Althouse: "Obviously, we now know that the sky doesn’t fall when gays get married... At the same time, there is some truth to the conservative claim..."

May 27, 2014

"Obviously, we now know that the sky doesn’t fall when gays get married... At the same time, there is some truth to the conservative claim..."

"... that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage. According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous. This fact is well-known in the gay community—indeed, we assume it’s more like three-quarters. But it’s been fascinating to see how my straight friends react to it. Some feel they’ve been duped: They were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition. Others feel downright envious, as if gays are getting a better deal, one that wouldn’t work for straight couples. Maybe they’re right; women are from Venus, after all. Right?"

From a piece by Jay Michaelson in The Daily Beast titled "Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along?"

100 comments:

Jane the Actuary said...: And it all comes back to the kids. Remember them? Maybe they'd like to know who dad is, not just "one of mom's sexual partners"?; 5/27/14, 9:44 PM
B said...: They were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition.

They were fighting for redefinition. Well they got it. They got it good and hard.; 5/27/14, 9:48 PM
cubanbob said...: I can't believe i wasted time and possibly some neurons reading that self-delusional tripe.; 5/27/14, 9:52 PM
Saint Croix said...: "we now know that the sky doesn't fall when gays get married"

The big problem with gay marriage is when they start having kids. Liberals have not thought through this at all.

Every baby has a mother and a father. If two lesbians marry and have a baby, there will be a biological father, a biological mother, and a stepmother. The custody disputes will be mind-boggling.

And liberals are glib, very glib, on how this re-definition of marriage will affect children. Just like liberals were glib on single moms and glib on divorce.; 5/27/14, 9:55 PM
Beldar said...: Since when have heterosexuals defined the institution of marriage between heterosexuals as something that can only succeed if it results in perfect monogamy?

I'm open to the idea that marriage should be made more meaningful by making it harder to get into and harder to get out of.

I don't see what that has to do with the gender of the participants.; 5/27/14, 9:59 PM
Building Magic said...: It seems that Jay Michaelson hasn't had a single thought about what (further) destabilization of marriage will do to child-rearing and to the mental health of future generations.

Or maybe he has and doesn't care.; 5/27/14, 10:01 PM
jr565 said...: I thought the premise was that this was, in effect, going to tame gays, so they ceased being monogamous. but, as I well know, because I'm a guy it takes a woman to tame a man of his licentiousness, not another man.
Gay men are still men.; 5/27/14, 10:03 PM
Jupiter said...: Which is to say, that people who aren't really married, act as if they aren't really married.; 5/27/14, 10:04 PM
jr565 said...: If monogamy is going the way of the dodo, wouldn't that make polygamy more normative?; 5/27/14, 10:08 PM
Michael K said...: "According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed (admittedly, the study was conducted in San Francisco) were not strictly monogamous. "

The whole issue of gay "marriage" is a fad. This is a consequence of the AIDS epidemic. It is an effort by the gay community to control the promiscuity that is a common phenomenon in the gay lifestyle. It doesn't work very well and that is no surprise. Lesbians are more likely to be monogamous although the well known cases of violence and divorce suggest it is by no means universal.; 5/27/14, 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course Christians were right about the redefining of marriage to include any combination of people getting married (The magic number 2 won't last long).

But that's not his point.

His point is, "Ha ha suckers!"; 5/27/14, 10:11 PM
Drago said...: Shock.

Lefties crank up a redefinition of marriage and are somewhat surprised to learn that once you remove some red lines it becomes very hard to create new red lines.

I guess they marriage redefiners could simply pull an "obama red line" tactic and say "we didn't redefine marriage, the congress did! The UN did! The people did! In fact everyone EXCEPT us did!!"

