised in varied kinship constellations. In the Western world, where nuclear arrangements have been privileged historically, variations have always existed and continue to emerge. Today, for example, a gay couple in a marriage-like relationship probably can be as effective in raising children as two biological parents; and step-parents may do as well as biological parents so long as they are able to overcome the structural conflicts and normative ambiguities associated with raising children whose emotional loyalties may be divided. Conversely, biological parents living together with their children offer no special advantage if they cannot collaborate effectively around the tasks of family life.”
Frank F Furstenberg Jr., “Is the modern family a threat to children’s health?” Society 36 no. 5 (1999): 31-37.
posted by TS on
Adam, apparently that attitude is way too “radical” for this site, which I know because I once expressed it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The latter tends to insulate people from the hazards faced by folks of average means.
Really, Richard; if you and your fellow gay leftists actually cared about “the poor” and their issues, I doubt you would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on frivolous lawsuits, political consultants, and endorsements of state and Federal marriage amendment supporters like you have.
Then again, we should always remember that “the poor” to Obama Party members are something to wax pompous about at their $5k-per-person plate dinners and cocktail parties.
What a reprehensible thing to say. Gay people cannot stop living our lives because we face discrimination. Based on your logic, any oppressed minority should be blamed for their own condition, or at least for continuing to live and raise families despite the adversity.
When gay sex naturally produces children, Rosendall, you may have a point. But right now, quite unlike other “oppressed minorities”, any children brought into a gay relationship are the result of a conscious choice on the part of said relationship members, and have nothing to do with regular or normal behavior.
It is a pity that some opponents of abortion rights insist on going beyond the dispute itself to slandering their opponents more generally, as with the suggestion that their love of children is any less than that of the so-called pro-lifers. There is something deeply obnoxious in the notion that my beliefs cannot be sincerely held if I do not seek to impose them on my neighbors.
First, that is a hilarious statement coming from the gay community, which has spent years insisting that anyone who does not support “hate crimes” statutes, workplace “discrimination” laws, and gay marriage bills supports hate crimes and workplace discrimination and opposes committed gay relationships.
Second, Richard, I don’t doubt your love for children; I’m sure you are very appreciative of them when it’s convenient for you. However, I do find it entertaining that liberals like yourself support laws like the Endangered Species Act that make it a crime to kill an animal in utero for your own convenience, but refuse to extend the same protection to human beings.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
BTW, what sense does it make to have a concept of inalienable rights if they can be removed by a simple majority vote?
Well, then, since marriage is an “inalienable right” protected by the Constitution that cannot be in any way limited or abridged by the voters, I expect to see Rosendall arguing immediately that bans on plural, child, bestial, and incestuous marriages are unconstitutional and should be removed.
Oh, that’s right; the gay community and its fellow gay marriage supporters are already doing that.
posted by esurience on
ND30 wrote, “First, that is a hilarious statement coming from the gay community”
ND30, statements that come from a gay person are not coming from the “gay community.” Your problem is that you don’t see people as individuals, you see a group of people, and you affix any flaws of individual members of that group onto all members of the group.
This is a despicable trait among bigots like yourself, which allows you to deny the individual humanity and differences among all the people that you slander.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Since ND30 shows his refusal to deal with reality by repeating his obviously false claim that I am a leftist, and since he once again blames the entire gay community for the “Beyond Marriage” manifesto that (as I only recently reminded IGF folks) I strongly criticized in an IGF-published article on the subject, he is addressing not me but some false version of me in his own mind, so I won’t bother responding to most of what he said other than to point this out and repeat one other point I have made before: the leaders of, and the vast majority of advocates of civil marriage equality seek one and only one change to the marriage laws: for same-sex couples to be included. That is all. Not plural marriage, not bestiality, not anything else. ND30 knows this, but instead of arguing honestly he looks for fringe groups whose views he tries to hang around the necks of all gay people. As I have repeatedly said, advocating for one change is NOT advocating for all conceivable changes. I seek the right to marry one person, the same right that my straight siblings and neighbors have–not multiple persons. One person. Can you get that through your head, ND30?
posted by Fitzge67@hotmail.com on
Adam
?we must remind ourselves that the nuclear family is not invariably a superior kinship form for raising children. The structure of the family need not necessarily consist of two biological parents so long as other surrogate parents occupy a stable presence in the child’s life, are competent care givers, are willing to invest resources in the child, and can collaborate effectively with a residential parent.?
