Another liberal Democrat against gay marriage

I can respect someone like this. I am a huge advocate for gay marriage, but this guy is at least laying things out in a way I can understand. His belief about needing a mother and father is, I believe, flawed, but he (at least in this article) leaves religion out of it. Studies have by and large shown that children raised in same sex households function as well as their peers raised in heterosexual households. If he has any raw data from any credible sources it would be interesting to see. There will be those among my fellow lefties who will criticize him as a mouthpiece for the theocons, but as long as he doesn't base his argument against gay marriage on religious grounds then he's got my respect.

Sorry about the "(formerly" after my name. Trying to point out that I used to post as "Chris" and discovered there's another "Chris" who posts here. :)

I suppose all this proves is that when it comes to equal rights for gay people, there are bigots on both sides of the aisle. Well, there you go. Blankenhorn can't be merely wrong; he has to be evil too. What is the point of having a discussion of the issue, GIITV, if you have defined anyone who doesn't reach your conclusion as a bigot?

If it were just abotu conclusions, Rod, he'd be free to draw whichever he chose. Why I immediately go to the "bigot" place is because that conclusion, coupled with a legislative agenda, curtails my freedoms. I know that's hard for you to understand, but you're the one with full rights here. I don't expect you to get where I'm coming from. We're relegated to second-class citizenship by that conclusion enacted into law, Rod. Please understand that.

GIITV, a serious question here. Since marriage has *always* in *every* major civilization been understood to be something only heterosexual couples could have, how are you being deprived of something to which you are entitled? Plenty of ancient civilizations had quite a lot of homosexuality going on, but there's never been any major culture which had marriage arrangements for same-sex couples. (Dubious records about obscure tribes that may or may not have had such arrangements depending on our modern interpretation don't count for the purpose of this argument.) It can't *all* be due to bigotry, can it? I think the debate on this topic could be improved by a recognition by both sides that what is being asked for here is the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Can't we at least be honest about that, about the fact that marriage has *never* been understood to include such couples before?

My main criticism of Blankenhorn is that he doesn't do enough to distance himself from the bigots in his midsts. He has a fascinating, philosophical point. I don't agree with it, but it's a point with merit and worth talking about. The problem is that Blankenhorn and others in the marriage movment have done little to distance themslves from the people who have coopted these arguments as a cover for bigotry. People who have no track record of being sympathetic to gays and lesbians use Blankenhorn and his ilk as a cover, and Blankenhnorn has done nothing to distance himself from them. I also think Blankenhorn and others have become completely distracted by gay marriage, ignoring the much larger problems of divorce and illigitimacy. The greatest threat to marriage isn't the gay couple next door that wants legal rights, but the divorced woman down the street, the man with three babymamas at work, and the woman at church who has three kids by three dads.
THEY are the greatest threat to marriage, but you'd never know that if you listened to many people, Blankenhorn included.

Typo: "...nullify *our* humanity..."
Pardon.

"Can't we at least be honest about that, about the fact that marriage has *never* been understood to include such couples before?" Since marriage as we know it is rather new, your argument kind of falls apart. Polygamy has been around much longer than marriage between romantic heterosexual couples. Our current view of marriage as a romantic relationship between a man and woman is only about 300 years old. Before that, marriage was more of a financial arrangement that bears little resemblence to marriages we see now. From an economic point of view, giving boys to other men didn't make much sense, so marriage between men was not rational. We know that in earlier civilizataions, boys were given to men as "apprenticeships" that were both sexual and arguably romantic, but they weren't marriages becuase the status of men didn't rely on being attached to another man. In contrast, women had not status outside of their relationship with men.

GIITV, the "frigging" Canadians would be an example of begging the question, since their redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is rather recent. And no, I'm not saying that small obscure groups of people who've had same-sex unions of some kind or other mightn't be interesting to look at, but again, when in any major civilization prior to the relatively recent past has any society thought that the institution of marriage should include same-sex couples? GIITV, I do think of you as a human being, so please don't take this the wrong way. But lots of personal stories and deep feelings do not make an argument, and they don't provide me with the answer as to why marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples. I mean, heterosexuals could similarly turn around and demand to be considered gay, right? They could insist that being gay has nothing whatsoever to do with who you choose to sleep with, and that therefore "gay heterosexuals" should be covered under hate crimes legislation and allowed protection under anti-discrimination laws. A white male passed over for a promotion could then sue his company on the grounds that they were discriminating against him because he's a gay heterosexual, and so on. What would your argument be, if heterosexuals did this? Would you tell them that being gay by definition means that you're attracted to the same sex? And what would you do if they insisted that that definition was unfair, and unjust, and that they were being deprived of their civil rights by your insistence on such a narrow and exclusionary definition?

Erin ~ What does historicity or tradition have to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another? Subjugating and enslaving non-whites is part of white history and tradition, but we managed to ditch that (mostly), didn't we? Do you think we ought to go back, since the abolition of slavery, large scale, is relatively recent in history? And your argument about "gay heteros", since you seem so fond of logical fallacies, is pure non sequitur. Your example redefines one thing as something it isn't, while the issue at hand is about redefining marriage to include a broader sense of the term. And your argument that you need to be convinced of marriage being redefined is absurd. Back in 1954, people with your mindset in Kansas probably wanted some convincing why African-American kids should be allowed to attend classes with their kids. Did they? No, they got Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education. We threw out "separate but equal" then, and I certainly don't get why we don't throw it out again today.

Chris said, "Your example redefines one thing as something it isn't..." And attempts to change marriage redefine one thing, marriage, as something it isn't. Marriage isn't the union of any two people. Lots of people are excluded by the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman with all the other conditions applied by the law. Polygamists are excluded. People who want to marry their siblings or their parents are excluded. People who have been declared mentally incompetent are excluded. Children are excluded. People who are currently married are excluded from practicing bigamy. Point is, the definition of marriage excludes LOTS of people, not just same-sex couples. If you want to argue that the definition of marriage needs to be changed, fine! I welcome the argument. But let's discuss the issue rationally, o.k.? One more thing, Chris. Arguing that male-female marriage is analogous to slavery kind of weakens any argument you might have, 'cause if marriage is like slavery, why on earth would anyone want it? (A question I've always wanted to ask Hillary Clinton...) :)

I would like for someone to address what a gay couple's marriage has to do with *their* children. Not "children in general who should be raised by two opposite sex parents" (which is a disingenuous concern, considering how fond the right is of reminding us we can't procreate), but *their* children. How will *YOUR* children's lives be affected by two men or two women marrying? I surmise y'all don't have much of an answer for that. But wile you kvetch and kvell over "the right example" or "the appropriate definition," you're screwing with people's lives. REAL people - not statistics, not agregates - *people*.

GIITV, I understand that you have deep personal feelings about this. But we're talking about a major restructuring of society, and I'd like to see the issue approached with great caution. The way I see it, the State stays out of most of people's personal relationships, and for the most part that's a really *good* thing. Imagine if laws mandated how often you wrote to your grandmother, or whether you or your brother got the bigger slice of cake on any given day, or the dollar amount you were required to spend on your mom's Mother's Day gift? So the State interfering with marriage is more a necessary 'evil,' in one way of looking at things. And the overriding State interest in marriage is the fact that, even today, marriage is *the* relationship most likely to produce children. Not only that, but stable marriages where children are present provide certain quantifiable benefits to the State, such as the statistics showing that children raised by both biological parents do better than children who don't have this advantage, meaning that the State is less likely to have to pick up the pieces than they are if the parents fail. Now, people mention that some couples choose not to have children, some are unable, and some are too old when they marry. But the State through the law doesn't concern itself largely with individuals. The State sees that the vast majority of marriages produce children, and the vast majority of children will do better if raised by their stable, married, biological parents, and so they make laws which tend to encourage this situation. To the extent that the State concerns itself with other human relationships, it does so quite often because children are involved. Thus, the State takes an interest in adoptions, and the State may interfere in the lives of a single mother or father if either has a new partner who is seen as a threat to the child. All that said, I haven't seen a compelling reason for the State to interfere in gay relationships. Any real or supposed inequalities in the law can be addressed without resorting to wholesale permission for the State to interfere in gay relationships by mandating that marriage be redefined. The saddest thing to me, though, is that I think the real goal isn't so much to change the law as it is to change people's attitudes about gay couples. GIITV, do you really think you'd get any more acceptance from the people of North Dakota if you wore wedding rings and had a framed copy of your marriage license in your living room? I have a feeling that many people would merely become more vocal about their disapproval, particularly if the Supreme Court were to pull a Roe v. Wade style decision out of their, um, robes, and mandate a hugely unpopular change in the law on the people of America without their consent.

Franklin, does my post to GIITV above answer your question? Or would you like more?

This is nothing more than a philosophical debate to many of you. It's sick.

Erin, It does, and it doesn't. Part of the problem is that while I can and do claim a great deal of empathy with the issue from the gay POV, I am not gay. For me, it is a critical difference. In honor of Giittv's attempt to bring this to rational discussion, and to honor your desire to comply, I will respond to your points. The institution of marriage is first and foremost a social entity. While it's impact on society cannot be denied, it's effect on the mechanics of society is the only rational issue here. Religious sanctification has emotional significance only. Before anyone decides to jump down my throat for that last, bald statement, it is necessary to state it that way because religion has no controlling effect on economics. I immediately agree, Erin, with your points about children. However, you do not acknowledge that a marriage license no longer, and has not had for a while, any impact on the governmental perspective on children. Government recognizes guardianship, not biological parentage. It must, or adoption and fostering would be null entities. What, then, is the rational basis for marriage? People without marriage licenses have children. I and my wife are an example: our eldest was 7 months old when we got married. The details of that would make for a long post, but the point there is this: we were in all senses of the term married from the moment our daughter was born, and no piece of paper or societal definition had any impact on our commitment to each other and our child (now, three children). Glean the logic from all that, and you have a simple question: what rational objection can there be to same-gender marriage? We've already ticked off the main one, and its rebuttals: children and their raising -- moot: there are already gay couples with children, and as I think Chris pointed out, we cannot offer a rational analysis of any deliterious effects on those children until after gay marriage is legalized in all ways. When we look at the anecdotal evidence, we can and do find matching instances of deliterious effects, often the same effects, in the children of both same- and opposite-gender couples. I have more, but this is already long even for one of my posts, and you deserve a chance to respond to my points.

It seems to me that what tv wants is not just the state to recognize gay marriage (Massachusetts already makes this available to him and he has not moved there). What he wants is society's approval and he's prepared to boohoo and stomp his feet about it until he gets his way. Too bad for him.

This is nothing more than a philosophical debate to many of you. Not true. For better or for worse, we all have to live in a society with the consequences of the decisions made about what marriage is. If we traditionalists are correct, the fragmentation and decay that will inevitably result from further destruction of the traditional family model will affect us all. We might be wrong, but you can't say we don't have a stake in it. It's reality to us too.

P.S. My brother-in-law is about to leave for Iraq. The Iraq War is more "reality" for me in the way GIITV means than it is for someone who doesn't have family over there. That does not make my position on the rightness or wrongness of the Iraq War any more or less correct than that of anybody else, even though I experience it in a less abstract way than most.

Thanks Rod. You get it.

Rod~ You said: "If we traditionalists are correct, the fragmentation and decay that will inevitably result from further destruction of the traditional family model will affect us all. We might be wrong, but you can't say we don't have a stake in it." How can you be assured that allowing same-sex couples to marry will destroy the traditional family model? How can you be assured that it will lead to fragmentation and decay? What news from Massachussets aside from -- to my knowledge -- one isolated lesbian divorce? Yes, change affects everyone. I keep referring to the civil rights movement because, even for those of us who weren't born yet, the agonies are still fresh, as race discrimination still crops up from time to time. Thus, the move to equality of the races has affected and IS affecting us all now. Fragmentation and decay are easy to point out, as it shows up in the news constantly. Kinda alarmist. But we also see that we have an Hispanic man serving as our attorney general. We had an African-American serve as our secretary of state. Forget not the progress here, and expect the apocalypse not because it just *might* happen.

Just an aside: It's really amazing that some people have the gall to label everyone a "bigot" for not accepting "gay marriage" wholeheartedly, when no one except a handful of radicals had even broached the topic of gay marriage 10 or 15 years ago. Why has the unimaginable so suddenly become the only possible position for any non-bigoted person to hold?
And GIITV: You're with a partner for 5 years. Bully for you. Nobody is kicking you out, are they? You're free to live your life as you see fit. You're just whining because the state hasn't given you a certificate. Well, why do you deserve a certificate any more than a spinster who takes care of her elderly mother?
Or -- more to the point -- why do you deserve a certificate above two guys who are just buddies (without having sex)? If you fundamentally de-link babies and sex, why should the State have any interest in giving an award to a sexual relationship (yours) over a non-sexual relationship (any number of others)?