That would be in keeping with the left's core principle of never being responsible for anything.; 5/27/14, 10:16 PM
sean said...: As a Christian, I think that Christians should have their own, church-sponsored, heterosexual, monogamous commitment ceremonies. We should refuse to participate in the institution that Prof. Althouse and her comrades among the secular intelligentsia have created and called "marriage." We might even be allowed to bake cakes for our private religious ceremonies, although I doubt that the law will allow that.; 5/27/14, 10:24 PM
Lyle said...: Gay men also had to deal with the flowering of AIDS thanks to their many poor choices.; 5/27/14, 10:25 PM
buwaya said...: Comes down to -
If its socially acceptable to misbehave and be irresponsible, or worse, to go through life without accepting responsibility, why should men get married at all ?
This is happening right now, from the bottom up.; 5/27/14, 10:28 PM
Martha said...: My brother wanted a marriage that was not strictly monogamous. That is why he is now divorced and his kids hate him.; 5/27/14, 10:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Shorter Jay Michaelson,

"The Christians were right all along and it's fabulous!"; 5/27/14, 10:34 PM
traditionalguy said...: Gay partners have open relationships, especially after a few years have gone by. Are we supposed to be surprised at that. Gay men are not really into monogamy. And all of the the Modern Family sit-com stories of happy gay homes will not change that.

But they are legally equal. Which is a long way from Felons which they were 15 years ago.; 5/27/14, 10:38 PM
Henry said...: Michaelson wrote: But it’s been fascinating to see how my straight friends react to it.

Are these real straight friends or invented straight friends? Journalists seem to indulge in a kind of intentional emotional stupidity, in which they transmute anecdotal comic riffs about the human condition into very serious observations that need redress. I have a wide circle of married friends and colleagues, both gay and straight. No one sits around complaining about how good the gays have it. Unless they want to be mocked.

Saint Croix wrote: The big problem with gay marriage is when they start having kids.

Among the gay couples I know personally, two couples have adopted kids and are doing a wonderful job raising them. Another gay couple I know are foster parents who have helped several teenagers navigate successfully to adulthood.

Notice the starting point: children put up for adoption. Older kids in the foster-care system.

You start with the wrong premise.; 5/27/14, 10:38 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: I can still remember pointing this out - a Gawker article snarked about it, too.

The campaigns for gays and pot were unethical.

Tying them to black's Civil Rights Movement is extremely distasteful,...; 5/27/14, 10:41 PM
jimbino said...: I can't wait for civil marriage to be redefined out of existence, so as to free us singles and childfree from supporting and financing their 1000+ gummint and legal privileges.; 5/27/14, 11:01 PM
David Davenport said...: I don't see what that has to do with the gender of the participants.

Children do better with a male Daddy and a female Mommy.; 5/27/14, 11:05 PM
Unknown said...: Prof Althouse,

Didn't you dismiss this concern (something like "They've had years to make this argument") when it was raised in the courts a few weeks ago? The fact is these concerns have been argued rationally all along, just ignored in the media or dismissed out of hand. Redefining marriage--and consequently family, the fundamental unit of society--is the rhetorical falling sky.; 5/27/14, 11:05 PM
JHapp said...: The sky is falling.; 5/27/14, 11:07 PM
Drago said...: crack: "Tying them to black's Civil Rights Movement is extremely distasteful,..."

Tying any movement in the US with the Civil Rights movement is not just distasteful, it's morally wrong and utterly inappropriate.

The Civil Rights movement is unique and unapproachable and should never be "equivalent-ized" to any other movement (with the sole caveat, arguably, being the native american experience).

Back to the topic at hand: what is clear is that in moving in this direction, western society (since it's not just the US) has embarked on an experiment whose results cannot yet be foretold and whose ramifications are already being felt in non-Western cultures as well.; 5/27/14, 11:09 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The gay marriage debate is characterized by intolerance, lies, and bigotry on the part of gays.; 5/27/14, 11:10 PM
cubanbob said...: I'm not sure where the advocates of non-monagamous marriage be they straight or gay come to the conclusion that when it comes to the legal breakup things will be different for them. Its obvious to anyone who has the slightest bit of awareness that marriage is a contract that you enter into on the State's terms. And when it comes to dividing assets the court will do it for you no matter how willing your spouse was to open marriage prior to the divorce filing. People conveniently forget is that your spouse is your partner and unless you partner agrees to let you go easily whats yours is also theirs. Why gays, swingers and plural marriage advocates gloss over this is beyond me.; 5/27/14, 11:21 PM
holdfast said...: Polygamy is a given at this point. There's no argument against it that has not already been knocked down, it has tons of historical precedent, and it is favored by at least some members of two relatively minor but influential minority religious groups (M&Ms).; 5/27/14, 11:26 PM
Real American said...: again, there's rational basis for the state to recognize gay relationships as marriages. They don't naturally produce children and as such incentivizing them to stay together for the sake of children they're not likely to have is an interest that simply doesn't exist.
Recognizing gay marriage was simply about legitimizing queers and joint filing...probably mostly about joint filing.; 5/27/14, 11:38 PM
Anonymous said...: jr565 : "I thought the premise was that this was, in effect, going to tame gays, so they ceased being monogamous. but, as I well know, because I'm a guy it takes a woman to tame a man of his licentiousness, not another man. Gay men are still men."

