Needed: straight talk on gay marriage

Well, I can think of a case in which the sexual liberty interest should not prevail: educating minors against the will of parents about homosexual sex and family structures.

I have gay friends who've adopted children, and have found gay people to be the most willing to take children that no one else wants--problem kids with hyperactivity, learning disabilities, severe allergies, etc.--and give the child a loving, caring, stable, two-parent environment.

As for the gender identity issues, the problems for children of gay parents are no different than those of children raised by same-sex relatives--boys raised by pairings of aunts and grandmothers, for instance. Although it is essential for children to have adult role models of the same gender, it doesn't seem to be necessary for that person to be in the household. A teacher, close family friend or relative can serve in that capacity pretty well.

I have gay friends who've adopted children, and have found gay people to be the most willing to take children that no one else wants--problem kids with hyperactivity, learning disabilities, severe allergies, etc.--and give the child a loving, caring, stable, two-parent environment.

I wouldn't bar gays from adoption, but I think that, all things being equal, a straight couple should be preferred.

It has posited in the other threads, and I will mention it here:

Why is the State even involved with marriage to begin with? Beyond the Hardwicke marriage registration law of 1754 (or 1758?), it is difficult to see where the government first starting creeping into this matter.

If churches wish to preserve the sacrament aspect of marriage, than government should not be defining marriage at all. Go with the French model, where EVERYBODY gets a state registered domestic partnership for legal/taxation purposes...and the marriage is between you and your church and God. If Southern Baptists want to say they are preserving the sanctity of marriage, then they can refuse to marry gay couples all day long.

No problem.

"Your thoughts, folks? If your concern is that religious charities might be forced to violate their beliefs in granting the applications of gay couples to adopt, shouldn't they also be able to discriminate in these other areas?"

Most of them. I don't think that they should discriminate on all of those things, but they should be allowed to discriminate on most of them. Interracial marriage-- no, not unless there is a significant rethinking of the government and race in America. Politics? Does any of them even want to do that, except when it represents fallout from theology, for example?

Being refused adoption by Catholic Charities is not at all the same as, say, having the state take away your children, and reasons that would be abhorrent in the latter case are perfectly reasonable in the former.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the Catholic Church were invited to express an opinion about my current marriage, they wouldn't recognize it as valid because I ended my first marriage with a civil divorce and my ex-wife is still alive.

But, yet, if for some reason my wife and I made use of their adoption services or some other marriage related counseling services, I would not be denied on account of the status of my marriage.

Am I right on this?

I think celticdragon probably has it correct--eventually that is the sort of compromise we will see from the federal government. But I think it will happen probably more like 10-20 years from now.

I disagree with something the lawyer in the quoted article said, about how being gay is necessarily about participating in gay sex. I am heterosexual; that does not mean I therefore must participate in heterosexual sex. I can choose to abstain. The orthodox Christian argument usually is this: if persons are born with or develop same-sex attraction, the choice they should make is to abstain. She also overstates orthodox Judeo-Christian teaching that "being gay" is OK. It's more nuanced than that. There is probably disagreement among the churches on exactly how this gets phrased, but having same-sex attraction, from an orthodox Christian standpoint, is not a normative way of living, whether you're born with it or not.

Peterk
November 6, 2008 8:37 PM
well last time I looked I had to get a marriage license from the state.

You must not live in Texas, then. Common - law marriage is recognized here.

"hat is the sort of compromise we will see from the federal government."

first of all this ignores the fact that the federal government has no role at all in this matter. It is a matter to be settled at the individual state level. Where the union comes into play is with each state honoring laws established by others. this comes under Article IV

"Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

right now only a handful of states have established gay marriage, this is where the Constitution comes into play.

But I'll repeat myself - if you want to have gay marriage then work through the individual legislatures work to reach consensus. That is the only way that we can peacefully come together, but it won't happen over night.

"But I'll repeat myself - if you want to have gay marriage then work through the individual legislatures work to reach consensus. That is the only way that we can peacefully come together, but it won't happen over night."

It happened in California twice. The governor said refused to sign the bill, saying "Wait for the courts to decide." Then the courts decided and agreed with the legislature. Despite all this democracy and consensus, 51 percent of the population stripped away all those rights affirming the legislature's consensus after $37M was poured into the efforts, much of it coming from out-of-state.

Under Chuchulian's reasoning, only lesbians should be able to adopt and have kids since they are the most monogamous, the least promiscuous, and have the longest relationships. They also make up the majority of same-sex marriages.

Mr. Dreher -

I am still too angry and bitter about our defeats in Florida, California, and Arkansas to make an argument but wanted to thank you for your request for a no-gloating zone yesterday.