I said, above, "I believe that the State's interest in children who are the *natural* and *expected* result of heterosexual marriages is the reason the State has any interest in marriage at all." Susan S. said, "Sadly, there's no historical support for that." Susan S., you should probably inform the New York Court of Appeals of that fact. In their decision on gay marriage from last year, the court, speaking of the kind of action the Legislature (but not the Court) might take, said the following: "We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children. First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships....There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. " I encourage you to read the decision, Susan S. I'd link to it here, but it's in PDF format; however, it may easily be found by searching with the terms "New York Court of Appeal gay marriage."

There will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth as our society settles deeper into the Triumph of the Theraputic. The small communities of traditional morality that are springing up will have their work cut out for them.

And GIITV: You're with a partner for 5 years. Bully for you. Nobody is kicking you out, are they? You're free to live your life as you see fit. You're just whining because the state hasn't given you a certificate. Would you "whine" if the state denied matrimony to you and your love? Would it be acceptable to you and your love to just live together? You know, a hundred years ago, this same argument was used on miscegenists, with the same hand-wringing over society's "morality." People eventually grew up, but not before the courts had to get their hands dirty. Like always, you're forcing our hand. We have the Constitution on our side, after all. Since we can't rely on you people to be good neighbors, we'll simply have to rely on the courts. I'd much prefer it any other way, but if you'd rather be dragged kicking and screaming into the future, so be it.

I don't think anybody has yet touched on all the automatic "intangible" benefits of legal marriage that are or can be denied to same-sex couples; a gay friend who has done some research in this area says he's counted over 200, counting both Federal and State (NC) benefits. These "intangibles" cover almost the whole spectrum of daily life - I don't remember the whole list by any stretch, but two that are worth mentioning are family-only hospital visitation and right of survivorship. Not to something as simple, but potentially emotionally devestating, as who gets that all-important flag at a military funeral.

It often happens to me, when reading this blog, that I'm forced to use the immortal words of Andre the Giant, in "The Princess Bride": "I do not think this word means what you think it means." I had to look up "emotivism," and I have found that A.J. Ayer, originator of the term, used it to express his view that ethical statements are statements of feeling rather than fact. In other words, when you say "this is wrong," you are describing how you feel, rather than describing the act in question. Thus, Rod's definition of emotivism as a belief that "feelings are their own justification" directly contradicts Ayer's own definition. Emotivism confines itself to analysis of ethical language, and Ayer himself says that it neither attempts to nor can ever provide any justification for the statements of such language.
Before anyone jumps indignantly down my throat, I point out that I am not endorsing A.J. Ayer. I'm just telling you what the man said. However, he does make some points that require consideration. Grappling with logical positivism is, as the philosophers say, a non-trivial problem. I am not a philosopher, but one of my sons is, and one thing I have learned from our conversations is that often I do not know what I thought I knew. I believe that if we are going to use the language of philosophy here, we should do so in a way that respects the actual meaning of terms. Otherwise we are just throwing words around like spitballs. Of course, that's not a statement of objective fact--it's just a statement about my emotions about words. But Ayer does say that ethical language has a persuasive as well as a descriptive function. :)

dub, Erik, sigaliris, et al., What of this talk of tradition trumping progress has any basis in reality? I am incredulous when I hear such talk, because looking around me at our society and the gross inequality that still permeates it, I wonder by what measure they can possibly think of their tenure as rulers of the culture as "a success?" Judging by the fruit, this cultural tree is rotten to the core. It's time to hire some new gardeners.

I'm with dub in asking for substantive answers to the simple question of what harm. I also caution dub and others that unless the answer is coming from scientific research and direct expertise, it must be viewed as speculative; we do need to show some respect for these views, if only because they are being espoused by some very sincere people. Derek's is the answer I'm looking for from others: there is this far-reaching and enormous economic effect of marriage. It's not just gays who have a stake in them. The honesty I'm looking for is this: do you intend to deny these benefits to gays on the sole basis of their being of the same gender as their spouses? Erin, my day just filled up with meetings. I'll return as soon as I can.

Rob - There were only 2 reasons discussed in that article.
The first had nothing to do with gay people or marriage, but spoke of "enshrining the sexual revolution into law." Color me un-persuaded.
The second spoke of the "cosmic purpose" of marriage, and therefore could not be read as "non-religious." I would, however, appreciate a link to the other 8.

"as Rod said above, their arguments are about emotion not rationality." I'd argue Rod's arguments are also about emotion and not terribly rational. Since there is no scientific or legal support for the idea that same-sex marriages will harm marriage and society, then we are stuck with the emotional tug of nostalgia and the quaint philosophy of the Bible.

None of those arguments have yet led to even a single tangible example of how legalizing same sex marriage would hurt them, their children, or their family....just vague speak of generalities like "society," which allows them to avoid the real heart of the question. This is a cartoonish cause-and-effect standard, Dub. You cannot demonstrate that if I, sitting here in my Dallas office, cooked heroin and injected it into my veins, will harm you. Is your belief (assuming you aren't a libertarian) that it is better for the health and cohesion of society that heroin remain illegal therefore invalid? None of us can prove that US interrogators torturing terror suspects hurts us (and we might be able to assemble arguments that it helps us) -- so should prohibitions against torture be scrapped, even though there's a powerful argument to be made that accepting torture coarsens our consciences and prepares the way for self-barbarization? You see where I'm going with this. Human society has its own ecology. As Wendell Berry so powerfully points out, you cannot fully privatize sexual morality, because inevitably sexual behavior affects the wider community. As I understand it, the argument for traditional marriage doesn't depend on proving that Bob and Ted getting "married" will cause Carol and Tom's marriage to fall apart. The argument is that legal gay marriage will decisively separate marriage from its natural law roots, which will cause people to think of it as nothing more than expressive of the desires of individuals wishing to enter into a contract with each other. And that will have consequences for us all. To speak frankly, I believe this way of thinking has already triumphed, and that gay-marriage proponents are merely asking for what the premises accepted by mainstream society imply for same-sex couples. But that's not an argument for accepting the logical consequences of what society has already embraced for straight couples.

I and my wife are an example: our eldest was 7 months old when we got married. The details of that would make for a long post, but the point there is this: we were in all senses of the term married from the moment our daughter was born You and your wife were "in all sense of the term married"? You certainly weren't married in the legal sense of the term, which is apparently the only important one, because it's the one we're all arguing about.

Rod-- I am ignorant of the wording of marriage vows in other Christian denominations, but in the Catholic Church, there still exists the line, "Will you lovingly accept children?" (Or, at least, it is supposed to...) This is an integral part of the Sacrament of Catholic Matrimony.
As you have pointed out, however, and as Chris's comment above exemplifies, this is no longer seen as integral, or necessary, or even desirable. Marriage really has become merely a collective nod of society's approval that n. and n. are living together. Due in part to this disintegration of the original point of marriage (which despite Susan's protestations, has always been not only about money, but about HEIRS), this conundrum now exists. If marriage as we now know it is no more than a mere societal convention, then denying it to homosexuals or even a human and a duck is merely superfluous, stodgy preferential treatment. So in that light, it's not homosexual marriage that will cause, accelerate, or even put the capstone on the fall of traditional marriage. It is the fall of traditional marriage that has created the void, and it is pulling the rest with it. In which case, if I were gay, I might be better off not getting married... ...were it not for all the very real financial benefits, as Erik quite rightly pointed out... But I guess that's just a restatement of what you already said.

Rob, Well played, to be sure. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, one must ask the question - "How does society intend to police consensual adult actions to ensure that they don't result in harm to society without violating the basic tenets of our nation?"
How does society intend to police the mind? I have seen such questions called simplistic in the past when applied to abortion - to wit, "How does society intend to truly *stop* women from aborting without locking up every pregnant woman until she comes to term?" If it is the acceptance of homosexual behavior that is deleterious, how will society stop peopel from accepting homosexual behavior? What consequences does society intend to impose against those citizens who accept it as simply another color in the spectrum of human sexual behavior?

It s not about the children. Whatever else it may be about, it is not about them. I have no reason to call anyone who expresses concern about children on this blog a liar, but nevertheless I feel sure that concern for children is not the primary motivation for opposing gay marriage. How can I be so sure? I draw my conclusions from the glaring and blatant LACK of concern for children in other areas of society. In general, the needs of children are not being held up as an urgent moral issue. There s no constant drumbeat of political demand that something must be done, and now. In fact, when people like Hillary Clinton refer to the needs of our children, there s a general outcry of disgust from the right wing about how sick-making it would be to have to listen to such stuff for four years. The number of additional children who would be raised by gay parents if gay marriage were legalized would be vanishingly small compared to the number of children currently being raised by heterosexuals. Gay parents ALREADY can, and do, have children and raise them. There is no legal or constitutional way to stop them. It is their right. So you re not talking about saving children from gay parents. You re only talking about making sure that their children CAN T have a stable two-parent family that is recognized by society. The logic of how this helps the children escapes me. More children are beaten to death or otherwise killed by their parents every year than are aborted by late-term abortions. I ve seen estimates that over 18,000 children each year suffer lasting, irreparable consequences of parental abuse. And those are just the ones who come to the attention of authorities. But you ll soon see which issues are really important if you propose any further hindrances to parental exercise of power. Look what happened to the California representative who proposed a law to limit corporal punishment of children UNDER THREE. It was immediately asserted by conservative religious leaders that to abolish beating of toddlers would irreparably damage sacred traditions. When gay rights are at issue, the welfare of children is held up as a trump card. When parental rights are at issue, the children have to take second place. What does that say about real priorities? If this were really about children, we d be trying to mend our own fences and deal with the damage done to children of heterosexual parents by abuse, divorce, and poverty. There are millions of these children in need of help. The number of kids that anyone is going to help by stopping their gay parents from getting married is minuscule. So why put the focus on that small group if your primary concern is helping children? From this it seems clear to me that some other issue must be paramount. Otherwise the actions of the supposed child-defenders wouldn t make any sense.

RFG, So any union with the potential to create new taxpayers is what the government is blessing? Rapists should be getting huge tax breaks then, because after all, the government is only concerned with the "potentiality" of more taxpayers. Of course I'm being absurd, intentionally so. If only I had known all this time that it's all about taxes and money and creating little taxpayer babies at the fastest rate possible and has nothing to do with anything else, I'd have saved much time discussing it in the past. Phew.

Except, of course, that the government allows heterosexual couples to marry even if, for some reason or another, it is biologically impossible for them to procreate. In other words, a man and woman can legally marry, and receive all the rights and benefits that the most fertile married couples receive, even if they have no greater chance of producing children than a same-sex couple. If this is really and truly about the teleological "purpose" of marriage as a child-benefiting institution, please explain why opposite-sex couples who are incapable of reproducing are allowed to harm this sacred institution.

Opponents of gay marriage on this thread are being asked by gay marriage supporters to spell out, as one poster puts it, 'Who will gay marriage hurt, and why?' I say that the opponents of gay marriage are not the ones who carry the burden of having to answer this question. Rather, supporters of gay marriage must prove to society at large that gay marriage is necessary, desirable, and a good thing for society. It is not up to us to prove that it is not. Why? Two reasons. First, we're not the ones trying to change and redefine marriage; you are. If you want such a sweeping and fundamental change to one of the major foundational institutions of society, you're the ones who must prove that this is a good thing to do. Second, it's not at all clear that very many people do want or need gay marriage! According to this article from the Seattle Times, which is very sympathetic to the pro-gay marriage side of the debate, of the approximately four to six million gays in America (using U.S. Census data from 2000), approximately 600,000 couples registered as same-sex couples. The author of the article admits that even if we were to believe this was serious self-underreporting by gay couples, and even if we were to double, triple, or quadruple this number, it doesn't come anywhere close to the approximately 25 million married heterosexual couples with children; and, as the author points out, that's just the heterosexual couples who a)have children and b) whose children are still living at home: http://tinyurl.com/32rr4 In addition, there are a surprising number of gay activists taking the position that gay couples don't need and shouldn't want marriage, which they identify with narrow heterosexist principles and a decided lack of the sexual freedom they see as necessary to healthy gay relationships. So, since there are a statistically tiny number of gay couples in the first place, and since there's no consensus even among gay couples as to whether marriage is a desirable goal, then it is up to the gays who do want marriage to prove that same-sex marriage is something society should allow, despite the massive number of changes in the law which will be done for the benefit of relatively few people.