You have committed what is called ?the macro to micro elision? ? so common is this obviation that it has its own cliché. The nuclear family IS the invariably superior kinship form for raising children. This has been proven again and again by social science and represents a consensus in the field.
#1. Social Science is about ?on average? ? without ?on average? you don?t have a scientific study of society, you abandon social science as a valid tool for discerning public policy.
#2. The law is about line drawing. If you abandon ?on average? as a locust of policy, you can justify privileging any number of family formations as worthy of the benefits accorded to marriage. Including polyamorist relationships, single parent families, care giving relatives, and so forth.
There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies ?- those born out of wedlock ?- to enter life disadvantaged.
posted by BobN on
Am I the only one around here who hopes ND40 falls in love with a widowed man with lots and lots of kids?
posted by Adam on
Fitz,
I have certainly not committed the the macro to micro elision. *shudder* I would never be that perverted. Your objection is with the sociologist Frank F Furstenberg, from who’s article I quoted. From Furstenberg’s article I conclude there is, in fact, no such consensus that the “nuclear family IS the invariably superior kinship form for raising children.”
I mostly agree with your final point, “that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies — those born out of wedlock — to enter life disadvantaged.” Which is why I fully support universal health care and a massive increase to social welfare spending to raise the living standards of of all those disadvantaged children.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Richard said “I seek the right to marry one person, the same right that my straight siblings and neighbors have–not multiple persons. One person. Can you get that through your head, ND30?”.
Its not a matter of getting it through his head Richard, he knows that, he’s just too dishonest to admit it. He thinks lying works, he’s a fan of the gish gallop, he figures he’ll spit out so many lies that people can’t take the time to refute them all. And while he’s right that many people tire of his childlishness he’s willfully blind to the fact that his tired schtick is well known and fools no one but the most evil of bigots.
BobN said “Am I the only one around here who hopes ND40 falls in love with a widowed man with lots and lots of kids?”.
Northdallas forty doesn’t know what love is. To him people are tools for use in his own self agrandizment, he figures if he puts someone else down that makes him better somehow. He’s not capabable of loving another because he’s driven to denigrate all people in a futile attempt to prop up his own battered ego. The more he attacks others the more he feels he’s not a worthwhile person and the more he feels he needs to attack others. He’s caught in a vicious circle he’ll never escape from. Ultimately he hates himself because he knows he’s full of anger and devoid of the capability to love others.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is a despicable trait among bigots like yourself, which allows you to deny the individual humanity and differences among all the people that you slander.
When you demonstrate individual humanity and differences, esurience, then you’ll have a point. But what is patently obvious in your statement is that, despite your professed abhorrence of plural and incestuous relationships, that you adamantly refuse to attack the gays who promote and endorse them and instead attack as “despicable” and “bigots” those like myself who point out and condemn such gays.
for the “Beyond Marriage” manifesto that (as I only recently reminded IGF folks) I strongly criticized in an IGF-published article on the subject
I quote from that “criticism”, Rosendall:
At over 3000 words, the document is far too radical, fails to focus on LGBT rights, is abysmally ill-timed, plays into the hands of the anti-gay right and reflects the old penchant of the gay left for building strategic bridges to nowhere.
In short, you criticize it for being inconvenient and poorly timed, not for being just flat-out wrong. Sort of like how ILGA’s only problem with NAMBLA was bad timing, inasmuch as ILGA had never complained about NAMBLA and their support of child molestation when they accepted and endorsed them as members.
ND30 knows this, but instead of arguing honestly he looks for fringe groups whose views he tries to hang around the necks of all gay people.
I do so love how suddenly, once he’s confronted with their support for plural marriage, Rosendall dubs the ACLU and the NGLTF, which endorsed and supported Beyond Marriage, to be “fringe groups”.
And as for Priya, yes dear, we all know what you think, and quite honestly, you do a better job than anyone here of demonstrating the mindset and emotions of, as well as what is considered acceptable behavior for, a gay person.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 once again doubles down on his vicious nonsense. He writes: “despite your professed abhorrence of plural and incestuous relationships, that you adamantly refuse to attack the gays who promote and endorse them….”
I also fail to denounce people who burn the American flag. Like that invented problem, there is no significant movement for legalizing plural marriages or incest. Yes, you can find people who advocate those things, but they do not deserve to be elevated by being taken seriously.