There appears to be some decency on your side of the political divide.

sigilaris,

I can't speak to many of the issues here. But with regard to religious preferences and adoption, there are most certainly prospective relinquishing parents who feel so strongly about their faith that they would refuse to relinquish their children if the children could not be raised in that faith. At 19, I was one such. But nowadays this is a moot point, since relinquishing parents pretty much universally can and do choose the adopting parents. Choosing vegetarians or Redwings fans is possible. The only relinquishing parents for whom this is not true are those whose children have been taken from them by the state. And one can debate til the cows come home whether or not those children's parents should have some say in how much or what kind of change in environment the children should face as adoptees; although they tend not to have any say at all -- it's part of the punishment they endure for their misdeeds.

It happened in California twice. The governor said refused to sign the bill, saying "Wait for the courts to decide." Then the courts decided and agreed with the legislature. Despite all this democracy and consensus, 51 percent of the population stripped away all those rights affirming the legislature's consensus after $37M was poured into the efforts, much of it coming from out-of-state.

I understand your point, but it certainly sounds a bit odd to assert that 51 percent of the population defeated the democratic process.

At the same time I think there is good reason the Framers did not include a provision in the Constitution for holding a nationwide popular referendum.

celticdragon asks, "Why is the State even involved with marriage to begin with?" But there is a more basic question. Why is the state involved in any sexual relationship between adults, whether homo, hetero, transgendered, bi, or poly? Why not allow any adult, if he or she wishes, to designate another adult as a legal partner (with the other person's consent, of course). The legal partner would have the authority to make medical/financial decisions in the event of illness or incapacity, automatically inherit a portion of any estate, assume parental rights to any minor children in the event of death and participate in employer provided health insurance. The legal partner could be anyone - a lover, former lover, friend, sibling, parent, offspring, or extended family member.

The legal partnership would not prevent either party from entering into a "marriage" recognized by whatever church/synagogue/mosque/coven/club they choose to belong to. But the state would not recognize these relationships nor enforce any commitments made.

This option occurred to me because I would like my sister to have the rights/responsibilities outlined above but I don't want to marry her or have sex with her.

Grant: "Most of them. I don't think that they should discriminate on all of those things, but they should be allowed to discriminate on most of them. Interracial marriage-- no, not unless there is a significant rethinking of the government and race in America. Politics? Does any of them even want to do that, except when it represents fallout from theology, for example?"

But that's just it. There are still religious groups in this nation who believe that interracial marriages violate their faith's teachings. They hold to this just as sincerely as many evangelicals hold to their views on homosexuality.

If a charity operated by a religious group that views interracial marriages as violations of their religious tenets should not be allowed to deny adoption applications from interracial couples, why should other charities be allowed to deny adoptions to gay parents on the basis that such would violate their religious beliefs? Where do you draw the line on which religious tenets get preferential treatment?

Marriage, since it is a "holy institution," should be the exclusive domain of religious organizations and groups. Churches should be free to marry those they wish, and allowed to refuse such a ceremony to anyone who does not meet with their approval.

However, before the state all should be equal. If a couple wishes to obtain a civil union (which would contain all of the rights, obligations and benefits of what the law now calls marriage) they should be able to go to the courthouse, pay the appropriate fee, sign the paperwork before a court official, and be united in the eyes of the law.

If they would then wish to be married in the eyes of whatever god/s they hold in their hearts, they could go to a religious organization of their choosing to obtain their faith's blessing on their union.

Why isn't this a reasonable solution?

About marriage, I'm not sure whether Marion is being serious, but I agree with her anyway. I don't think her proposal would make all that much difference, though - most people would choose their heterosexual partner (church-married spouse or not) as their legal partner. Judging from what I see around me, heterosexual monogamy seems a pretty popular way of organising one's life, quite apart from the concerns of church and state.

Nongovernmental bodies that receive no public money should have a broad area over which discrimination is not illegal. I think that, yes, even racial discrimination should be legal in some contexts, although I despise it personally. I would have to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis.

As far as adoption is concerned, gay marriage is a red herring. There is such competition to adopt healthy babies, that, basically, it's acceptable to discriminate against anyone who even looks a bit dodgy. I mean - I'm against discrimination against poor people, but I think adoption agencies can select prosperous people.
On the other hand, when you're talking about adoption of older children, not pretty babies, but damaged, abused, massively disturbed 11-year-olds, anyone who is prepared to take that task on deserves a gold medal (I wouldn't do it - would you??) - the only legitimate ground for refusing a candidate is that there is rational concern that they might subject the child to sexual or severe physical or psychological abuse.