Frankin, Where in my posts did I say that infertility is grounds for divorse, or an annullment? I said it wasn't part of the marriage license process in this country.

Erin, I'm not willing to let you (general) off the hook: you (general) have asserted active and measurable harm from legal recognition of homosexual marriage. However, it is reasonable to offer a why-it's-good list, at least for the why-it's-bad list to have company... 1) The economic benefits are substantial and long-reaching: ability to name a spouse as a beneficiary; joint property; combined (household) income for many and varied beneficial reasons... in short, all the things that you as a married person enjoyed that are advantages over a single person. 2) Raising children is expensive. If you want a reason around doing something positive for children, then there you have it: in the US, married people have a distinct economic advantage when it comes to raising children (and if you itemize, you see the actual numbers clearly). And, please, the "it will only benefit a small number of people" objection is not one you really meant to make, is it? School segregation? Voting rights? Equal employment opportunity? The First Amendment? How long does the list benefitting a small number of people need to be before you let gays join that club?

RFG: I'm expanding that sub-topic to be "the marriage process". The license itself is only on small step in the process, and disappears altogether under common law marriage. I hope you can agree that a premature ending to a marriage is an important aspect of our discussion. If not, then you are of course correct, and this tangent shall die.

"despite the massive number of changes in the law which will be done for the benefit of relatively few people." Hmmmmmm, feel like that argument could be applied to any number of civil rights instances in the past. That flawed argument basically leads back to the starting point of the notion that any minority of any kind should not be included in laws, because why go through all the hassle of changing laws just to help a small proportion of the population. I bet most slaves thanked God that this logic was not, and has never been, accepted as a thoughtful form of engagement. Very flawed reasoning. Who cares if not every homosexual couple WANTS to get married? What about the women during the suffrage movement who thought that women voting was appalling and that their place and purpose was to be spoken for by their husbands? It stands to reason then, that the suffrage movement was worthless because not even all females could agree on whether or not they should be voting.

But RFG, you forget that when one partner is infertile, there *is* no "potential." As for "taking things further" leading to absurdity, you make our point for us. As we have stated, the anti-marriage crowd loves to trumpet the horrible effects gay marriage will have on society, even with no evidence to support such an assertion. How then, do they arrive at the conclusion without "taking things further?"

So, I'm a tad bit confused as to where we are going. To the logical conclusion of your argument, which is, the State being involved in marriage only to the point where it encourages the creation of future taxpayers. To state that heterosexuals work with nature and homosexuals don't doesn't *truly* address infertility. By definition, heterosexuals who are infertile *don't* work with nature. They don't work at all. They're broken. The intended purpose for their existence is non-existent. Why again do we allow them to marry?

Your talking in generalities again. I'm speaking in specifics. No matter how many times two infertile heterosexuals rub genitals, they will not produce offspring. Your example doesn't work, because if they produce offspring, they weren't "infertile," and therefore don't fall under the umbrella you opened. Why would you allow those two hedonists to marry? If *those* hedonists are allowed, why not others?

"mandate a hugely unpopular change in the law on the people of America without their consent" Ya mean like, er, ending segregation?

"I have observed homosexual couples in a wide variety of situations, all of which are experienced by heterosexual couples, and there is no better or polite way to word my response: you are dead wrong." Frankin, I maybe dead wrong, but you neglected to identify the fruit of said unions that should result in the acknowledgement by the state.

"First, we're not the ones trying to change and redefine marriage; you are. If you want such a sweeping and fundamental change to one of the major foundational institutions of society, you're the ones who must prove that this is a good thing to do." When the government discriminates in how it provides benefits, the burden is on the government to explain why the discrimination is necessary, not the victim.

Rob Grano, "Ten non-religious reasons why homosexual marriage is a bad idea: The article stopped after only 2 "arguments" and they weren't very persuasive to begin with. "On children as the primary purpose of marriage" Well, the source was a "pro-family" site (read, "anti-gay"), but gay people here are making pro-family arguments. You just don't want to see our famlies as families. Certainly not equal ones.

Susan S. said, "When the government discriminates in how it provides benefits, the burden is on the government to explain why the discrimination is necessary, not the victim." Then, Susan S., the only clear course for the government, by your logic, is to abolish marriage altogether, along with any benefits or protections it grants. All adults will have to be considered 'single' in the eyes of the law, and all children will have to be adopted by their parents, even the ones being raised by their biological parents, or else be considered wards of the State to be raised by the State. Because the government is NEVER going to provide equal access to marriage to ALL people, and as long as the government discriminates against two sisters sharing a house or two college roommates by NOT considering them 'married' in the eyes of the law, then the law is clearly inherently discriminatory and unjust. So glad you've cleared that up for us.

"Because the government is NEVER going to provide equal access to marriage to ALL people, and as long as the government discriminates against two sisters sharing a house or two college roommates by NOT considering them 'married' in the eyes of the law, then the law is clearly inherently discriminatory and unjust." You missed my point. It is the government's burden to prove that the discrimination is rational or justified. Of course, the government is able to do that, but the burden is on the government as discriminator. You argued that the burden should be on the victims to show why they should be given a right, but in fact it is just the opposite.

Franklin, forgive me, but it sounds like what you wrote above is a long, polite way of saying, only religious bigots can possibly object to gay marriage. I keep going back to what the New York Court of Appeals wrote: "The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude." Should we overturn centuries of law, rewriting every law at the federal and state pertaining to marriage and changing everything down to the ordinary language about which marriage is spoken, in order to confer marriage licenses on same-sex couples? I still haven't seen a compelling reason why. If it's to confer more economic benefits, there are ways to do that without redefining marriage. If it's about forcing society to approve of gay couples, be honest about that, and be equally honest that that goal won't be achieved without coercive measures taken against such rights as freedom of speech, religion, the press, and freedom of association.

RFG, spousal benefits under law are not handouts. Do you really want me to list the homosexuals in history who've contributed to our civilization, let alone just to society? Erin, Franklin, forgive me, but it sounds like what you wrote above is a long, polite way of saying, only religious bigots can possibly object to gay marriage. No forgiveness needed, because that is exactly what I wrote. And I'm begging you to prove that I'm wrong. I am quite serious. Please start by telling me what other conclusion I should draw when you refuse to provide a rational explanation of what harm and to whom gay marriage would bring.

"If it's about forcing society to approve of gay couples, be honest about that, and be equally honest that that goal won't be achieved without coercive measures taken against such rights as freedom of speech, religion, the press, and freedom of association." I think the supporters of interracial marriage bans made this exact same argument. "How are you victims if you don't get government hand outs?" Any time the government chooses to give rights and benefits to one group of people but not another, then it is reasonable for the government to be challenged on that decision. There are over 1,000 federal benefits attached to marriage and an even more vast set of rights and benefits provided by the states. They are available to strangers who meet in Las Vegas and get married, prisoners who have no possibility of getting out of prison, and even the mentally ill. But not to same-sex couples in committed relationships.

RFG, The argument, "Until a homosexual can stat unequivocally why their bedroom exploits are worthy of government subsidies the conversation is pointless," is worthless, and borders on, with all due respect, complete trash. If you ask a homosexual, this is not about sex. It has nothing to do with sex. The ultra-ironic thing is that the only people who keep bringing up sex and "bedroom exploits" are those on the right against gay-marriage. If you (not general) were more concerned about lack of equality, poverty, and other more pressing issues -- and less focused on everyone else's genitals...then maybe we could actually have a conversation and take you seriously.

Erin: Anything less is clearly unjust. In my first career, I was a tax expert. I see nothing wrong in your logic or your conclusion.

Franklin said, "In my first career, I was a tax expert. I see nothing wrong in your logic or your conclusion." But in that case, Franklin, marriage as an actual, defined reality CEASES TO EXIST. And you don't see any harm to society in that?

Anything less is clearly unjust. Your words, sister. Not mine.

Erin, I think when you say "If marriage really has nothing to do with children, or the state's interest in children, then why do we have state involvement in marriages at all," it really gets to the heart of much of the question. This isn't about religious marriage insofar as homosexuals crave a religion to bless their union. The issue is ONLY an issue because the state IS involved. Only because the state gives breaks and rights to married couples is the issue even one we are discussing. The state's choice to dirty its hands by giving these benefits and rights to only a certain group is the whole heart, honestly, of the problem.
Like I said earlier, I would have no problem if the state weren't involved -- but imagine the uproar trying to explain to heterosexuals that their marriages were still valid, but that every single one of the 1000+ protections/benefits/financial breaks were being rescinded as a result. I imagine there would be some pretty unhappy folk.

I soon go to brave the noreaster ice storm here in PA; 30 miles to home. I promise to be extra careful (I've been out in it already), if only because I really want to see this discussion to its conclusion.

Franklin, you said, "Marriage is the primary conveyance of property from one generation to the next, and by extension from one family to another." If this is the historical view, how do we get from that to gay marriage? It's still about biological offspring, isn't it? And though in the past both women and children may have been viewed more as property (though this does vary quite a bit, according to the civilization and time period) what's wrong with acknowledging that today, the state has seen all the data about the harmful effects of breaking the biological connection between children and their parents, and therefore sees its involvement in marriage as a necessary way to ensure that as many as possible future adult citizens will be raised by their own biological mothers and fathers?

"Rob, you've heard of that cse in Washington State wherein if a heterosexual doesn't reproduce within 3 years of getting married, they should have their marriage annulled." Actually I haven't, and if there is such a proposal, I'd be against it. "And then, please address the hedonistic heterosexual couples who simply decides that they will not have children." I'm against that attitude as well. I believe, in fact, that it's one of the reasons why hetero marriages are failing. Erin: "But in that case, Franklin, marriage as an actual, defined reality CEASES TO EXIST. And you don't see any harm to society in that?" Exactly -- what constitutes marriage becomes entirely arbitrary. There's a case in Germany right now where a biological brother and sister want to get married. They live together and have, I think, four children. Well, provided the children aren't genetically abnormal, why the hell not? "Marriage" might as well be three lesbians and a poodle. If sex doesn't matter, why should number? And if number shouldn't matter why should age? Or species? What if I really, really like my rubber plant? I'm being facetious here, but Erin's point is correct.

When bowling league members choose to build a life together, take care of each other in sickness and in health until death they do part, then the analogy stands. Get your minds out of our bedrooms and into our living rooms and you'll see where we're the same as you.

"Get your minds out of our bedrooms and into our living rooms and you'll see where we're the same as you." TV, I hate bringing this up, but the NAMBLA crowd says the same thing. Forty years ago, no one would have been even considering homosexual marriage -- homosexuality was still considered psychologically aberrant. Today, pedophilia is. But in forty years, if things go on the way they're going now -- who knows? The point of this is not to equate homosexuality with pederasty, but to illustrate the same 'frog in the warm water' principle that applies to both.

c&c, What I wrote was written out of charity - no personal insult meant. That being said, I can't endorse your situation because I think it wrong, and detrimental to yourself, and society. "Further the community"? We do that by being self-employed and contributing to the arts and business communities, (having written 3 books, one already a best-seller), creating wealth. We have worked together to further the cause of our faith community." C&C, I am sure that you very gifted, but nothing you listed as benefit to society stems from your sexual situation. It seems to me that you could do all of these things without having a partner of either persuasion. What we are discussing is how does your relationship with the man you call your husband help society? Sorry, C&C, no insult taken.

"Under the traditional theory, the State protected marriage, because heterosexual relationships often lead to children, and children need to be taken care of (as often do their mothers in case of divorce, which is the reason for child support)." But Anono, marriage is not being attacked (not by gays, anyway). The State needn't "protect" it - not from US, anyway. Now, please address those instances of heterosexual relationships that do NOT "lead to children". Why should they be allowed to marry? "But now, you say, marriage shouldn't be about protecting that kind of sexual relationship that leads to children." No, we're not saying that. Not even close. We ARE saying that in the instances where gays DO have children, they ought to be entitled to those exact same protections. "If children aren't the issue, then why should the State be privileging sexual relationships over non-sexual relationships at all?" WE'VE been asking that question since a long, long time, Anono.
"You say you want hospital visitation rights." Yep. "Well, why should Brad get hospital visitation rights for Joe (because they sometimes have sex), while Susan doesn't get hospital visitation rights for her best friend Christy (because they don't have sex)." You're (wilfully) confusing two very different relationships. We're talking about people who are married. (And EVERYBODY knows THEY don't have sex!!! ;{O) "I'm open to having a discussion about letting any designated person(s) have hospital visitation rights -- but why should it be tied to sex?" It ISN'T. It's tied to marital status. And, as a Deacon who has far too often had to battle on behalf of gay couples who are actually DENIED visitation rights by mean-spirited hospital pharisees (too tied up in the lette of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law), I find your comparison odious, not to mention disingenuous. If we were allowed to GET married, this would not even be an issue. And, in fact, in twenty years (or less, hopefully), it won't be.