“In short, you criticize it for being inconvenient and poorly timed, not for being just flat-out wrong.”
How is “far too radical” anything but a substantive comment? And, of course, there is the rest of my column, which made my strong substantive disagreement with the “Beyond Marriage” signatories clear.
“Sort of like how ILGA’s only problem with NAMBLA was bad timing”
I was there, and this characterization is wrong. The debate was extensive, and was not about timing nor about merely needing to do whatever needed to be done to placate the U.S. government. It was a soul-searching discussion and resulted in a vote by 89 percent of the ILGA delegates (this was 1994) to expel the pedophile groups.
“inasmuch as ILGA had never complained about NAMBLA and their support of child molestation when they accepted and endorsed them as members.”
My first ILGA conference was in 1993, so I cannot speak to what went before, but I did note that the world conferences I attended were dominated by a leftist perspective. But at the Barcelona conference in 1993, there was already discussion about what to do about the pedophile groups. Sure, they had their defenders, including (at the 1994 conference in NYC) the ridiculously radical Harry Hay, but they were very much in the minority. But notice, fellow readers, how ND30 cannot give credit to people for doing the right thing.
Yes, there are non-fringe groups that signed the Beyond Marriage manifesto, but in doing so they were pandering to the fringe. I support my local ACLU on much of what they do, but I do not turn over my brain to anyone and I have had spirited arguments with them on occasion. I haven’t had much use for NGLTF for many years, though Matt Foreman (their former E.D.) and I were mutually amicable despite our strong disagreements. The difference between Matt and ND30 is that Matt, while I thought he was often wrong-headed, was respectful and not boorish.
posted by Rob on
Why am I not surprised that ND30 is taking the side of the virulently anty-gay Fitz without criticizing him at all? Even when he rarely criticizes social conservatives, it’s with a ludicrous empathy that is largely absent when he discusses issues within’ gay communities.
Rosendall, he just keeps repeating ad hominems and red herrings. His arguments are redudant and vaccuous. Why do you keep replying to that antigay troll?
posted by esurience on
ND30 wrote, “despite your professed abhorrence of plural and incestuous relationships, that you adamantly refuse to attack the gays who promote and endorse them and instead attack as ‘despicable’ and ‘bigots’ those like myself who point out and condemn such gays.”
I wouldn’t call you despicable or bigoted for criticizing the very small segment of people who want to legalize incestuous or plural marriages. As you mentioned I don’t support either of those things.
The problem, as I pointed out before but you intentionally didn’t respond to that part of my post, is that you malign an entire group of people who’s only crime is having the same sexual orientation as a few crackpots who advocate and practice bad behavior.
Why are you not criticizing the “heterosexual community” for the negative impact some of their activities have had on marriage? Oh, because that would be ridiculous. It’s only with minorities that this absurd guilt-by-association nonsense works.
If you want to fight against the “beyond marriage” crowd, you don’t have many people in need of conversion to your side here, so why don’t you take the fight somewhere more productive?
posted by esurience on
Priya Lynn wrote, “Northdallas forty doesn’t know what love is. To him people are tools for use in his own self agrandizment, he figures if he puts someone else down that makes him better somehow.”
Here’s my attempt to psycho-analyze ND30:
I think he adopts the same rhetoric and arguments of the anti-gay crowd in order to inoculate himself against the hurt that hearing those things would cause. If he believes the same things as they do, then they can’t really be criticizing him when they spout their anti-gay rhetoric, right?
It seems like a somewhat clever self-defense mechanism, actually. And I’m sure psychologists probably have a name for it, but I don’t know what it is.
posted by John Howard on
When gay sex naturally produces children, Rosendall, you may have a point.
NDT, why is “naturally” relevant? Or “sex”, for that matter? There are other ways to produce children besides “naturally” through sex, such as IVF and cloning and genetically engineered gametes, all currently legal (virtually nothing is banned or regulated except in some states that have prohibited cloning by various different definitions, but only Missouri appears to also prohibit genetic engineering and same-sex conception). And those are both real things that are probably going to be done if they aren’t banned, like most countries have done and the UN has resolved we must do. But we haven’t. So as long as it is legal and we’re going to allow it, what difference does it make if a same-sex couple produces their child naturally through sex or in a lab like many hetero couples do?