Anbother thought: I guess that Marion's proposal is what will happen anyway, with difference in terminology only, if/when gay marriage is legalised. Civil marriage will become like her "legal partnership", with no limits on who is selected, no insistence on fidelity, and the freedom to change one's partner at any time. Churches, and non-religious people with fairly trad values, will stop using the word "marriage", and will find other terms to describe their relationships.

scotch meg, I can see how this would be a matter of some personal emotion to you, so I don't want to make you feel bad. But surely it must have occurred to you before now that when you relinquish a child, you effectively relinquish control over what happens in their life, however dearly you may hope that you've chosen the best of parents for them. I'm aware that mothers who give up their babies have some say in who gets the child, and I'm happy that's true now. I'm happy that the stigmatizing and punishment of unmarried mothers--once thought essential to proper functioning of society--has lessened somewhat.

Let's imagine, however, that I gave my baby to a couple who represented themselves as devoutly Catholic, and went away secure in my belief that the child would be raised in that faith. Next year, the new mom comes out as a lesbian and leaves the Church, and hey presto, my child is being raised by a lesbian atheist. Or husband and wife stay together devotedly, and devotedly undergo a joint conversion experience and decide that from now on, they must worship together as Presbyterians. Or Buddhists. Or Muslims. Or, perhaps, their faith was never as strong as they made it sound when they wanted my baby. Once the papers are in order, they drift away and soon have stopped practicing at all.

More to the point of this topic, nearly all gay people in this world today were raised to be straight, by practicing heterosexuals. Being homosexual was not presented to them as a viable option. Indeed, they were given a clear image of homosexuality as a subject of fear and loathing. If propaganda and stigmatization could extirpate homosexuality, one would think that it would have done so by now. Mysteriously, however, gay people continue to exist. One would think that would teach you (collectively) something, but apparently it doesn't. We often marvel at the human capacity to learn from experience, but what I find more amazing is the human capacity NOT to learn.

We don't control what goes on in the minds of other people. We can't make them have faith, and we can't make them heterosexual. I'm sure we've all wished at times that we could control what people believe. But it seems to me that conservatives indulge this fantasy to a degree that is unhealthy and impractical.

celtic dragon,

Those wishing to exercise a right to marriage must accept the responsibility of meeting whatever conditions there may be under which that right is collectively bestowed by their peers.

Monogamy is one of those conditions.

Ergo -- in light of the figures I cite -- one of the reasons, and perhaps the main one, for erring on the side of prudent skepticism with regard to gay "marriage."

The cost to the integrity of the institution of marriage -- and to a society with marriage as one of its basic institutions -- of legitimizing and normalizing promiscuous non-monogamy within "marriage" arguably far outweighs the benefit to the exceedingly small number of gays who wish to have their partnerships recognized as "marriages."

A reward to society of recognizing gay partnerships as "marriages" would be if such recognition resulted in the heterosexualization of gay sexual norms -- i.e. if it encouraged monogamy in gays.

A risk to society -- and it's a catastrophic risk -- of doing the same would be if the result were the homosexualization of straight sexual norms -- i.e. if it encouraged more promiscuous non-monogamy in "married" heterosexual couples than there already is.

Accommodation of gay sexual behavior within the norms of marriage would inevitably alter those norms to a profound degree and not only where gays are concerned.

For example, in order to all for the ordination of gays to its ministry, the Presbyterian Church recently revised its canonical teaching on sexual ethics in marriage to stipulate that sexual fidelity no longer is required for a marriage to be deemed continent by the church. Technically, this revision was made only with regard to the Presbyterian clergy -- who now are no longer required to be faithful to their partners in marriage -- but it stands to reason that this revision would apply to the Presbyterian laity as well.

In closing, I submit that this sort of ramification ought at least to be part of a discussion that aspires to "straight talk about gay marriage."

Perhaps a better way of framing the question would be not to ask "Should gays be allowed to marry," but rather to ask "Should marriage require monogamy."

But, of course, the latter is a formulation of the question that's even less likely to elicit the answer sought by the gay community and its allies than the former has been in the 30 out of 50 states where it has (unsuccessfully) been put to a vote.

Daniel,

Your sense that lesbian relationships have higher degrees of fidelity than straight ones can be debated either way.

But, in any event, what cannot be debated is that lesbian relationships have by far the highest rate of partner-on-partner domestic violence of any relationship type.

Which is one of many reasons why lesbian partnerships are perhaps not the ideal parental context for children to be raised.

That is, if one's principal concern is children's (as opposed to parents') well-being -- which, I grant, it may not be.

sigaliris,

My figures come from Bell and Weinberg's study "Homosexualities," which is the benchmark for statistical as opposed to anecdotal discussion of gay sexual norms, cited frequently by both gays and straights -- though admittedly less so, and indeed very rarely, by gays and straights who wish to imply that monogamy and non-promiscuity are gay sexual norms.

On what do you base your own assertions on this subject here?