Well, in order for a woman to do that she must have the support of the culture she is part of.
I say this because under islam a woman does not have that support, to put it mildly.
But neither does she have that support in modern "anything goes" society.; 5/27/14, 11:55 PM
Milwaukee said...: This isn't about gays having what straights have. Have we finally reached the point where more straight couples are living in sin than in wedlock? Gays have been able to live in an out-of-wedlock relationship for years, same as straights. The real reason for legalizing gay marriage is to provide a cudgel to beat the Christians who say this is sin. Now gays can demand bakers and photographers cater their weddings. Catholic service organizations can be put out of some of their work, such as Illinois where Catholic Social Services is no longer allowed to handle adoptions. They won't work with gay couples.

I believe Ann loves to stir the conservative pot, (as in stew or soup) but where does she get off claiming to be conservative? Contrarian, wanting to be different from her Madison liberal colleagues, maybe, but not conservative. Name a conservative position she has taken.

Did you hear about the Canadian dust up? A lesbian wanted a Muslim to cut her hair. Two sacred liberal causes, lesbianism and Islam. The Muslim barber refused on religious grounds to cut the hair of a woman he was not related to by blood. Somehow the results were never made public. You can bet a Christian wouldn't get away with refusing to cut a woman's hair like a man's.

Defense of traditional marriage needs to be about providing a place for children to be created and nurtured. Societies which don't replace themselves become extinct, a tautology.; 5/28/14, 12:01 AM
Gospace said...: "Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage all long?"

Yes. Along with all of us who argued non-religious reasons for traditional marriage. Throughout all known history, in all pre-Christian cultures, across all religious lines, and in official atheist countries, marriage has existed in one of two forms. One man-one woman, one man-multiple women. If anything else worked, some culture somewhere would have tried it and be flourishing. I don't see them.

Here in the tolerant good ol' USA, there have been multiple communes, religious compounds and communities, etc. that have practiced all kinds of group marriages. None have survived the death of their charismatic leader. One, not strictly in the US, though it started here, drank the kool-aid. And is the origin of the expression.; 5/28/14, 12:02 AM
William said...: If the Kardashians can't debase the institution of marriage what hope do gays have?......I suspect gay marriages will be more volatile and unstable than straight ones, but you never know. Institutions often change people who think that they're going to change institutions......I'm sure that there will be down sides to gay marriages, but that you will never hear about them.; 5/28/14, 12:10 AM
Kirby Olson said...: This was at least honest. I think the problem of children is the major problem, too.; 5/28/14, 12:14 AM
David said...: Follow the money.; 5/28/14, 12:28 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Anyone surprised? I'm not, nor should anyone be who pays any attention at all. This isn't a Dr. Seuss book where people are the same except for a star on their belly.

Gay marriage was not and is not about marriage. It's about equality and respect. Fine, give it to them.

I think we'll find that it's not about family, either. The spectre of gay parents is an empty threat. It's not going to happen in any significant numbers. Again, who cares, let them do it. It's not significant.

Gay marriage doesn't matter. It's a small minority who aren't going to change their behavior one way or another. What matters is the collapse of family and the failure of parents to stay together to raise their children. The consequences of that failure are all around us.