You can see where I’m going with this, NDT: same-sex couples should not be allowed to conceive children, whether they can or can’t. Just like siblings, that should also not be allowed to conceive children together, whether they can or can’t. Note that a brother and sister certainly can, as a general rule, produce children naturally, through sex. So your argument would seem to be that siblings have a right to get married. nuh-uh. Only couples that society approves of conceiving children together with their own genes have a right to marry (or to put it more positively, all couples except those that society doesn’t approve of conceiving together have a right to marry), and inversely, all marriages have a right to conceive together with their own genes. That last point is very important. We shouldn’t let people strip conception rights from marriage by implying that they come separately, and a couple can be married but prohibited by law from attempting to conceive children together. That is unacceptable and outrageous, it’s never been even considered in human history that a marriage might be prohibited from attempting to have children together. And now, same-sex couples should be prohibited from attempting to conceive children together. It shouldn’t be an option, it shouldn’t be taught to kids that it might someday be an option. We should preserve equality and dignity and freedom by preserving natural conception rights and stopping genetic engineering from slipping in and smothering us.
Anyone traditional marriage supporter who doesn’t also insist that same-sex couples should be prohibited from having children together should not be muddying the waters of this debate by trying to argue against same-sex marriage for any other reason. It makes no sense to argue against same-sex marriage but to feel that same-sex couples should be allowed to conceive children together. It gravely harms marriage, it doesn’t “preserve marriage” at all. It is much worse to strip marriage of conception rights by arguing as if the questions are separate, than to allow same-sex marriage or even same-sex conception.
posted by esurience on
John Howard,
What’s wrong with saying that marriage should always allow for procreation, excepting certain banned procedures? Then you’d get exactly what you want. Marriage would be legally tied to procreation, but the genetic engineering procedures you object to would be illegal.
The ethical and moral implications of genetic engineering have nothing to do with marriage — these questions can and should be decided separately.
posted by Jorge on
As alanmt’s note makes clear, the problem with Maggie is not so much a lack of principle as the presence of misguided principles coupled with zealotry and a lack of scruple. I have received many overtly pleasant emails from her over the years, and once was invited to become a regular contributor to her marriage debate website. I declined with the thought that, if the considerable intellectual resources of Mr. Rauch were unavailing with her, my own energies would be more usefully directed elsewhere. To be sure, one engages with anti-marriage-equality zealots like Ms. Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz not with the expectation of winning them over, but with an eye toward those among their readership who might be receptive to countervailing arguments and evidence, especially the sorts of conservatively framed arguments Jon makes in his book “Gay Marriage.”
We need to emphasize more and more the point that, to the extent that marriage has been and is being knocked off its special pedestal by domestic partnership and civil union laws, this must be laid at the doorstep of marriage-equality opponents who have given same-sex couples no legal alternative. At the bottom of all this is a resolute denial by the right wing of gay people’s legitimate existence. That denial is increasingly preposterous, and the more it persists the more the deniers will look like flat-earthers.
Not only that, but gay marriage opponents are themselves sabotaging the santcity and special status of marriage through their attempts to ensure gay marriages do not reach their status. How many times do we hear right-of-center people suggest that gays should be entitled to civil unions/domestic partnerships, then add that they should be extended to *all* couplings, like brother or sister or even heterosexual couples? And I do believe that all this legal wrangling, this rewriting of constitutions and all that, is getting us to place too much power with the state to define marriage, instead of encouraging people to define their marriages on their own terms.
We also have people like John Howard attempting to ruthlessly link procreation to marriage in a way that devalues the love that is the connection of both straight and gay marriages, independent of whether they have children or not.
posted by Fitz on
Adam
?Your objection is with the sociologist Frank F Furstenberg, from who’s article I quoted. From Furstenberg’s article I conclude there is, in fact, no such consensus that the “nuclear family IS the invariably superior kinship form for raising children.”
If you would read carefully that very sociologist you would see that indeed he is not disputing the consensus among social scientists on the superiority of the biological family as a normative model. He is only pointing out that competing family forms can do X or Y as good a job depending on circumstances.
If you produce a short man & a tall woman you have not negated the fact that men are on average taller than women.
posted by Fitz on
Adam
?Your objection is with the sociologist Frank F Furstenberg, from who’s article I quoted. From Furstenberg’s article I conclude there is, in fact, no such consensus that the “nuclear family IS the invariably superior kinship form for raising children.”