Cuchulain: I'm not surprised by your data on male homosexual promisicuity, and, purely on the basis of the handful of gays I know, I suspect it to be more or less right. I'm much more surprised by your statement about lesbian domestic violence - is that from the same source?

I have often thought that lesbians present quite a difficulty for the conservative-Christian perspective on sexuality. Lesbianism is not forbidden in the Bible (apart from one dubious comment by Paul about women turning away from normal sex - I always assumed that meant nonvaginal heterosexual sex, although I suppose it could mean lesbianism). Lesbians seem to be less, or at least no more, promiscuous than heterosexuals. They also seem to be less given to rape, prostitution, paedophilia, etc., than males of either orientation.

Chris Mills November 7, 2008 9:30 AM There will be no reasonable discussion on this subject until one side stops referring to the opposition as bigots and ignoring legitimate concerns. The other side must also realize that not everyone shares their religion and that the other side has a right to pursue happiness. Until these things happen, no compromise or decision is possible. Chris Mills

And that's precisely why there will always be an impasse on this, because one side's legitimate concerns violate the other side's legitimate concerns, and one side's pursuit of happiness is in conflict with the other side's pursuit of happiness.

I'm so tired of this subject's 99th rehashing of the competing points, that I'm just going to be a curmudgeon and spread it around equally.

To those opposed to gays (let alone them marrying): nature -- and some would say your God -- is already against you. Call it sin, call it Satan, call it what you will, but homosexuality appears as if by magic everywhere, no matter what you might do or say against it. You want to be seen as loving your neighbor? Then take a close look at the hypocrisy of your holy text vs. how your siblings in faith apply it. Homosexuals have a much higher suicide rate than the general population. Homosexuals are your proof that they did not choose to be as they are, and are tortured by your refusal to see them as normal for themselves. Understanding is not agreement. Acceptance is not agreement. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this case, because there is no "cure" for a natural condition, and pretending that there is will only deepen your hypocrisy. Do your gay children a favor, and just kick them out of your religion when they appear. Do it quickly, even lovingly, but do it. The sooner they are free to find actual love and acceptance, the sooner they will find sanity and happiness.

To my beloved gays: I'm one of those stalwarts you can count on. I donate my aching feet and pre-arthritic knees to standing for six hours straight every year at the Philly AIDS Walk. I donate time and what little money I can spare to meals delivered to AIDS sufferers (Manna), to the LGBT community center's continued success (William Way Center), and I vote 100% in support of gay political issues. My wife does the same, and our children quite naturally follow our examples. With all that said, you just have to wake up and smell the coffee: legal action by itself is failing. Social action takes longer, and may do nothing to ease your personal pain. Make a damn choice, and decide if pyrrhic defeats every election that stroke your activist egos is enough, or that you will freely and unconditionally invest yourself in change that may not come in your lifetime. The writing is on the wall: you are not going to get the changes any time soon. And BTW, I am looking squarely at the people who botched the No on 8 campaign with the above. Everyone else who resembles my remarks are free to include themselves as well.

Sigh. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to socio-cultural change. Political action is important, no doubt about it. But the thing that gets me, the thing for which I refuse now and forever to forgive those who believe it, is that it is being fought as a war. For all the gods' sakes, people, if you see each other as enemies, why don't you just start going after each other physically and be done with it? Calling it "culture war" changes nothing. There is nothing civil or civilized about war. Stop pretending that there is, and either put up or find a paradigm that actually fits with reality.

Franklin Evans said basically everything I wanted to say.

But I will interject the fact that 'gay adoption' is a red herring, and it absolutely reprehensible that it is being made an issue for the simple fact that fighting adoption by any group of people has the sole result of making more children grow up in foster care. That is all it accomplishes, that is the only end.

People opposed to gay adoption can talk about 'role models of both genders', but you're all completely delusional...you're condemning children to grow up without role models at all, of either gender, bounced from house to house in the foster care system.

If we had an adoption system that had enough adoptive parents, maybe your arguments about what sort of family is 'best' might make sense, although I think those arguments are stupidly bigoted and show a total disconnect from reality. But whatever. We don't have that system, we're not deciding if people get adopted by a gay or straight couple, we're deciding if they get adopted by a gay couple, or spend their life in foster care.

Oh, and incidentally, I find it rather insane that Cuchulain thinks that:

Two out of three "committed" gay partnerships cease to be monogamous within one year.

is evidence of anything. Last I checked, most straight relationships ended before a year was up, too. He's pretending that 'committed' means 'married' and that this some horrible divorce rate...but 'committed' doesn't mean that in either the straight or gay lexicon. Committed is just a step past 'seeing someone'.