Rob Grano, I asked if: "you've heard of that cse in Washington State wherein if a heterosexual doesn't reproduce within 3 years of getting married, they should have their marriage annulled." You replied: "Actually I haven't [no surprise], and if there is such a proposal, I'd be against it." Good heavens WHY? The argument has been that procreation is the PURPOSE of marriage. If they're not going to fulfill the purpose, why should they be allowed to get married. You won't let US! Me: "And then, please address the hedonistic heterosexual couples who simply decides that they will not have children." "I'm against that attitude as well. I believe, in fact, that it's one of the reasons why hetero marriages are failing." I disagree that it's one of the reasons why hetero marriages are failing, just as i would disagree that allowing gays to marry would cause hetero marriages to fail. But I still can't understand why hedonistic heterosexual couples who simply decides that they will not have children are ALLOWED to get married in the first place. See? Your arugment fails because you will only apply it to gays and not to everyone. "Marriage" might as well be three lesbians and a poodle." Trust me on this, RFG, those beastiality comparisons do NOT help your cause. When animals can read, understand, agree to and sign a contract giving consent to enter into relationships, then you might have a point. You don't. And it makes you look bad, and sound mean. "If sex doesn't matter, why should number?"
Because the number is not what is being debated. "And if number shouldn't matter why should age?" Age DOESN'T matter. There was a heterosexual couple in the newspaper last week - both of them in their late 90s. You must live in "pretendland" like Erin. "Or species?" See above. "What if I really, really like my rubber plant?" Then go have sex with it. Until it can sign your marriage license, you'll be out of luck. "I'm being facetious here" ARE you? "but Erin's pointis correct" Not by a long shot.

"RFG (and others), Curiouser and Curiouser has been suspended from participation on this blog." Rod, I would like to apologize to C&C, you, and anyone else that may have been offended by something that I wrote. I prefaced my comments that C&C seemed to take offense to with "stated baldly," by which I meant that they might come across as harsh, but they were not intended to denegrate a fellow humanbeing, made in the image of God. When discussing these matters I think it is best to leave personalities out of it, and focus on the ideas as they are presented. Speaking for myself I tend not to get upset when someone tells me something because they think I need to hear it, even if it is something with which I don't agree. That was the type of exchange that I meant to have, but if my persuit caused C&C to become emotional then I am sorry.

Aileen--a PDF file from the GAO detailing 1049 benefits of marriage is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=og97016.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao Some additional ones not mentioned yet here are: community property protections inheritance (spouse can inherit more tax free than other heirs) right to have spouse immigrate veteran's benefits for spouses Social Security benefits for spouses wrongful death benefits domestic protection orders right not to testify against spouse in court I have long thought that companies that pay more in dollars to provide insurance coverage to people with families are discriminating against singles. Many companies are now moving to providing a fixed dollar amount for benefits for each individual, and leaving it up to the employee to determine the amount and extent of coverage. Singles who don't need family coverage can take extra cash.

Aileen, "Does not this take away from the benefits available to men with wives and children? There is a finite amount of money that businesses can spend on insurance so families end up paying more. This is an extra burden on children (who are unable to obtain gainful employment) and on mothers (who are bearing and nursing children and may not be able to work fulltime). I would hope that two able-bodied men in a union with one another would not claim this benefit even where it is legally theirs." So basically, your family's health is more important than mine is what you're saying, if I understood correctly? Because my partner and I are both healthy males, our health is of less concern than two people of different sexes? Our children's health is less worthy than a child of a heterosexual couple? Of course a childless heterosexual couple would also be subject to this arbitrarily ridiculous standard, correct? Because the basis of the entire argument is that women nurse children. That is the only difference between these two different two-partner with a child situations.
That was the most insane, illogical, indefensible, utterly discriminatory argument I have heard in some time...and that's saying something. Not even close on the reality meter.

the original point of marriage (which despite Susan's protestations, has always been not only about money, but about HEIRS) Yes, this is true, but it doesn t invalidate Susan s point, because heirs were property. It is unclear to me that marriage was ever about the protection of children, except in the most general sense. Children were an expected result of marriage, to be sure, and the marriage provided children with some claim on basic necessities. But even within recent memory, many parents regarded their children more as a revenue center than an investment. Marriage established the father s claim on children. His responsibilities were a lot more nebulous, and existed pretty much at his own discretion. I m not taking the post-Aries position that pre-modern parents didn t love their children in the same way some of us do. Some of them almost certainly did. But the idea that marriage exists to provide a specific type of tender, nurturing, educating environment for children does seem to be a modern development, and a middle-class one at that. John Boswell s book, The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance describes some of the ways that heterosexual marriage turned out NOT to be about the nurturance of children. Even after child abandonment ceased, parents sent their children to work, fosterage or apprenticeships at an early age, essentially selling the child s labor in the same way it happens now in parts of Africa or Asia. Wealthy parents turned the children over to wet nurses, servants, and schools. Society found all this completely acceptable. Indeed, it was essential to the proper functioning of society that parents not be occupied by the nurturance of their children. Their attention was required elsewhere. My point: marriage has always been based on the desires and convenience of the adults. The picture of a marriage conceived in mutual devotion and altruistic dedication to the welfare of children and society is a beautiful one, but the idea that this was the foundation for traditional marriage is simply delusional. Also delusional is the demand that You gay people must prove you are as altruistic and beneficial as we heterosexuals before you can get married! Heterosexuals get married because we want to. We think there s something in it for us. And when we stop thinking that, mostly we stop being married. Sad but true. Homosexuals don t have to be better than we are to deserve equal treatment. They only have to be equally human.

If, as you postulate, the only reason for state-sanctioned marriages is about potential and affording benefits to help couples raising children, why isn't that codified? I wouldn't have a problem if it were codified. I am for the repelling of Griswald V. Conneticut, but just because hetro couple doesn't have children within 3 years (or whatever other number you care to menttion) doesn't mean that they never WILL have children. We could wait a thousand years for a homo couple to reproduce, and we would have waited in vain.
Just as there is no "do you love each other" clause on the marriage licence application. Bingo - because the state isn't sanctioning love -- thus it doesn't require couples to attending compatability classes -- puff there goes the pro-gay arguement up in smoke. Turns out you're not be discriminated agains because your "love," isn't recognized... neither is any hetro's love recognized, the potential to continue the species, and be the bedrock of society is, however. there is no "do you plan to have children" clause that I have seen or heard of. If you have, please, PLEASE show evidence. And remember, we're talking specifically about the United States of America (to pre-empt any "other country" arguments).
Again contraception even for married couples used to illegal, that being the case it was probably assumed that most marriages would produce children.

Franklin, So you just got home, eh?
:)

rfg honestly, you're avoiding every question asked of you. we've given you the point of no homosexual union producing children, but you're still hung up on the "potentiality" of entirely infertile couples producing children.
you keep answering questions with questions, and zero answers -- which is the point that some of us are trying to make....that there are no real answers, just hypothetical questions. a bunch of 'what ifs' does not justify excluding people. what if a monkey were elected president? we have real answers for why this is a problem....not just more crazy hypothetical questions as a response.

(The following is entirely too long. You have been warned.) Franklin has asked repeatedly, "What harm will legalized gay marriage create, and who will it harm?" Here we go. Every law at the federal, state, and local level that in any way refers to, relates to, or otherwise touches upon marriage, married people, families etc. will have to be changed. Great care will have to be taken in making all of these changes lest, for instance, a gay couple suing each other for divorce finds a provision in the law that still refers specifically to heterosexuals; on those grounds one or the other could attempt to nullify either the divorce action, or the marriage itself. Further, any presumption within the law that married people are normally or normatively heterosexual would have to be struck down. The fact that even in places where gay marriage is legalized it is still true that heterosexual marriages far, far outnumber homosexual ones will not matter; the law will be forced to presume that homosexual marriages is as widespread in reality as heterosexual marriage is. Anything less would leave the law open to charges of continued discrimination; so the law will have to bend reality rather than acknowledge the fact that heterosexual marriage will still be represented by staggeringly larger numbers of people. This means that the law will mandate changes in all the legal language used to refer to marriages or the married. 'Husband' and 'wife' will cease to be terms that will have any meaning in the law's eyes; and society will follow. A dramatic shift in language will take place as a result, as every term which is solely or significantly associated with heterosexual marriage is purged from everyday speech; the net result will be to further destroy future generations' ability to read or relate to the writings of the past. This change in language will negatively impact many social customs, too. One obvious, if trivial, example is that it will no longer be possible to celebrate either "Mother's Day" or "Father's Day" as these holidays are associated with a presumption that children have, or should have, one of each, a presumption that will be considered bigoted to make in the culture that legalizes gay marriage. (Children of the future may be discouraged from even referring to their parents as "mother" or "father" since these terms will be seen to be very obviously associated with a antique and biased form of heterosexism.) This change in both language and social custom will negatively impact freedom of speech, as well. Any statement to the effect that you think children should have both a mother and a father, or be raised by their own biological parents, will be considered an egregious, and probably actionable, offense of discrimination against homosexual couples. Your right to say so in private will not be absolute, either, because the state will want to make sure you're not poisoning your children with these views. To achieve that goal, the state will mandate that children be taught about gay couples and homosexuality beginning at the earliest levels of education, as is already being done in Massachussetts. From kindergartners being read aloud books like "Prince and Prince" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" to middle schoolers spending as much time discussing and learning the methods of gay sex as they now do learning the methods of heterosexual activity, the state's goal will be to make sure that every child views homosexuality as the physical and biological equivalent of heterosexuality. No care will be taken to leave the child's psyche undisturbed during the latency period (but then, it isn't now, one of the many reasons to homeschool.) Children will further be asked very personal questions about orientation and encouraged to consider the possibility that they might be homosexual, a violation of their persons which parents will be unable to protest. In fact, any school, public or private, which receives any state funding will have to implement these curriculum elements to achieve the goal of the complete acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage by society. This, of course, means that religious liberty in America will, to all intents and purposes, cease to exist. It will be illegal to speak against homosexual marriage, to refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt children, to educate children to believe that there's anything wrong with homosexuality, or to speak aloud the thought that perhaps homosexual marriage isn't quite like heterosexual marriage, given that there's a bit of a difference between a couple which can produce children and a couple which can't. In fact, I predict that it will eventually be illegal for heterosexual parents NOT to adopt, or seek legal guardianship of, their own biological offspring, including proving their fitness to parent their children to the state. The rationale will be that it's unfair to treat heterosexual couples any differently than homosexual ones, and since at least one member of a homosexual couple will always have an adoptive rather than biological relationship to any child the couple is raising, then it's only right that heterosexuals would have to undergo similar scrutiny before being entrusted with raising the children the 'female partner' or 'womb-spouse' has given birth to. These are just for starters, Franklin. There are obviously more, similar points I haven't thought of yet. I'm not quite ready to restructure society in order to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. You may be; others on this thread obviously are.

Thanks for saving me from spluttering, dub. That was well said and to the point. Erin, there's a technical term for what you were doing in that last post. It's called Making Stuff Up. It's great if you're writing fiction, but even there it has to be plausible.