If you would read carefully that very sociologist you would see that indeed he is not disputing the consensus among social scientists on the superiority of the biological family as a normative model. He is only pointing out that competing family forms can do X or Y as good a job depending on circumstances.
If you produce a short man & a tall woman you have not negated the fact that men are on average taller than women.
As in social science, the law is about line drawing and promoting the common good. Publicly celebrating and subsidizing family forms that disadvantage children and require a host of ?probably? & ?so long as they are able to overcome-s? and rest on ?collaborate effectively-s? is neither humane nor good public policy.
?Which is why I fully support universal health care and a massive increase to social welfare spending to raise the living standards of of all those disadvantaged children.?
If this is your purported answer to family fragmentation, than we have forty years of policy failure to prove you hopelessly inadequate. Child outcomes have been measured against income, race and geography & the natural family still reigns as by far the best predictor of child success. The government cannot hire enough social workers or build enough prisons to overcome the effects of family breakdown. The tax burden on the remaining intact families becomes so prohibitive that it ends up discouraging childbearing for intact families. It?s morally corrupt to advocate dysfunctional family formation and then (futilely) insist that the wreckage created become a duty of the government. This same government has proven itself (as one would suspect) a woefully inadequate and indeed criminally inept protector of children?s interests.
posted by John Howard on
What’s wrong with saying that marriage should always allow for procreation, excepting certain banned procedures? Then you’d get exactly what you want. Marriage would be legally tied to procreation, but the genetic engineering procedures you object to would be illegal.
There’s lots of problems with that. The ban we need would not just ban certain procedures, but all procedures that do not join unmodified gametes of a man and a woman. Otherwise, it’s just a government regulatory agency that has to constantly be studying and testing all the new and upcoming procedures and weighing them against the demand for them and it would clearly be a slippery slope that eventually allowed same-sex conception and genetic engineering. See, it’s not just the safety of those first children that would be guinea pigs. In fact, that risk helps to keep people from doing it. Once that risk is brought closer to the risk of natural pregnancy, or worse, once it surpasses natural pregnancy in terms of safety and health of the child, then people will be pressured into doing it and have no justification for having natural children. It would merely smooth the entry of genetic engineering to have a piecemeal ban on “certain procedures”, it would not assure people that it was right to use their own genes, it would not cure the angst that results from GE being developed to make “better humans”, it would not save the money that would come from a blanket ban. What we need is a blanket ban that limits conception to unmodified gametes of a man and a woman.
OK, now maybe you’re saying even a blanket ban on same-sex conception and genetic engineering would still be compatible with same-sex marriage. That’s like saying that a parental notification law, a 48 hour waiting period, and maybe even a million dollar fee would not be incompatible with a right to abortion. Those are what’s called an “undue burden” or a “substantial obstacle”, and they don’t stand. If we are saying that a same-sex couple has an equal right to procreate together that a male female couple does, then we can’t ban them from procreating with substantial obstacles like laws against them using the procedures that would be required for them to exercise their right. The laws would be challenged in court and they’d lose.
The only way to stop it is to accept that same-sex couples do not have an equal right to procreate, because people only have a right to procreate with someone of the other sex. If instead we say that same-sex couples have a right to procreate, then any laws against them attempting it would not stand up to a challenge. They’d only serve as a PR campaign for how responsible and safe same-sex procreation is, or is going to be. Look how well-regulated it is!
The ethical and moral implications of genetic engineering have nothing to do with marriage — these questions can and should be decided separately.
No, SSM says there is a right to do genetic engineering. The questions can be answered separately, but doing so would strip conception rights form marriage.
Plus, you are completely missing the point on how giving up conception rights, which you seem to be willing to do by accepting that “certain procedures” be banned and that will end my concern, can be a bargaining chip in attaining federal recognition for CU’s much much sooner. Instead, you cling to something that you are willing to be prohibited. It makes no sense, unless you are smart enough to know that any laws like you would accept today are not going to stand.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
He writes: “despite your professed abhorrence of plural and incestuous relationships, that you adamantly refuse to attack the gays who promote and endorse them….”
When I wish to address you in a paragraph, Rosendall, I won’t lead off with a statement referring to you as “esurience”.
My first ILGA conference was in 1993, so I cannot speak to what went before, but I did note that the world conferences I attended were dominated by a leftist perspective. But at the Barcelona conference in 1993, there was already discussion about what to do about the pedophile groups.