The fact that, by denying marriage to gays, people have taken away any 'higher' terms like 'engaged' or 'married', doesn't mean that 'committed' relationships have become more serious in general. In fact, if he'd check the actual gay-equivalents of 'married', 'life partner' or just 'partner' or people who actually had a civil union, I suspect he'd find a lower rate of divorce than among straight people. (Not because of any moral rectitude on the part of gay people, simply because the culture doesn't (yet?) encourage them into marriages they aren't ready for.)

Likewise his statistics 'Prior to the identification of the HIV virus and AIDS' are nonsense. The people who were out at that time, who were locatable, were, essentially, men who had random encounters at beach bathhouses, and that was all. There probably were people in actual relationships, but they weren't near anyone taking the polls, and, odds are, maybe five people knew they were gay at all.

Cuchulain:

Sigaliris already made much of the rejoinder I would have written. I would reiterate:

How is monogamy any sort of absolute legal requirement for maintaining marriage? It is a social expectation...but outside of the military, you will have difficulty finding tangible criminal impact. Historically, as noted above, men have been immune from consequences of infidelity. (look up court practices of the French Royalty for a real laugh)

Polynesian societies have not even remotely engaged in monogamy as we understand it, and quite successfully explored and colonized the Ind/Pacific region of the globe.

Monogamy is an ideal, and one I share...but statistical portraits are no basis at all for dealing with INDIVIDUALS seeking an improvement in their lives.

Would you like prosecutors to use evidence against you to the effect that because of your age, race and gender you are 65% more likely to have committed a crime? I think not.

We are individuals, and we want to be treated as such.

celticdragon, DavidTC, sigaliris, et al,

The figure that two-thirds of "committed" gay partnerships cease to be monogamous within one year does not include gay partnerships that end within one year, as DavidTC implies.

It consists only of gay partnerships that are ongoing -- "committed" in the sense that the two partners involved intend to stay involved indefinitely or for the foreseeable future.

Two-thirds of such partnerships cease to be monogamous within one year and nine-tenths of them cease to be so within five years.

In many and possibly in most of them, there is never any pretense toward permanent monogamy at all -- i.e. there is never any pretense toward a form of commitment that has always been a part of the marriage bond in our culture (and in most other cultures) -- a reality which is not mitigated in any way by the fact that the terms of the marriage vow are not always adhered to by those who marry.

The failure of so many "married" people at present (and often in the past) to live up to the ideals enshrined in their marriage vow is evidence that fewer not more people ought to be married and the terms of marriage ought to be firmer not more lax.

Those who are not prepared to live within the terms of marriage as traditionally defined so should simply opt not to marry at all -- which they are free to do in our society.

Those who do not wish to live like apples can live like oranges if they so choose.

And while they can -- if they so wish -- insist on calling oranges apples, no one else is under any obligation to follow their lead.

In what are now, as of this week, the thirty cases in which voters in thirty different states have been asked if oranges are apples, the majority of voters in each of those cases have said "no, they are not" -- and the fact that apples are apples and oranges oranges had something to do with that fact.

Just send the new couple a nice demitasse set and let's move on already.

Cuchulain, it's very simple: because you (specific and general) insist on telling the orange that he is an apple, or worse that he is not an orange, cannot be an apple, and should never have left the tree.

Sigaliris:

"Cuchulain, I find it odd that you call yourself that. The Irish hero was no champion of monogamy. "

Heh! That is the truth! For Irish myth, I like Deirdre of the Sorrows...

"I saw a vision, Naois, and do you interpret it to me," said Deirdre--then she sang:

O Naois, son of Uisnech, hear
What was shown in a dream to me.

There came three white doves out of the South
Flying over the sea,
And drops of honey were in their mouth
From the hive of the honey-bee.

O Naois, son of Uisnech, hear,
What was shown in a dream to me.

I saw three grey hawks out of the south
Come flying over the sea,
And the red red drops they bare in their mouth
They were dearer than life to me.

Great stuff :)

As long as we are digressing into pagan Irish literature, I would recommend "The Romance of Mis and Dubh Ruis." As I recall, it's about how a poor girl is cured of madness by having sex with the hero.

It appealed to my Gallic (a.k.a. Gaelic) nature. After all, the French were once Celts in tripartite Gaul. Vive Vercingétorix, le grand héros français!