2) Changes in language and custom. The evolution of race relations in the US and elsewhere is a telling comparison, Erin. It permeates our daily lives, right now, in ways too complex to describe easily or quickly. It is the original impetus for political correctness (something I join others in holding in utter contempt). It is also an example of what every single culture in the history of the world must go through in order to survive: adaptation. I'll cite an example of that, as well: the Roman Empire. This particular subject is one I've researched extensively (though I will ashamedly admit that I don't have citations ready to hand), but it is also one you should take to heart immediately: the two centuries or so following the death of Jesus Christ, and the government responses to increased conversions to the new religion called Christianity. They welcomed them, initially, as potential citizens, trading partners, and willy-nilly as slaves. They became increasingly fearful of them, because their religion was quite simply antithetical to the Roman paganism of the time, and besides getting increasingly (and with official sanction) violent in their treatment of Christians, they published propaganda that you might find familiar if you read later publications by the Church concerning later paganisms: they (the Christians) met in secret (true, and the only truth stated) to have marathon sex orgies, to summon and cavort with demons, to have sex with animals, to take children they stole from Roman citizens to perform blood sacrifices (and to drink said blood)... need I go on? Is there, in your heart, room for the notion that every single scare tactic applied to the early Christians and later pagans also being used against modern homosexuals, with the only differences being semantic? My point, besides the invidious comparisons, is this: if early Christians had been welcomed as law-abiding citizens, which they were in every way except for laws related to religion and worship, historian after historian has noted that subsequent world history could easily have been very different, up to and including you and I having this conversation in Italian instead of a derivation of German and Norse. The entire world might have been Christian long since (and without the bloodshed of the Crusades and the Inquisition). The rational possibilities are vast and amazing.

3) Evolution of social and legal mores. This also relates to the adaptation and survival of a society. I refute your portents of doom for a simple reason: because almost any one of them would be a symptom of the imminent collapse of the entire society, and people of intellect and good will are going to stand up and either prevent it, or give the rest of us a clue by leaving while they can. American civilization did not collapse when non-whites got to become free citizens. Indeed, the vestiges of opposition to it (Jim Crow and his worshippers) did more harm to society than any possible harm that came from emancipation. The fabric of our society did indeed stretch, and in isolated cases break, when interracial marriages were legalized. Can you name a harm from that, and who was harmed, that at least in hindsight is not considered both reasonable and acceptable? Change is frightening. As parents, you and I face it on a personal and intimate level with our children. I don't know of a single parent, myself included, that wasn't deep down terrified to see the first child go off into the world. The one thing that saves me (and other parents, I think) from grabbing that child and locking her in her room is our previous, sincere and dedicated attempts to prepare her for whatever she may encounter, and to do our efforts proud by building on them and becoming better at some things than we were. Fear of change is valid. There is a long list of rational reasons for fear of change. The only thing I can think of that is consistently wrong is to use that fear to prevent the change. The best application of that fear I know of is to partake in the change directly, and to modify or soften it to avoid or mitigate the very real and sometimes unnecessary harm that change cannot help but bring. I can't avoid returning to my personal example. My eldest went through her childhood knowing children of homosexual couples, both mundane and bizarre, children of heterosexual couples of equal proportion mundane and bizarre (she could tell you some stories...), lesbian and gay teachers and mentors in abundance (one being the director of her Hebrew school). In no instance does my daughter see any of those people as other than people first, then further decribed as mundane, bizarre, lesbian, gay, friend, teacher, mentor. She is going to get married, in August, to a fine and sweet young man who became her best friend long before they moved in together. That is how I expect the world to go. The rest is individual details.

Dub, while I certainly feel the same frustrations you do, I also believe that those frustrations are the valid result of a necessary effort. The effort is what's important, and besides having come to trust Erin, I see that she shares my belief in this regard. It's much more than sincerity and compassion (both of which she has in abundance); it's being challenged to contribute as much sincerity and compassion as she does, because no matter how righteous we may be, she is equally righteous, and that in combination with sincerity and compassion is something to be admired. Or I could just pat her and myself on the back. I can be at least as pompous as the next person... but at least I do mean well. ;)

"So basically, your family's health is more important than mine is what you're saying, if I understood correctly?" dub No, you have misunderstood me; your health is not less important than mine or my children's. But a grown man is in a much better position to obtain health insurance and financial stability than a child is. Also it is "reality" that some women cannot work fulltime when they are pregnant (9 months), recovering from childbirth, and nursing a baby. So a man's dependents are dependent in a way that a homosexual man's partner is not.
It is very unpopular to speak of women being vulnerable and in need of special protection because of physiology but I don't understand why you say it is not reality.

Aileen, I very well understand the nature of pregnancy and how women may not be able to work full time. So their insurance benefits falling under their spouse's insurance is important. You're very right on that. But after birth is where I don't see the difference. If a women has a newborn, she has to stay home and nurse it and recover from pregnancy, you say. If a homosexual couple adopts a newborn child, it's not as if they leave their child home alone and don't have the EXACT same issues with work and insurance coverage in taking care of their child. It is still two parents and one child, and one of the parents needs to stay home with the child. Just because it is a man staying home with the child does not invalidate the notion that they are still the exact same example of the two-working-parents, one-child situation that I referenced in my earlier post. There is still a child involved, and that child still needs benefits, so insurance covering married heterosexual couples and their newborns should logically be no different at all than any homosexual coupld with a newborn child.

dub, According to gaylife.about.com only 1 in 500 homosexual couples adopt. Also, only 7 states plus D.C. allow those adoptions. I would imagine that a small fraction of those are infants, most being adoptions of older children but it was not broken down by age. Perhaps it is unsatisfactory to you that 43 states make it difficult to immpossible for a homosexual couple to adopt. This brings us back to the original point of this post: Blackenhorn's assertion that children need both a mother and a father.
However, it seems that we can agree that in the extremely rare case where two men adopt a newborn, that child shoud have the same financial protections and benefits as any other child.

The seven states argument is dubious at best. Whether a "couple" adopts a child or whether one parent official is the adopted parent is irrelevant. It comes down to committed families of two same-sex parents with a child, regardless of whether one or both parents are officially recognized as the adoptive parent. From Families Like Ours (and I'm not sure what part of gaylife.about.com you were searching, because clicking on the family link there supports the information on the Families Like Ours site (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm): States, which joint and/or second parent adoptions have taken place to same-sex couples in all or some counties:
Alaska Iowa New Jersey California Maryland New Mexico Connecticut Massachusetts New York Delaware Michigan Oregon Washington D.C. Minnesota Pennsylvania Hawaii Minnesota Rhoda Island Illinois Nevada Vermont Indiana New Hampshire Washington (State)
States, which single parent adoptions have taken, place to a gay or lesbian individual in all or some counties:
All of the above, plus
Arizona
Colorado
Maine
Additionally, on the same site you posted, there is a note in the family section that says: "There are already thousands of children living in gay couple households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home." The 1 in 500 statistic can be dismissed outright just with common sense, as supposing that the number of same-sex couples is 600,000 (a low number because it involved self-reporting to the U.S Census), that means that there are only 1,200 children who have been adopted in this country to gay parents. I singlehandedly know about 20 children adopted by gay friends/acquaintances of mine. Either I just happen to know almost 2% of every child adopted into a gay family, or that number is bogus. I choose the latter. All this info is only provided because these numbers directly influence the point you're trying to make, that this is some rare instance and we shouldn't amend insurance rules for everyone just based on this miniscule handful of people who actually fit the bill of needing insurance for their family. Like it or not, they're out there. All over the place, and they need the insurance just as bad as any heterosexual family. And if you ask me, they log their 40 hours alongside their heterosexual coworkers, and they deserve it just the same.

GIITV wrote: "How does society intend to truly *stop* women from aborting without locking up every pregnant woman until she comes to term?" If it is the acceptance of homosexual behavior that is deleterious, how will society stop peopel from accepting homosexual behavior? What consequences does society intend to impose against those citizens who accept it as simply another color in the spectrum of human sexual behavior?" The simple answer is merely for government and society to refrain from legitimizing them. The fact is, whatever is legitimized (or subsidized, for that matter) you get more of. Pay poor women when they have illegitimate children, and guess what? More illegitimate children. No one that I know is asking for criminalization or penalties, just a halt of legitimization. Franklin wrote: 'We don't "get" to gay marriage. We are faced with an evolution of culture and society. All the rest is argument and rhetoric.' Thing is, Erin, RFG, myself and others most definitely do not see this as evolution, but as devolution. We have indeed "got" to gay marriage because of lax and licentious thinking in the past, just as we have "got" to a 50% heterosexual divorce rate for the same reasons. Dub -- rfg IS answering your questions, then responding with questions of his own. It seems like you're missing his points.

The statistic comes from http://gaylife.about.com/od/parentingadoptio1/a/gay_adoption.htm I don't know if the 2 in a thousand is an accurate stat or not but it is taken from a site that aims to inform homosexuals. I am not surprised that 33% of female couples or 22% of male couples have children. But by and large, these are the biological children of one of the partners; children conceived in relationship or marriage before the parent became homosexual.

Erin, I didn't mean to say you were ignoring me this morning. I just meant that when I posed things to you with quotes from some of your earlier postings, they went unanswered. But worry not, they've mostly been answered in ensuing conversation. I understand that :) You're more or less singlehandedly trying to answer about fifty different posts asking YOU questions about YOUR stance. Can't get to them all. I think the biggest thing, which you noted in your latest post, is just something I wanted to comment on. The notion that TV's last post was the most honest one and that it affirmed your thoughts that this was the "agenda." The problem I'm having with so much of this conversation (not just here, but everywhere I've had it) is that more or less we all have different reasons for supporting it or opposing. By and large, there are some consistent examples. For: Benefits for partners. Against: Religious grounds. Yet there are nuances in each argument. Example: I would NEVER insinuate that the reason gays should be allowed to get married was the same reason that GIITV posted. I don't think that that is representative of the movement in any way. It's not a question of "you had your turn" logic to me. Thus, I don't think it's fair to take what one person says in a fit and try to encompass every same-sex marriage advocate under that same banner. In the same way that when people say, "If gays get married, then people will marry dogs," I don't apply that awful argument to everyone in the anti-same-sex marriage group, because if I did I would be positively convinced that you were all unintelligent. My point is that it's important to talk person to person and not use one person's opinion as a standard bearer for the entire "agenda," as you put it. I know I don't speak for every gay marriage advocate on here, and wouldn't presume to. With that said, your examples are legitimate concerns, if they're all verified, I don't know of all the examples. I plead ignorance on their veracity. But in the same way that you and some others see this hypothetical situation in which homosexuality becomes the new heterosexuality and you're all going to prison for not loving it with every fiber of your being...I don't see that hypothetical situation happening in the United States in any way that would ever be codified. In that sense, we're all desinted to forever maintain the status quo because there is no common ground. I'm sure that before the abolition of slavery and the end of miscegination, these same hypothetical arguments were made too about the downfall of society, the disintegration of the family, so on and so forth. I guess I just think that people expect the worst, and they always have and always will. But I don't see those hypothetical societal doomsday scenarios as real answers or as real reasons to deny partnership benefits of every kind to homosexuals.
And after all that typing, I'm not sure I've actually said anything!

Giittv: *smack* Have I mentioned lately that you piss me off sometimes? ;) One thing: with strong feelings on both sides, leaving each other some elbow room seems like a nice idea.

Franklin - you have to know my tongue was planted firmly in cheek for that remark. It's just tiresome to hear them sing to the same broken record over and over and over and over...
Ad infinitum, World Without End, Amen.

Franklin, I didn't mean to show any disrespect toward you or imply you meant more than you said. But I've heard lots of pro-gay marriage supporters say, in effect, that this issue is analogous to the civil rights era or the women's suffrage movement, and that society will just have to be brought to accept gay marriage, even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward acceptance. Now, I'm not saying that you take that position, but from my standpoint, claiming a moral equivalency between civil rights issues and gay marriage implicitly says that just like in the civil rights era, the only reason to be opposed to gay marriage is bigotry. The New York Court of Appeals, hardly a religious body, could not have been clearer in stating that it found otherwise, that opposition to gay marriage was NOT de facto bigotry. In that long passage I quoted above, it then spelled out two ways the Legislature might choose to ban gay marriage for reasons other than bigotry. Those of you who support gay marriage have voiced your frustrations with some of us on the other side of the debate. My frustration is that the pro-gay marriage side continually acts as though the charge of bigotry has been settled and proven, and all that has to happen now is that 'straight America' must be taught, in the courts, in the schools, in corporate offices and private groups (like the Boy Scouts) to acknowledge and repent of their bigotry, and then everything will be just peachy.
Once every individual has been 'retaught' how to think, act, and believe on this issue, and churches and other dissenters made to pay in every way our society can make them pay (removal of tax exemptions, Kelo-style seizures of church property on the grounds that having such 'bigots' in a town's midst serves no beneficial purpose, forcing religion out of public life altogether) then we can finally progress to the brave new world where children don't need opposite-sex parents, where the poor unenlightened 'breeders' who still believe a child should have a mother and a father can be kept in their place and punished by society for their continued bigotry. Franklin, the situation re: the middle schoolers just happened, and a brief article about it can be found at the link below: http://tinyurl.com/ys9msw Although this article doesn't mention it, school officials aren't really admitting to any wrongdoing except in the matter of having the kids sign the nondisclosure agreements; they say that if parents don't want their kids to learn all about homosexuality, then the parents can put the children in private schools or homeschool them. Implied in the official comments is the idea that only bigots would be unhappy with fourteen-year-olds being presented with information, some graphic, about the homosexual lifestyle. And this attitude takes place now, in a state that hasn't legalized gay marriage. How much worse will it be for gay marriage dissenters if gay marriage becomes the law of the land?