And therein lies the problem, Rosendall; the gay community needs to “discuss” whether or not it’s going to support and endorse pedophiles.
What exactly is there to discuss in that matter? Could you explain what rewarding value you and your fellow ILGA members found in NAMBLA that you not only had them as members for over a decade, but in 1985, that ILGA would pass a resolution specifically condemning age-of-consent laws in support of them?
And this statement is particularly hilarious.
Yes, there are non-fringe groups that signed the Beyond Marriage manifesto, but in doing so they were pandering to the fringe.
Which means what? That they’re doing what the “fringe” orders them to do and supporting the “fringe”?
posted by John Howard on
How does affirming that marriage gives the couple the right to attempt to conceive children together devalue their love? Seems to me it devalues their love to say that they don’t have conception rights.
As to siblings, they can love each other too, you know. It doesn’t devalue their love to say that they may not conceive children together, does it? Neither would it devalue a same-sex couple’s love to say that they may not conceive children together.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The problem, as I pointed out before but you intentionally didn’t respond to that part of my post, is that you malign an entire group of people who’s only crime is having the same sexual orientation as a few crackpots who advocate and practice bad behavior.
The reason why, esurience, is as follows:
1. Those “crackpots” point to their sexual orientation as the reason and justification for their behavior.
2. Individuals like yourself, rather than repudiating these statements and publicly shaming the people who make them, attack the people who are pointing out the behavior of the “crackpots” and claim that their doing so is “antigay”.
The problem here is one basic to gay leftists; your only principles are based on personal convenience. Like with ILGA, it is more important to support “oppressed sexual minorities” than it is to oppose pedophilia. If you spoke out against the ACLU’s support of NAMBLA and plural marriage, they wouldn’t like you any more, so you don’t. If you were to criticize the behavior of gays who take children to sex fairs or have sex in public restrooms, you would be tagged as “neurotic” and a “prude”, and that’s something you aren’t willing to risk.
If Fitz is right on something, I’ll say he’s right on something, and if he’s wrongly attacked, I’ll say he’s wrongly attacked. Why is that so incomprehensible to gay liberals and most gay people? Is your sexual orientation literally the only thing that you consider to be important, so much so that you will let people justify or commit bad behavior because they’re of the same sexual orientation and you don’t want to criticize them?
That leads us to this:
Why are you not criticizing the “heterosexual community” for the negative impact some of their activities have had on marriage?
Let’s try something, esurience. Certainly I would think, given your ranting about “negative impact”, that you would criticize straight men who said that monogamy isn’t “practical”, that “men are pigs” and thus should be allowed to be promiscuous with multiple partners while married, and that monogamy causes “harm” to people.
Can you do that for gay men who say it?
I agree with Katz when he says that monogamy is “one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma.” It’s almost impossible for two people to be all things to each other sexually, and the expectation that two people can or should be all things to each other sexually — that they should never find another person attractive or act on that attraction — does a great deal of harm. Human beings didn’t evolve to be monogamous, and everything from divorce rates to recent impeachment proceedings prove, I think, that the expectation of lifelong monogamy places an incredible strain on a marriage.
Or:
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, ?Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.?
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: ?I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn?t mean anything.?
From what we see above, heterosexuals are more than willing to impose public penalties on this sort of behavior when practiced by other heterosexuals. In contrast, the gay community and its organizations are passing resolutions against laws that punish people for having sex with underage children as “antigay” and “discussing” the advisability of keeping them as part of the gay community after ten years of doing so.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It makes no sense to argue against same-sex marriage but to feel that same-sex couples should be allowed to conceive children together.
Actually, it does, for two reasons.
1. Biology prevents all same-sex couples from conceiving a child without what amounts to an input from a third party, be it surrogate or test tube, that has the necessary other gamete.
2. Biology prevents half of all same-sex couples from carrying a fertilized anything, given that men lack a womb, without the addition of a third party.
So, if you put in place laws that stop engineering gametes, which you should to avoid human cloning anyway, that’s going to stop the basics.