Roland

Good to see you here. Too bad that Vercingétorix couldn't coordinate his forces inside the Roman "doughnut" with the relief column attacking the outside. History may have taken a different turn. You may be familiar with Boudicea of the Iceni. She is a personal favorite of mine, and I wish like anything that I could have planned her assault on the Roman positions when her forces finally overtook them (possibly in the West Midlands). Counter factual history is always fun, and far more entertaining than rehashing how we disagree with each other over gay marriage. Also, here is good source on Celtic folklore and myths:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/index.htm

My thought for the day:

Níl eagla orm roimh éinne ach Dia amhain

*I fear no one but God*

Derek, didn't read all 70+ posts but your first argument on gaying up marriage deterring men from pursuing it is doubtful. Look at Football, it has more glitter and glam than a Broadway show. "real" men, running around smakin each other's asses and showering together. Yeah. That's right. Homophobia in this country is pretty hypocritical :-)

Ah yes, the hoary old Bell and Weinberg study, published way back in the 1970s, and beloved of all those who trot out the usual anti-gay arguments (e.g., all gays are disease-ridden sluts who can't commit! All lesbians are violence-prone basket cases who beat up their girlfriends!).

Before anybody takes that study too seriously, keep in mind that its methodology is seriously flawed. Most notably, as the authors themselves admit, their sample of gays is not random, while their sample of heterosexuals is. They selected their sample of gays primarily from gay bars, bathhouses, personal contacts of the people in the bars, and organizational (i.e. political and support group) mailing lists.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but a sampling of people taken from bars, bathhouses, and political/support groups is not going to be the same as a truly random sample taken from a population as a whole. For example, a sample of gay folks who hang out at bars might indicate a higher than average rate of alcoholism, but that is hardly representative of the gay population as a whole, many if not a majority of whom don't go to bars very often (if at all).

Need I also point out that, way back in the dark ages of the 1970s, the majority of gay folk lived very closeted lives, and wouldn't dream of going to bars (lesbians especially) or joining political groups, for fear of exposure. I daresay the study only reflects a sampling of the sexually and politically active urban gay community of the pre-AIDS 1970s -- a very different creature from the entire gay population of today.

So I would take any assertion that all gays are irredeemable ho-bags and all lesbians are "wife-beaters" with a whole shaker full of salt. And at any rate, more recent and methodologically rigorous studies have contradicted a number of the findings of Bell and Weinberg.

But even if today's gay men were on average more promiscuous than heterosexuals (which is probably the case, at least for younger men, but nearly as much so as Bell and Weinberg assert), and lesbians are more prone to domestic violence (which I very much doubt), one can't judge an individual by the statistical characteristics of their group. As far as adoption goes, I think it is best to go on a case-by-case basis, as I believe most sensible agencies do.

celticdragon,

I agree about Boadicea (whose name means "Victoria" (an buaidh) in Celtic!) -- for some strange reason I always think of her as looking like Alex Kingston. ;-) There was a good series on PBS called "The Celts", with a Loreena McKennitt theme song. But, yes, the defeat of Vercingetorix was an historical catastrophe. We'd probably all be speaking Celtic (Gaulish, no doubt) had Caesar not had him strangled. And the world would be filled with grand oratory and celestial music, beautiful women and the sublimest literature. Alas, alas!

I know the Sacred Texts site - a lot of good stuff.

And here's my thought for the day:

Tá eagla orm roimh gach duine ach Dia amháin. Is éigríochta atá a thrócaire. (I fear everyone except God. His mercy is infinite.)

That's the best I can do with my bad Irish! Beautiful language and a tragedy that it is endangered.

Aren't the French a descendant of the Franks and Bourbons who were Germanic peoples, Charlemagne and what not. As opposed to Vercingetorix who was a Celt/Gaul.

Oh and to throw some drama in here, I'm glad Caesar laid the smack down on the whole of the Gallic nation. I mean all of it, almost every tribe deserted him when Vercingetorix rebelled and he crushed them all, (albeit after quite the war).
;-)

Chris Mills

"Robin Thomas
November 7, 2008 12:29 AM
Sodomy is not a basis for marriage. Sodomy does not produce children.

Any further questions?"

Yes, Robin, many, many questions...

Since when was producing children a requirement of marriage?

Why are infertile and/or elderly heterosexual people beyond the age of procreation allowed to marry?

Should heterosexuals who engage in sodomy be allowed to marry?

Should heterosexual couples who do not procreate have their marriages annulled?

Should heterosexual sodomites not be treated equally before the law?

Should heterosexual sodomites be stripped of their rights to liberty?

Should heterosexual sodomites be stripped of their rights to the pursuit of happiness?

How come heterosexual sodomy, since it likewise does not produce children, is a "basis for marriage" but not homosexual sodomy?

What in he11 does your post have to do with "straight talk on gay marriage" (the subject of this thread)?

Did you know that many gay people do not engage in sodomy?

Are you sane?

Are you just a mean-spirited betterosexual?

Are you a closet case?

What business is it of yours what sexual acts consenting adults engage in?

What business is it of the State what sexual acts consenting adults engage in?

What relevance is the whatever sexual acts consenting adults engage in to whether or not they should be allowed to get married?

Like I said, so many, many questions ...