Erin, Lacking further details, especially as described by Dub, if I were a parent of a student at that school I would have no difficulty identifying myself as a supporter of gays, walking into that school and threatening them with a lawsuit for breaking the parental consent laws. I don't care what the subject is, no one under any circumstances forces a minor to perform an adult act under duress. There is no excuse for forcing the issue. I stand with you on that, at the least. As for this being an isolated incident, I think you have one good point that should be addressed: there are plenty of weak-minded people out there, who wouldn't hesitate to follow what they see as a precedent and make the same mistakes in their community. This is clearly a practice that can only harm the the general hopes and exacerbate the fears of homosexuals. I would expect them to join people like me and you in decrying the practice, and asking local officials to avoid it at all costs. The crux of the matter is communication. Even the semblance of down-the-throat is wrong. It can only serve to prevent the goal even while thinking to promote it.

Franklin, Agreed completely about how incidents like this make the issue even more volitile for everyone. I ask you though, what do you consider to constitute "semblance of down-the-throat?" I ask because I've found in discussing this issue, that for many Christians and many anti-gay-marriage groups, even mentioning homosexuality in any educational setting is shoving it down their throat. Anything short of decrying homosexuality at all costs and ignoring accomplishments of prominent homosexuals or even talking about the real issues affecting homosexuals (bullying, anti-gay violence, etc) is "down the throat." So if we can't even talk about it without it being considered "indoctrination," how do you deal with it without it being seen as being "forced" down the throat?

Dub, So if we can't even talk about it without it being considered "indoctrination," how do you deal with it without it being seen as being "forced" down the throat? I have only one answer, and it is likely inadequate. I find it unsatisfactory myself, but then I came up with it, so... I am personally faced with precisely that situation, and my issue is religion, not sexual orientation. Classes on classical mythology have come under attack in some places, with both Hamilton and Bullfinch somehow becoming obscene in some eyes; the simple truth is that this is not the time for modern paganisms to be taught about in public schools. On top of that, there are fewer pagans than there are homosexuals (though I tend to suspect that the number of pagans is much higher than reported). For pagans, it is much more likely for pejorative language to be used. We are, after all, explicitly of Satan; it says so right there in Scripture. So, I have no difficulty understanding the dilemma.

I've been giving this alot of thought. I do want to be fair about the charge of bigotry, and I really do agree that we should be able to discuss the beliefs aspect of this without name-calling. So, I'll start with an apology. In my desire to support my homosexual friends here and in real life, I have erred in buying into the bigotry charge. We can, q.e.d., all agree that there are bigots in every group, and that they are not to be used to paint the entire group. I've been around this block many times personally. I think it's time to get over it on both sides and move into constructive territory. Here's the logic as I see it. 1) Homosexuality is antithetical to some religious beliefs. I start that way to acknowledge that we need to be aware that this is not just a Christianity thing, and we do need to avoid the bashing trap. I will continue talking only about Christianity, though, that being the majority religion in the US and the context in which I am making my comments. 2) We are a pluralism. While that means making room for all the minority belief systems and groups, it does not mean trampling over Christianity in the process. 3) We, as a society, make an explicit distinction between secular culture and religious culture. We start with the notion of separation of church and state, we fall back on that phrase alot, but it really comes down to culture, the structure, maintenance, conveyance and control (positive and negative) of the ideas and concepts we pull in to our identity. What I've defined is the ultimate juggling act. I ask two things: that we (general) take a step back and acknowledge just how damn hard it is for those to whom we delegate much of the work of culture -- media, schools -- and take another step back and acknowledge those points where we've wrongly delegated. This is my conclusion to the logic: Some Christian parents (too many, in my personal and yes, cynically annoyed opinion) expect their values to be taught in public schools. They expect the schools to either actively support their beliefs, or to scrupulously avoid contradicting them. This, I submit, is not a reasonable expectation in a pluralistic society. The balance to that, the part where too many schools are not making a sufficient effort (if any), is in the consideration due to the Christian parents, and the simple expediency of communication and planning. Just off the top of my head is the recent snafu that Erin linked to, concerning the "mandatory" classes about homosexuality for freshmen in an IL high school. It could have easily been handled thus: A letter home to the parents, telling them of this class and providing the details of it explicitly and clearly; a permission form, where any parent can require that their child be excluded from the class; a written promise that there will be no toleration for any bullying or fallout towards those children whose parents have pulled them out of the class. Personally, a second idea I had would be IMO even better: send home a list of subjects to be covered that year. Each one that the parent opts the child out of, the school sends home the material they will use for it, and let the parents do what they will. It is my expectation that a minority of parents (nationwide) will want to opt their children out (under either scenario), and schools will have to handle a less-than convenient situation. In the end, those parents who want to shield their children from some things get to do so, and the rest of us go on our way. Comments? Objections? Did I miss anything that implies something negative? Ask me. Tell me.

Well, I won't blame Erin if she's burnt out on this discussion. I want to extend to her my heartfelt gratitude for her contributions to it. I'm not sure how to put this, so I'll just write what I'm thinking: Erin, you are one of the most valuable and admired dialog partners I've ever encountered. I want to ask a question that has bothered me for a very long time. I ask it because the answer will help me, I hope, better understand the depth of feelings involved, and give me, perhaps, a better focus for my compassion: Is one of the reasons, perhaps a main reason, for the intense feelings from opponents of same-gender marriage that (just due to a statistical reality) the vast majority of homosexuals come from Christian families? While my heart goes out to my homosexual friends who become estranged from their families, there's got to be serious heart wrenching going on there also. I'll understand if this is too sensitive a question to discuss.

Tangent time: IMNSHO, that son is right to cut his parents out of his life. What purpose does it serve to continue to ally with people who see you and your life as "intrinsically disordered" when in the day to day living of life shows vast evidence to the contrary? The tragedy in all of this is there are probably hundreds of thousands of parents who will never know the wonderful, competent, giving, nurturing people thier children have grown to become because of something some Bronze Age Patriarch had to say about God's intended use for genitals.

Erin, I'll comment on a personal (and conveniently anonymous, though I wouldn't care anyway) note about your last point, because my parents are a huge study in the contrast you bring up. Neither of my parents were religious, both attended church in their youth and my brother and I were taken to church on holidays only, and they both reacted in different ways. My mother, since I came out, has become my best friend. I haven't lived in the same time zone as her for about five years yet we talk about four times a day, and when she comes to visit everything is great. Through everything, we've grown closer because of it. There's a certain level of protective nature that she felt right when I came out -- because as if having a seventeen year old son is not scary enough, now she had a gay seventeen year old son. She essentially vowed to never let it affect the way she thinks about me and to never let anyone around her assail me based on a characteristic like that, That feelgood story is only told in contrast to my father, who I am using to bring up a point that I think is important to discuss. I understand the concerns that some religious folk have about homosexuality -- and while I've spent my fair time struggling with Christianity and whether it's for me, I still don't agree with those positions, but I'm going to recognize them as valid for the sake of this conversation (because otherwise I'm discounting your entire belief system, in turn essentially your entire existence as invalid!). My father has no religious objection to homosexuality, at least not one that he ever spoke of during our two year long falling out. We haven't spoken in almost five years, short of emails he sends me trying to reconcile, while still trying to blame me for the falling out.
The point I'm getting at is what he said to me when he took back the key to his house from me (parents divorced but still lived close). He told me that I was no longer welcome to come and go from his house as I pleased because he "wasn't comfortable with the idea that I would be having my 'little gay sex parties' at his house." Granted, I was a virgin at this point, but that's neither here nor there. The thing I struggle with is this mentality, that there are LOADS of people out there whose rejection of homosexuality is not religiously based from the get-go. Their issue with it is that, for lack of a better term, it's 'icky.' Then they can tool around and use circular logic and come to the conclusion that it's also immoral because the Bible says so. I think that there are people like you, whose intentions in opposing same-sex marriage are good. You don't do it out of hate or out of bigotry, but out of legitimate concern regarding the changes in society that would occur should this become legal. I, naturally, don't agree with your concerns but I can respect the way they are formulated because they look at potential issues that may arise in society and in families should same-sex marriage become an included standard. I guess I'm saying that there are myriad reasons why any person could oppose same-sex marriage, but I am dismissing some of them outright as invalid, such as my father's reasons. Your reasons will continue to be valid until this actually happens (which sadly for you, happily for me, it WILL in my lifetime) and we see the effects firsthand. Until then, it's just a waiting game and a chance to discuss our concerns from both sides. Of course I'm still relatively new as a commenter around here, but thanks for engaging me on this topic. GIITV, I don't think there is a right or wrong way to approach the parent-child situation that en masse covers every instance. I think that, yes, homosexual children need their parents to be supportive, but cutting off ties altogether as the gold standard does nobody any good. I have plenty of friends who don't think homosexuality is right, but they're still my friends. They support me in the fact that I have a committed relationship (two years this Thursday :)), even if it's one that they don't really approve of, because they're my friends and they want me to be happy. They support me as a person, but we don't talk about homosexuality. As such, I think that children need their parents as bad as any one person needs any other person in this world. There is certainly a way to support one's child without supporting their homosexuality. So to suggest that the "right" thing to do is cut off anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality is going to lead to even more fractured families and will lead to some very lonely people without support systems of any kind. I'd be willing to bet that Erin's friends would still bend over backwards to help their child should an emergency arise...after all, he never stops being their little baby.

With respect, dub, this... So to suggest that the "right" thing to do is cut off anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality is going to lead to even more fractured families and will lead to some very lonely people without support systems of any kind. ...is not an accurate reiteration of my position. I said *that* son was right to cut his parents off because they see him as "intrinsically disordered."

I came out to my parents by inviting them to my Church, where they saw example after example of people living their lives and loving (and worshipping) their Creator. They saw no eveidence of any of God's gay and lesbian children being "intrinsically disordered". They saw loving, committed people fulfilling the commandment to love one another.

Those parents still reach out though to their son I find this to be disingenuous. In some cases, sure - those parents just want to love thie rkids but never deal with that facet of their existence. Those men and women will have to forever censor their lives - not talking about the great new promotion their partner received, or about the home they're planning to buy together, or - Heaven forbid - that they're planning a family. How sad that is. On the other hand, there are parents who are reaching out with one open hand while the other is hidden behind them either holding chains or curled into a fist. They won't be *ruly* satisfied with their child's life until that child has changed themselves to be the mirror of their parents expectation. It's selfishness in the extreme. Of course, it could always be said that the selfishness is coming form the "disordered" child. That they should be happy receiving whatever crumbs of love fall off their parents' table. I call BS on that. It's possible to have a loving, open, honest relationship as adults with one's parents. Mine is such a relationship. Personally, and this is just my opinion, any relationship that requires one or the other party to "keep quiet" about certian things (a partner on one hand, parental disapproval on the other) is unhealthy and better off dissolved. So yeah - I suppose I'm talking about more than just *that* case.

Rod, I've looked and looked and cannot find your e-mail address to which to write to dialogue with you. It isn't in the "Contact us" page of B'net, and can't seem to see it anywhere else on the site. You've taken off every single post of mine (despite having admitted I've said some good things here) including the explanation of why I might not want to dialogue with you because of exposure and threats in the past. What can I do now?