Meanwhile, stopping humans from reproducing, especially in a couple, is simply not possible. There will always be gay men, willing women, and turkey basters, and it is a waste of time to try to enforce against that. Furthermore, limiting marriage is less of a ban against other things than it is a recognition that certain things are more beneficial to society than others. I have no problem with saying that society should encourage childrearing in a stable home headed by their two opposite-sex biological parents, but I am not about to say that society needs to take reproductive capability away from everyone who isn’t that. They are emphatically two different things.
posted by Rob on
Actually, it does, for two reasons.
1. Biology prevents all same-sex couples from conceiving a child without what amounts to an input from a third party, be it surrogate or test tube, that has the necessary other gamete.
2. Biology prevents half of all same-sex couples from carrying a fertilized anything, given that men lack a womb, without the addition of a third party.
So, if you put in place laws that stop engineering gametes, which you should to avoid human cloning anyway, that’s going to stop the basics.
And what do these points really have to do with banning same-sex marriage while believing that same-sex couples raising children? ND30 trully you are throwing stones into the gears of this discussion.
Meanwhile, stopping humans from reproducing, especially in a couple, is simply not possible.
LOL, I can think at the top of my head of numerous chemicals and pharmaceutical products in gaseous form that can prevent couples from reproducing, and some are completely ‘natural’ in the concept of non-human interference.
There will always be gay men, willing women, and turkey basters, and it is a waste of time to try to enforce against that.
Well it doesn’t seem to prevent fools like Fitz in placing obstacles in the way of these couples.
Furthermore, limiting marriage is less of a ban against other things than it is a recognition that certain things are more beneficial to society than others.
A vacuous argument considering the current evolution of marriage in the 20th century. Also, there is statistical evidence that same-sex couple households are optimal for the rearing of children.
I have no problem with saying that society should encourage childrearing in a stable home headed by their two opposite-sex biological parents, but I am not about to say that society needs to take reproductive capability away from everyone who isn’t that. They are emphatically two different things.
It matters not what the opinion of the herd trully is, since it’s so fickle and prone to manipulation. Society requires professionals and experts to dictate what works and what doesn’t. We certainly won’t consider a clergyman’s statement on the understanding of quantum mechanics more than a particle physicist’s, so why should we listen to him about his statements about human biology when they’re at odds with the establishment? He’s not qualified, nor are you or Fitz. I see no professional citations in your posts, so your words are meaningless.
posted by John Howard on
NDT, I’m not trying to “take reproductive ability away” from anyone, I’m trying to stop use of engineered gametes. You agree that we need to do that, and doing that will mean prohibiting same-sex couples from conceiving children with their own genes. You are wrong that “biology prevents it”, because biology did not prevent the mouse Kaguya from being created in 2004 from two moms. And artificial wombs are also being developed and are eagerly awaited by some transhumanists who expect them to be better at gestating a baby than dirty human beings are.
Do you see how saying that engineered gametes should be banned is also banning same-sex conception and making everyone reproduce with someone of the other sex if they want to reproduce? It has nothing to do with turkey basters, sperm donors, rapes or one-night stands, that stuff is unrelated to the question of whether we should allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive together the way we allow a married man and a woman conceive together. That’s the root of the difference between marriageable couples and couples that may not marry – whether we allow them to combine their gametes.
You do agree that we shouldn’t allow people to attempt to conceive with someone of the same sex, right? That’s the same thing as saying we shouldn’t allow engineered gametes. That’s a biological fact of the human species, indeed all mammals and most animals.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “What exactly is there to discuss in that matter? Could you explain what rewarding value you and your fellow ILGA members found in NAMBLA that you not only had them as members for over a decade, but in 1985, that ILGA would pass a resolution specifically condemning age-of-consent laws in support of them?”
ND30, “I and my fellow ILGA members” did not such thing, because as you know perfectly well, I specifically pointed out to you that I only got involved in ILGA in 1993. But if you insist on giving ILGA no credit but only brickbats for finally doing the right thing (however tardily), then it’s clear you don’t care about fixing things, you just need someone to attack. Giving people due credit is NOT making them a saint. Come on. Just a teeny tiny shred of credit. They finally did the right thing. And I was there for the debate, and took part in it, and there was a lot of strong defense of children in the debate, not just pragmatism.
ND30 quoted me saying, “Yes, there are non-fringe groups that signed the Beyond Marriage manifesto, but in doing so they were pandering to the fringe.”
Then ND30 replied, “Which means what? That they’re doing what the ‘fringe’ orders them to do and supporting the ‘fringe’?”