How does a gay couple's pursuit of happiness through marriage in any way "conflict" with a heterosexual's separate pursuit of happiness?

Unless, of course, the heterosexual's pursuit is dependent on denying equality before the law to other people. In which case, it is the heterosexual who is interfering with (i.e. "in conflict with") another's pursuit of happiness.

In which case, the heterosexual can just get stuffed.

My pleasure, Chris :) Thank you.

Yours, aye

AnneMarie

celticdragon: Roland, we may disagree pointedly and strenuously on issues of GLBT people, but I will count you as a friend here. I am glad to have made your acquaintance. Hail, and well met! Ceud mile failte!

Not about people, celticdragon, but only about politics.

BTW, I have been in love with Connie Dover ever since I heard her sing Éamon an chnoic (Ned of the Hill) on the album If I Ever Return.

Re the Bretons - they are descendants of Celts who fled Britain in the wake of the Germanic invasions and Breton is related to Welsh (P-Celtic) rather than Irish (Q-Celtic). It
is not, as far as I know, a descendant of the Gaulish spoken by the Celtic tribes conquered by Caesar. But as someone else touched upon, the French nation traces its political
origins to the Franks and to that greatest of Franks, Charlemagne. A oath sworn by the sons of Charlemagne is the oldest document in the French language - it looks more like
bad Latin. Besides the fact that my name really is Roland, I added the "de Chanson" not solely because of my love of music, but also in deference to the "Chanson de Roland", a chanson de geste which recounts
the exploits of one of Charlemagne's nephews against the Moors. I agree with your comments about the Crusades -- the problem with them is that they ultimately failed. Speaking of
alternative histories, can you imagine the Near East today, free of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood? Or a Constantinople with the liturgy of
St. John Chrysostom reverberating under the magnificent vault? Arís ochón, ochón! (Again alas, alas!)

I am glad as well to have made your aquaintance, and I suspect that, politics aside (as in a perfect world it always would be), we may well have good reason to be friends. But politics should never come between friends and family. After all, my parents were Democrats, but I have forgiven them. :-)

Agus ceud mile fáilte romhat freisin!

Rod, just want to let you know that there is a gay person (who isn't exactly a liberal or a conservative) who reads your blog and enjoys your calm tone, respectfulness and honesty when speaking about gay marriage.

I will also add that I personally think the LGBT rights movement is ideologically exhausted and has become a bit too "you're-victimizing-us" screechy for my Epicurean and Stoic tastes.

What I personally would really like is for the intellectual quality over the debate on gay marriage to improve. This would involve some of the following:

* a recognition that gayness is NOT disapproved of in many other spiritual traditions, e.g. Native American traditions, Vedantic and Tantric traditions from India (which are metaphysically quite sophisticated), Buddhism, etc., which recognize the archetype of a "third sex" and accommodate gender ambiguity.

* a recognition that everyone in America is NOT a Christian, nor wishes to be one! (I can't believe most Americans have a hard time accepting this.)

* from the LGBT rights side, a recognition that the "born this way" and "gay gene" defensive stance has run its course and that they need to drop that sort of childish excuse-making and take responsibility for their lifestyle choices as *free* choices. I for one am tired of the emotional manipulation of conservatives that gay rights activists do with all this "born this way" nonsense.

* a real consideration of having civil unions for all and just leaving the blessing of a marriage for individual churches or religious institutions. (To me this is the obvious solution.)

Roland, CelticDragon, Cuchulain, etc.:

The French claim to be descended from the Romans and the Gauls, ignoring the Franks (and other Germanics) is just part of French Alamanophobia. Oddly, the French, who have a lot of Germanic in their make-up, downplay it, whereas the Italians and Spaniards, who have much less, exaggerate it.

It's debated to what extent Breton is derived from British Celtic, and to what extent from native Gaulish. I get the impression opinion is shifting in the latter direction. Incidentally, the Spanish "cerveza", from the Latin "cerevisia" (see Saccharomyces cerevisiae), is from the Gaulish "kerewis", because the Romans had no beer until the invasion. The modern Welsh is "cwrw" (pronounced "cooroo").

The whole thing about who the Celts were is open to a lot of doubt. I don't think many authorities accept that theory about them having migrated from the Alps anymore. Stephen Oppenheimer (The Origins of the British) even argues that there was no major Germanic invasion of Britain after the Romans, and English was spoken in England during the Roman Occupation.

Finally, the Crusades: Oh, if only the Christians had won the Middle Eastern Crusades against the Muslims, but lost the Northern Crusades against the Baltic Pagans.

Roland, amongst my ethnomusicology friends, a strong clue to Celtic origin is the history and travels of bagpipes. The instrument originated (according to some) in north Africa and met up with the Celts somewhere in Asia Minor or far eastern Europe. With less scientific rigor, some point to the red-haired amongst the southern Slavs and the genes' apparent passage from there through the continent before becoming prevalent in the Isles.