Giittv asks: What purpose does it serve to keep people in our lives that do not respect or honor the people we are? Firstly, I must assume you mean people with whom we have a prior close connection (that being deliberately vague, so caveat as you need to). Further, I assume you mean those people with whom we have a significant emotional investment. If you want me to expand my response, just ask. For me, the relationship itself defines the response. Is that person otherwise wanted or needed in my life? A personal example was my father, who was out of my life (and most of the continent distant; explaining would make this a very long post) for most of 30+ years; I did not hide him from my children, and if any of them had expressed a desire to meet him, they would have. To extend the example, no child of mine would have been left with him for any length of time. Again, they'd be told why. But I would not have prevented the acquaintance. I'll make one last assumption: that you want to explore this beyond the mundane considerations. I'll start with a comparison: a lover. We all can think of examples, witnessed and/or personal, of a lover that went from a great friend to an enemy (great or otherwise). If I had a dollar for every boyfriend of my older sisters' who... well, you get the idea. The answer in this case is relatively easy: you dump the, ahem, person from your life and move on. There will be more or less crying, depression, etc. in each case, but the conclusion is simple: this person does not deserve to be a part of my life. This, by no stretch at all, is likely the single most heart wrenching part of estrangement within a family. A parent, son, daughter, sibling cannot be replaced. There is no moving on, just a sense of loss, and no easy resolution to the various feelings. My personal take on this is that we go ahead and make the hard decisions. We do it because we are, in the end, responsible for our lives in ways that no one else can be, and if we do not act in those best interests, then we become puppets. One last thing, and a final assumption: you imply the added aspect of making an attempt to change minds. No one can answer that aspect for anyone else, and every situation will potentially have a different answer. It comes down to how much grief and how much frustration you are willing to endure, along with what should be a rational assessment of your chances of success. Giittv also asked: When the people who benefit from shaping the culture the way it is (no matter how detrimental it is for those they marginalize in the process) make it explicitly clear that we are to have no input into that culture, why should we work to help them preserve it? Quite simply because there are and always will be aspects of culture that are not affected by our lost input, and about which we remain in agreement with them. This, for me (and I consider my experience as a Pagan relevant), is an easy one to answer: it all depends on how much of the bridge you want or are willing to burn. You (and I) have ways to circumvent them. Limited ways, to be sure, but we are not without recourse in some (I submit: most) things of importance.

New Guy, you said, "I found it sad when you mentioned school kids who "at 13 or 14 still don't have a very good idea about sex". That is clearly the fault of their parents. I see the schools fulfilling their mandate to educate people." Let me be clear here. I'm not talking about kids at 13 or 14 who don't know which parts are supposed to go where, or that certain things will lead to pregnancy and/or disease. I'm talking about kids at 13 or 14 who understand enough about sex to be able to converse knowledgeably and from experience about intercourse, sodomy, oral sex, various methods of self-gratification, and their own favorite among a variety of positions. There's clearly a difference between the first group and the second, but from what I've seen of materials actually used in schools, lots of public educators make the assumption that all kids belong to the second group and that all talks/presentations etc. should be tailored to pander to their already jaded interests and appetites. This does a disservice to the kids in the first group, many of whom are not only still virgins, but still quite modest about their bodies, and still uncomfortable being placed in group settings and forced to listen to and talk about sex from a more graphic vantage point. That's why I think parents should have a greater role here. From my perspective, it's tragic that there are 13 and 14 year olds who are already so 'experienced' that some of them are mothers and fathers and some of them are already being treated for a variety of venereal diseases; but I'm aware how outdated my views on the subject are.

Chris, I can see where you got the impression, but I did not intend it: I'm not quite that cynical to think that reconciliation is never possible, or that one should give up hope. My empathy with my homosexual friends is quite specific: rejection is like a brick wall, but without the "it feels good when I stop bashing my head" concept to offer some relief. The only sane response to rejection (after a period of effort to change it, lasting as long as each individual chooses/can stand) is withdrawal; leaving can also be construed as surrender or retreat, and that can be true at times. It really does come back to another thing I wrote: every situation is different, in some respect.

Some really thoughtful replies from everyone. Thanks. Let's take a hypothetical example. Suppose a devout Catholic family were to have a son who rejected the Church, moved in with a married woman, and began a family with her. If the parents were to say, in effect, that this son were to be welcomed into their home and could be part of their life, but he were to refuse unless they were to tell him that his adultery was just fine, that the Church's teachings on marriage were all rubbish anyway, and that it didn't matter in the least if he wanted to live with one or more married women--would you place the burden on his parents to do this, and say that to do otherwise was to reject their son? Erin,
My point is, what purpose would being welcome in someone's home and being part of someone's life serve if there's something that's so unacceptable about one that it becomes an an issue worth terminating a relationship over?
You are saying, and correct me gently if I'm wrong, that if the son *were* to do those things and expect to be welcomed into their home, that he would be subjected to their opinion of his life choices ad nauseum. To ask them to keep silent is unfair. To ask him to bear their sour dispositions about it is unfair. Why would anyone subject himself to that? Yes - in that case, it would be best for him to cut himself off from his parents' world. Who does "the burden" belong to? Does it matter?
Chris, I hear what you're saying and agree with you, though part of me grumbles about it. To quote Nina Simone (Mississippi Goddamn): That's just the trouble... it's too slow! Yes we're looking at an inevitablity. In a hundred years people will look back at this time with the same incredulity that we look at Jim Crow days - "How could they *ever* have been so short-sighted?" will be our platitude. Meanwhile - it sucks to be *us* in *their* world while we're waiting for them to catch up. I know. Grin and bear it, and keep working for progress. It's either that or wallow in it... ...everyone needs a good wallow now and again.

In the final year of my father's life, I went to his residence twice. The first time, with one of my sisters, was to give me a chance to heal (her too). The second time, by myself, was to close up his affairs after his passing. He grew up in one of the most turbulent places and times in human history. His people were militaristic, proud, fiercely honorable and steadfast as both friends and enemies. They, or I should say we, still are. He grew up surrounded by enemies (trying to keep this short, so ask if you want more details, but the enemies were the Ottoman Turks), taught warfare and espionage, and followed his brothers and ancestors into service in an army that was soon to be devestated, its survivors branded war criminals by the victors. Fast forward: American citizenship, a good job that used his talents, five children, and he is slowly killing his family. When he finally submitted to testing, he was diagnosed clinically paranoid. My parents divorced soon after. So, who can tell me what choices he had? Who can say that he could have chosen to be a trusting and open man as well as a loving father, which in his own mind he surely was, yet be told by his beloved adopted country and society that he was insane? I offer the above more to tie up my personal feelings on this thread. I hesitate to draw direct analogies, but if my story has any value, it will I hope let some people make at least an intellectual effort to stand in the shoes of our homosexual fellow citizens. At some point, it is only a matter of respecting the notion that some things are not a matter of choice, and the more we insist they are, the more we injure and eventually destroy those we profess to love.

Wow, for some reason I couldn't post yesterday. Erin, I just want to say that I am the mother of a gay son. Because of this, it has made me become active in the "community". Personally, I hate the word "gay community". People use it in the most negative way. It is no different than when my kids where younger & you hung out with mothers who's kids were the same age as yours. "They" have something in common. At any rate, I am part of PFLAG and I can tell you that there are many Catholic parents in my group who love and support their gay children. They do not view their children as sinners. They truly believe that their children are born gay and that they are a blessing from God just as our heterosexual children are a blessing.
I personally think that most people get hung up on the sexual aspects of being gay and not what it means to be gay. Everyone automatically assumes that gays are permiscuous and their relationships are just based on sex. This is NOT true. The parents that have the biggest problem are the parents who choose to love their children but hate their "sinning". You have to realize that most gays (from my experience) have been pretending they are someone that they are not years before coming out. By not accepting their children for who they are the child must continue to be under pressure by pretending they are someone they are not. How do you have a relationship if it is based on lies? You really can't. There is always the "perverbial elephant" in the room. You need a relationship to be based on trust, and on truth. How do these Catholic parents still go to church and participate? I don't know, but I do know that they are fighting for a better understanding of homosexuality in the church. Personally, I believe one day we will all look back & realize that we were wrong.
I no longer believe in God, but I am happy that some parents refuse to leave the comfort that their God provides them. For me, not so much.

Love. Good answer - to a point. Does love come with strings attached because we're never as good as the unconditional love example we're given in Sunday School from the time we're old enough to grasp it? Or is it just that we don't know what love is? Personally, I don't think it's love to welcome a gay son into one's home and vote to keep him a second-class citizen. I can imagine what it must be like - no one wants to cut their kids out of their lives, but there's that niggling prejudice fostered by years and years of reinforcement and reiteration by fallible men paying lip service to the writings of other fallible men to contend with. Know this: that ain't love. Not by any definition I ever read. Does this give someone license to do whatever they want and still eceive the love of their parents? I don';t think I'm saying that. Being gay is a far cry from being a murderer or a thief, or even an alcoholic or drug abuser. There is nothing remotely related to "wrong" when it comes to how we're wired to fall in love. Until those parents can get past being squigged out by the "ick factor" or break past the lies they've been sold by patriarchs with control issues (and I know no one is required to view religion the same way I do - I just calls 'em like I sees 'em), then they're not capable of *truly* loving their gay kids. Just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree.

I've not been following this thread, except to give cursory readings to make sure the discussion is proceeding with relative civility. But I do want to say that if any of my children were to tell me one day that they are gay, it would in no way mitigate my love for them, and there is no way I would hold my gay child any less close. But loving them does not obviate what I believe to be morally true. Similarly, if one of my children were to convert to (say) Buddhism, I would love that child no less, but I would also believe that child was living a fundamental error.
If there is someone who would cease to love his or her child because that child was same-sex oriented, I would find that sad. If there is someone who would cease to love his or her child because he or she apostatized, I would also find that sad. There is nothing that can separate my children from the love of their father -- and I hope they feel the same way about me.

Sorry I ever opened up the door...... I am banning myself from this website!

Dub, what you just wrote was pretty darn powerful, too!
And you are a Christian. If God chooses to lead you further, He will; your sincere desire to follow Him pretty much guarantees that. And what you wrote here, "I hope I'm right about it and believe that I am, and if I'm not, I hope that the rest of my life is good enough to sit with God eternally, as we all have sinned." is what I hope about my life, and what others I know hope about theirs.
My Church may teach more specifically than other Christian churches in the area of moral theology, but even my Church says that to be guilty of grave sin, the sin must objectively be grave, you must know the sin is grave, and you must still freely choose it. If you are still seeking, you will find what God wishes you to find, and I know I'm not the only one who takes comfort in the verse about the woman whose many sins are forgiven because of her great love. And I'm Catholic, so I'm fairly certain there's beer in Heaven, and that I might even acquire the taste for it there that has so far eluded me on earth! :)

Bah - that was me... damn cookies ;)

Franklin~ Glad to hear you're not a cynic and I misunderstood. I myself teeter on the edge of cynicism far too often and it takes me one heckuva lot to drag myself away sometimes! GIITTV~ Yeah, I know. I'm sure I do more than my fair share of grumbling over having to be 'positive' and trudge on. I think sometimes I live in a perpetual state of moral indignation. I feel ya! Erin~ Sorry to hear you got nothing more out of this discussion than we pro-same-sex-marriage types are a bunch of anti-Christian ogres of some sort. I can't speak for others, but I see no reason those on your side of the fence should be silenced just for arguing that the Bible (and other religious texts) says that homosexuality is immoral, any more than I should be silenced for uttering my belief that the Bible is deeply flawed and full more of atrocity than hope. Your convictions are yours and mine are mine. A line has to be found, though, and I've tried to demonstrate through this and other threads that said line should be drawn only where practices affect those on either side of any issue adversely or unreasonably. I've not read nor heard one argument that same-sex marriage will affect you and yours adversely or unreasonably that holds any water, including Blankenhorn's tripe. Please, do count me as one who bases his argument upon reason and pragmatism rather than proclivity or hidden agenda.

To continue: To address your specific area of concern, what kind of love is it that marches into his/her parent's home, and says, in effect, "Either you love each and every aspect of my life, everything I am and choose to do or be, or you don't *really* love me, in which case, I'm outta here." The same kind of love as: "You are not allowed to fall in love with anyone that has the same genitals as you. If you do, you are disordered, worthy of hell, and must either subsume the evil within you and live a loveless life or change your change your very being if you want to continue to be welcome in our home." Thing is, both of those examples are utterly ludicrous when ya look at them, aren't they? I don't expect there are many people in the world who actually speak like that. In my way of looking at it, it's the gay son or daughter in that situation that is making the love "conditional." It is the gay child who demands complete and total acceptance as the price of his/her love, and who is ready to remove that love if such acceptance doesn't measure up to his/her standards, or if he/she suspects that his/her parents are just 'faking' their acceptance and don't *really* mean it. Which is worse - the child demanding complete and total acceptance of his way of seeing the world or the parent demanding complete and total acceptance of their way of seeing the world? I'd say they're about equal in stupidity.
In the real world, most of us find that there are plenty of things about ourselves that the people who love us don't entirely accept or approve of. True that.
But we don't cut them out of our lives as the *price* for not understanding or appreciating some aspect of our lives which is deeply important to us, or which even seems to define us in some way. We sometimes have to look past our self-interest for the sake of making relationships work, and that's as true of the relationship one has with one's significant other as it is with one's parents. I agree with you, to a point. When it comes to your spouse, however, I doubt you'd find it easy to just "overlook" the fact that your parents hate him, think he's evil and think you're evil for loving him. You don't just fake your way through Christmas dinner with those parents. You stop going to Christmas dinner with those parents. Failing to do so means cutting a lot of people out of our lives, in the end. It may give us a momentary satisfaction to do so, but if we live like that, we are in danger of finding ourselves completely alone. You'd be surprised. There's millions of people in their 20s and 30s - gay and straight - who have little contact with their parents for reasons like religion, abuse, divorce, or even just plain economic reality. They build our own families. Is it sad? I don't really think it's any more sad than hanging on to a bad scene when it's just not necessary to do so. Do I advocate everyone to do it? No. How silly. Life is relative.