Pandering isn’t a matter of taking orders, but yes, they support the fringe. That was my point. ND30, if my statement can possibly be taken in good faith as a defense of the “Beyond Marriage” signatories whom I have sternly rebuked and with whom I have made it amply clear I strongly disagree, then go ahead and set aside my clearly stated views and just make crap up about me. But in fact, I was merely reiterating a real and troubling phenomenon, which is that what are generally regarded as mainstream gay rights groups often pander to the noisiest angry voices, such as when hundreds of gay rights groups in the fall of 2007 endorsed the demand for a perfect ENDA bill or no bill at all. NGLTF to this day falsely claims that a gay-only ENDA would not even protect gays because we would be discriminated against based on gender noncomformity which was not protected under the gay-only version. I support pushing for transgender inclusion (but not holding the whole bill hostage to it if we lack the votes), but the only case Lambda Legal could cite to back up this claim was thoroughly refuted by both Barney Frank and Dale Carpenter. The case Lambda cited was called Bumble and Bumble, as I recall, and Barney even handed out copies of it at his Oct. 11, 2007 news conference to show that Lambda had misconstrued the case.
NGLTF and others also keep disputing Barney’s claim in the fall of 2007 that there were not sufficient votes for a trans-inclusive ENDA, but a whip count was done in October of that year which showed that they didn’t have the votes. On top of their dishonesty (and they pretty clearly believe their own lies, so it has gone into delusion), they have tacitly encouraged a great deal of bitterness toward Barney and charges of treachery. It’s pretty disgusting that an honest disagreement over how to reach a shared goal results in such vilification of someone who (for all his faults) has done more than most on behalf of the cause. And the cries of “traitor!” make it much likelier that most of the public discussion within our community on the subject will be a lot of happy talk, because any disagreement results in character assassination.
I have always focused on reality-based activism, which in the case of legislation means getting the best achievable bill and continuing to work for more, not taking a rigid all-or-nothing stance and insulting one’s natural allies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Giving people due credit is NOT making them a saint.
Oh, I gave them due credit, Rosendall; I gave them credit in full for supporting and endorsing a pedophile organization for well over a decade, only to ditch it, not because of any concern over pedophilia, but because it cost them UN consultative status.
Certainly you would support and endorse that; after all, you joined them knowing full well that NAMBLA was a member and that ILGA had already signed a resolution specifically condemning age-of-consent laws in 1985.
It’s disgusting that an honest disagreement over how to reach a shared goal results in such vilification of someone who (for all his faults) has done more than most on behalf of the cause.
Actually, it’s roughly akin to training your dog to viciously attack people, then screaming for sympathy when you get bitten.
Given that Barney Fag fully encouraged and funded the witch hunts against and harassment of gay Republicans that the Obama Party carried out via HRC, the Gill-funded LCR, Mike Rogers, John Aravosis, and other DC organizations, he deserves every bit of abuse he’s gotten. He built Frankenstein’s monster, and it’s his own fault that it’s attacking him .
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 wrote, “Certainly you would support and endorse that; after all, you joined them knowing full well that NAMBLA was a member and that ILGA had already signed a resolution specifically condemning age-of-consent laws in 1985.”
Actually, I knew nothing about that. Why are you such a presumptuous ass? (Rhetorical question.) Maybe I should have known it, but my education on that came in 1993 when I attended my first ILGA world conference, in Barcelona. And by that time, discussions on expelling the pedophile groups were already underway. I participated rather aggressively in the debate on expulsion at the 1994 world conference in NYC, and in the run-up to that conference. If I had not done so, and the record of my doing so were not out there (and which does not change on the basis of your sneering misrepresentations), then maybe your guilt-by-association would be more plausible.
“Given that Barney Fag fully encouraged and funded the witch hunts against and harassment of gay Republicans that the Obama Party carried out via HRC, the Gill-funded LCR, Mike Rogers, John Aravosis, and other DC organizations, he deserves every bit of abuse he’s gotten. He built Frankenstein’s monster, and it’s his own fault that it’s attacking him .”
Barney has certainly had an obsession over the years about Log Cabin, an opinion I did not share (considering I have worked quite amicably with them and even wrote several articles for their centrist think tank). But he has also been critical of HRC (maybe not as loudly, but I and they certainly heard it). Anyway, he can take care of himself, but the attacks against him over ENDA are misguided even if he deserves attacks because of his own partisanship.