One thing I've heard said with some confidence, and that's the P/Q split took place later rather than earlier, and that Gaulish is the root for both. Some say (lacking almost any written record, it's a difficult argument) that Gaulish remained a Latin-equivalent amongst the tribes. A druid from Ireland had no difficulty communicating with his Breton counterpart, and they weren't minding their Ps and Qs. ;-)

Now that we've gone off in crooked talk about things other than gay marriage, I'll desist.

Some people have said that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because a child needs parents of both genders around them.

This is pretty ludicrous in my opinion. What are you going to do, ban single parenting now? If a man or woman becomes a widower or a widow, should you make it legally compulsory for them re-marry immediately so that the child has two parents? What if they don't want to re-marry?

Moreover, a LOT of gay parents ensure that their children get healthy interaction with adults of the same sex and it's not unheard of for a child to get multiple godfathers or godmothers through a community arrangement. That's even better than a two-parent arrangement! Why can't you all stop being so paranoid and just trust that gay people are rational human beings who are not out to ruin society?

Get over yourselves! I always try to be accepting in conversations like these, and God knows I like Rod's writing and his tone in these kinds of discussions, but I also get tired of the persistent irrationality and prejudice.

Sigaliris, Rombald, Franklin:

Sigaliris...
The entire song is known as "Cantus", and the album is "Somebody", by Connie Dover. It was produced by Scottish accordionist and Silly Wizard alumni Phil Cunningham. Connie has a superb, crystalline voice, and sings in Scots and Irish Gaelic, Latin, French and English. She studied music at Oxford, while working as a trail cook for a cattle ranch during the summers (I believe she still does that, in fact). She sings a wide variety of early Americana and western songs, as well as medieval and Celtic music. I cannot recommend her highly enough.
Your suggestion of Noirin Ni Riain sounds familiar, and I will look her up. Thanks! :)

Rombald...
Interesting point on the origin of Celtic peoples. I have not heard an origin theory that really covered everything to my satisfaction, since Celts were known to range from western modern day Turkey, throughout Western Europe to the British Isles. There seems to be some possibility that Celts may have wandered as far as Mongolia and the deserts of Western China, judging by grave artifacts including tartan cloth, physical attributes of mummified bodies and rock carvings suggesting fertility rites associated with early Celts. The speculation goes beyond my limited experience in cultural anthropology.
I would add that I am not aware of "crusades" per se against northern Germanic and Norse pagan peoples. Christianity was introduced through trade and assimilation into the culture gradually, as it was with the Franks (interestingly, one of the Frankish kingdoms converted 'en mass') Certainly, the Norse who controlled Dublin for some time as a trading station as well as Northern England under the Dane Law, were far more influenced by the "native" faith and customs then the other way around.

Franklin...

"My enjoyment of Celtic music is from a more roundabout route: international folk dancing."

Cool! I first started when I heard the soundtrack to the movie "Last of The Mohicans", which is one of my favorite films. The Scottish reel "The Gael" was absolutely spellbinding to me, and I have been hooked ever since.

the issue was pressed too quickly, and in the wrong venue

If this was the premise governing all our actions we would now still be debating whether it was permissible for women to buy and sell property without the knowledge or permission of their husbands. We also would still be arguing about whether it was the right time to permit negro children to go to school with white children.

Rombald

Cool. That was something I hadn't read about before.

I'm late getting back to this thread but it couldn't be helped. The fire is out. Figuratively speaking, that is.

I think Rod is going to have to start a Crunchy Celtic thread, because there seems to be a lot of interest in bards, brethons, and beer!

Sig, no the pagans aren't wrong and the Christians right. I've mentioned before that I'm a devout Jovian Witness. My inner pagan longs for for the Greeks to revive the Eleusinian Mysteries. BTW, my linguistic skills are rather hodge-podge. I've always been fascinated by languages. I am now trying to teach myself Hebrew and am about twenty words into Genesis. I am trying online translators for modern Hebrew so I can build up an essential inventory of important phrases such as "You are more enticing than Judith in the tent of Holofernes. How long did you say your husband is out of town? You don't by any chance own a sword, do you?". ;-)

To the Celtic artists mentioned by Sig, celticdragon and Franklin, I would add Emma Christian, who sings in Manx and has only one album, I think. Also Enya, Clannad and Loreena McKennitt (not specifically Celtic as mystical and eclectic. She goes will with Armagnac.) Also Therese Schroeder-Sheker. I love her "Deluded Love" on the album "Rosa Mystica." Did I mention I am in love with her too? What can I say - mysticism and eclecticism is very érotique in a woman.