Erin, I will wait til you post the rest before I repost. Thanks again for continuing this conversation.

While we wait for Erin to complete her contribution, there are a couple of points that continue to reappear that are an itch I can't help scratching... If marriage is a union between any two people of any gender, why not three, four, or more? I know I'm not going to get much love for mentioning this, but if same-gender marriage is capable of being used as a precedent, then I would work to permit more-than-two contracts of domesticity (at which point the term "marriage" may become too limited, as it were). I don't know how many polyamorists there are, not as many as there are homosexuals I would guess, but their day in the sun should be addressed as well... some day. Is sexual activity a requirement of marriage? Or can two elderly sisters who share a house demand that the law "protect" their sibling relationship the same way it "protects" a relationship based on sexual activity? This already has a precedent, at least in tax law. The filing category is "head of household", and offers most of the same tax breaks and benefits of "married". As I recall, siblings living together is still recognized as a family, at least in this section of the tax laws. It's not total parity, but it's better than the implied nothing.

GIITV, I appreciate discussing all of this with you. You said, "I don't think it's right and proper to make a minority convince the majority of the existence of their rights. As citizens, their rights (including that of equal protection under the law) are non-negotiable." But in a way, that's begging the question again. Not all rights are self-evident, and the state has always reserved for itself the right to issue marriage licenses, and decide who's eligible for them. In the case of interracial marriage, as has long been pointed out, some people were being deprived of the ability to marry each other due to race; the definition of marriage didn't have to be changed to allow a black man to marry a white woman, or a black woman to marry a white man. As much as this gets brought up in the gay marriage debate, the situations simply aren't analogous, no matter how hard we try to make them so. And not all minority rights are created equal, if you'll forgive the phrase. At the state and federal level we've seen this from time to time, as in cases, for example, where the right to practice one's religion doesn't equal a right to sacrifice animals in the courtyard of your subdivision. It is not an invalid question to ask whether a proposed change in an ancient law like the definition of marriage will help or hurt society; it would not necessarily be bigotry to decide that it would hurt society, and to forbid it on those grounds. Similarly, before we start allowing polygamy or polyandry, we'd better take a look at the effect *those* relationships might have on society, no idle question when you consider the possibility of a man, his twenty wives, and their eighty children moving into your town and demanding welfare benefits. To go back to your reply to my first point for a moment, your answer is that marriage is "The union of two people who love each other." All due respect, TV, and I sympathize with this human response, but how on earth do you expect the law to codify this? I mean, you say that if marriage is about offspring then the elderly or infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry. Problem is, in many cases you don't really know if someone's infertile unless they've tried to prove they're not, which would be a pretty despicable thing for the law to ask them to prove (same for the elderly; where's the cutoff point? It's not as though hundreds of thousands of octogenarians marry each year; and the law might not wish them to have to 'prove' they're too old, either. Besides, with today's technology 'past menopause' doesn't really matter, does it?). But if the law is too 'squeamish' to wade into questions of infertility, how are they going to ascertain the presence of love? People don't have to love each other to marry each other. And in a practical sense, I don't see the law sending, for instance, hapless County Clerks along on a few dozen dates with you and your intended to report back on whether or not you love each other. But then the definition becomes, "The union of two people..." and, all probability, "The union of...people..." at which point you've really got to wonder why all those non-people in the animal kingdom get excluded. Don't they have rights? What's so special about being human? (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.) Skipping around, on my third point you replied, "If it were, more than half of the currently married couples wouldn't be, by definition, married. I hear the drive peters out (so to speak) after a few years with y'all) :)" Ya heard wrong 8). But seriously, in the example about the sisters, you say, "Why would it matter?" but at this point, I'm all for the abolition of marriage as a civil institution, because at this point the word no longer means ANYTHING. I want marriage to mean something. It always will, according to my Church, of course. But I'd rather see civil marriage cease to exist as a structure of society, than see the word marriage defined as "A....of....people (or other organic life forms) ...." which is what we're left with by the time we get to the end of this discussion. I welcome any further thoughts you have, of course!

"I think that's the crux of the whole matter right there. Why does *your* religion get to be the religion that makes the rules for the rest of us? Until we all sit down and find out the answer to that *why,* I think we're going to see what happened to Massachusetts happening everywhere else. You don't want that. Believe it or not, neither do I." I do believe it, and I appreciate it! But here's the problem. First of all, it may seem like it's 'my' religion making the laws, but that's not really true, is it? If the Catholic Church got to make the marriage laws, divorce would be illegal, and remarriage to a different spouse after divorce or after any kind of separation illegal also. What you mean, probably, is that the Christian Church gets to make the rules. But that again is a bit of a simplification, as a Christian understanding of marriage isn't interchangeable with a secular one. Besides, you'd be forgetting some pretty important people if you thought that Christians made all the marriage laws; there's a reason we refer to our culture as having a Judeo-Christian basis, you know. And in the quest to dismantle any remnants of the Judeo-Christian value system and remove it from public life, those who seek that as a good thing will be forgetting that the vacuum left behind will be filled, in all probability, not by secularism, but by Islam. And if you think same-sex couples are oppressed now, just wait until a few centuries of Islamic fundamentalism have changed the American landscape once and for all.
You see, the question isn't, and never has been, whether Christians or secularists (atheist, agnostic, etc.) are going to get to create our nation's laws. It's whether it will be the Judeo-Christian culture and philosophy of the West, which still spreads its influence throughout much of American law and policy, or the Islamic culture and philosophy edging it out through widespread immigration without corresponding levels of assimilation, or through violence and acts of terror, that shapes the future of the world. If the secularists appear to win, even in the short term, I'm afraid it will be a Pyhrric victory. The vacuum left behind by the absence of one strong system of religious belief will be filled in the long run by a competing system, not by a relativistic and secular world view. That's my take on the answer to your "why."

As you can see from the typos, I'm not yet fully awake. I'll revisit this when I get a break at work today. Much thinking to do...

GIITV, I've checked in to see if you've gotten back to this, but since you haven't I'd like to clear up one possible misconception. You said, "Y'all religious folks (mostly) spend your growing up years thinking about sex as much as the non-religious folks. Except, y'all aren't allowed to "do that" until you get married. So of course one of the main reasons you get married is so y'all can have sex without going to hell." I think you mentioned somewhere having been raised in a Baptist environment (?) (please correct me if I'm wrong). I can't speak for other Christians, but Catholic marriage really isn't about having sex without going to hell. Rather, it is about those other things you mentioned, "like loving one's partner, for instance, and wanting to spend the rest of one's life supporting and being supported by that person until death parts us." Procreation becomes an essential part of marriage because the child is the living sign and symbol of his parents' love. No Church that I know of sees the parents as subordinate to their own procreative powers; rather, procreation is so important precisely because the child is the ultimate presence of the parents' love and unity, made visible to the world. Couples who struggle with infertility know this, and it causes some of them to resort to means which are (objectively) outside the moral realm, in that these means separate the parents' unitive from their procreative aspects. Though infertility is a difficult cross to bear, the Church sees such couples as being called to a generosity of spirit and willingness toward service which may manifest itself in adoption, in volunteering their time to those in need, and in similar ways; nevertheless, the Church sees this as different from the ordinary way a couple is called to procreation, which is the call to participate in God's creative power to bring forth children in His image--and in theirs. Few, if any, couples ever know they're going to have to carry the cross of infertility beforehand. Catholic couples who marry do so because the beloved Other has become as necessary to them as their own life, and because they seek a permanent commitment to love each other and to extend that love to the children for whom they fervently pray at the wedding Mass at which they are united. To reduce that love and commitment to 'sex without hell' is a bit of a misunderstanding, I think.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, Erin. I thought just a few posts ago you said love and a lifelong committment wasn't enough to warrant marriage. So I thought what's the one thing that separates your people and my people, and the only answer I could come up with (since we've ruled out procreation as a reason as both the infertile and the elderly are exempted) is the sex. There's evidence that supports this view - y'all can't have sex til you're married. The reason why we're not ever supposed to have sex is because sex is supposed to be for the married folks. Well, since you won't let us marry, it's celibacy or hell in your world for your gays.
It's sad.

Hello again, GIITV. Once again, I think I need to clarify. Since you'd mentioned religious beliefs re: marriage, I wanted to respond to that.
However, I still think it's impossible for civil marriage, in the law, to codify whether or not people will love each other. About the best the law can come up with is to spell out that in certain egregious violations of the marriage contract, a party to the marriage may sue for its dissolution without the consent of, and possibly even facing opposition by, the other party. I really do think the only reason civil law cares about marriage at all is that the benefits, tax breaks etc. are supposed to be for the benefit of the new citizens marriage can and does produce. And the only reason the law doesn't require marriage license applicants to prove their fertility is that the law sees this as an unjust intrusion with no real purpose; it is sufficient, for the law's purposes, that the VAST MAJORITY of marriages will produce children. If we rewrite the law to allow same-sex couples to marry, we immediately change the law's presumptions in this area. I have yet to see a detailed proposal for how we will do this without unleashing total chaos and insanity on our marriage laws, from anyone who favors same-sex marriage. Your final point above, "At any rate, whatever reasons people with your religious beliefs have for getting married, surely there has to be room in this country for people who have different ones than yours to have them honored." speaks of religious beliefs again, but I still say that if the law is going to pretend that same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are EXACTLY the same in the eyes of the law, what on earth is the law going to do about that one glaring difference, the general ability and overwhelming propensity of the heterosexual couples to engage in reproduction and bear children? Ignore it? Create the legal fiction that it doesn't exist? Acknowledge it, but then bend over backward to insist that any and all recognition of the difference doesn't entitle the heterosexual couples to any special treatment, which would be illegal?
At that point, I'd favor abolishing civil marriage altogether, because I think it's just plain silly to pretend that the ability to reproduce is some kind of unimportant side effect of one type of marriage. One last thing I'd like to clarify, and this time we're back in the realm of my religious beliefs. You said, "The reason why we're not ever supposed to have sex is because sex is supposed to be for the married folks. Well, since you won't let us marry, it's celibacy or hell in your world for your gays." I'd state that a bit differently (generally, not so negatively). But to use the construct you did, in my Church, it's celibacy or hell for ALL of us except those who are married whose spouses a)still live with us and b) have not become incapacitated in that area of their lives due to illness or injury. The wife whose husband leaves her must be celibate. The husband whose wife is in a persistent vegetative state, but who could live for another 30 years, must be celibate. The woman who returns to the Catholic Church after a divorce and remarriage must, if no annulment to her first marriage is possible, live with her husband as his sister (if they have children, for example) or live in sin with him; it's still celibacy or hell. Priests who break their vow of celibacy, either with a woman, a man, or a child, have chosen hell instead of celibacy. As long as they live, though, they can undo that choice, by a reception of the Sacrament of Penance that includes a firm purpose of avoiding the sin in the future, a deliberate choosing of celibacy instead of hell. So it's not like gays are the only ones, in the Catholic Church, who are required to make this choice. In fact, even in marriage a husband and wife must practice marital chastity, which includes keeping your eyes on your own spouse, avoiding raunchy movies/books/etc., and approaching one's spouse in a spirit of love and understanding that doesn't put your own needs first. I mention all of this to illustrate where I'm coming from, personally. But as far as changing the definition of marriage in the law, I still think the court in MA failed to explain, if being able to reproduce is completely unimportant to marriage in the law's eyes, why the law has any purpose interfering in marriage at all.