None of this is new. The ancient Greeks and Romans did everything we're doing. How'd that work out?; 5/28/14, 12:32 AM
rcommal said...: Well, for what it's worth, I think that civil-union has become the new norm.

I'm pretty sure that I won't still be living 20 years from now, but should I be, I'd like this to be marked as a worthy, ripe point of discussion, then.; 5/28/14, 12:39 AM
n.n said...: Not just homosexual unions, but unions and marriage in general. Perhaps we should step back from a general experiment and review the terms and circumstances of reality. People seem challenged to discern the most basic principles of life. Selective exclusion did not bolster their credibility.; 5/28/14, 12:47 AM
rcommal said...: Also, if I may say so, at least a couple-so commenters here have moved the goal-posts. It's demonstrated here for all to see.

Man, WTF. Something happened such that thoughtful suddenly is becoming akin to a crap-shoot worth paying attention to.; 5/28/14, 12:48 AM
grackle said...: ... that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage. According to a 2013 study, about half of gay marriages surveyed … were not strictly monogamous … it’s been fascinating to see how my straight friends react to it. Some feel they’ve been duped: They were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition. Others feel downright envious, as if gays are getting a better deal, one that wouldn’t work for straight couples.

One scene:

Mischievous Gay Person:

Hey, you know all those gay marriages some of you straight folks were glad that happened? [smirk]

Weeeell, it turns out that some of those gay marriages have one of them screwing around. [glee showing]

Well, yeah, I KNOW that happens with straight marriages, too. But doesn't it bug you? No? [brows furrowed in disappointment]

Who gives a shit? Whaddaya MEAN YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT!! [anger-faced now] These are GAYS! GAYS doing NAUGHTY crap … and … and … and you just SIT THERE like it was none of your business … [voice trailing off, face red, shaking with frustration]

Alternate scene:

Straight Couple:

Wait, wait. Are you telling us that some married gay couples are NOT living up to their vows? [eyes widening] Is that what you're telling me?

And we worked so hard for the cause of same sex marriage. I mean - remember when we donated that twenty-five dollars? And it was me that stood up to your redneck tea-bagging sonofabitch brother at Thanksgiving dinner. That idiot!

[pausing, suddenly looks upward into space, puts forefinger to temple]

Oh NO! [turns to spouse] You know what this means, don't you, dear? It means OUR MARRIAGE is SCREWED! Our marriage has been REDEFINED FOR GOD'S SAKE! DON'T you underSTAND!

We'll NEVER be able to survive our envy! We'll be EATEN UP by ENVY!

[sinks into sofa, leans forward and puts hands over face]

Murmurs, "Might as well get on the iPhone and Google the nearest divorce lawyer."; 5/28/14, 1:29 AM
rcommal said...: Wait. WTH/

""Obviously, we now know that the sky doesn’t fall when gays get married... At the same time, there is some truth to the conservative claim...""

And + or.; 5/28/14, 2:12 AM
Lyle said...: Polyamorists seem to be fooling themselves and others. I don't think it ever works out well for an elite few. That those people may say it does doesn't mean it actually does.

Did he mention children in that article at all?; 5/28/14, 3:00 AM
Renee said...: The sky fell. Most young people think marriage is obsolete and saw their parents' relationship dissolve.

Marriage was " a tool of social control used by governments to regulate sexuality and family formation.”

They say it like that is a bad thing.

A concept to make people responsible for their sexual behavior and raise their children.

We know heterosexual behavior makes babies, we know promiscuous behavior spreads terrible diseases. Once we manage one STD, our behavior creates another strain that medicine can't treat.

There is no such thing as sexual freedom.

We are not free from sexual consequences.; 5/28/14, 3:58 AM
Jaq said...: "As a Christian, I think that Christians should have their own, church-sponsored, heterosexual, monogamous commitment ceremonies." - sean

Sorry, from now on you will refer to 'Gay Marriage' as "holy matrimony," since the term 'Gay Marriage' is so gendered, and you will like it.; 5/28/14, 5:41 AM
stlcdr said...: Free love (hippie colloquialism) isn't free.

Sexual drive of men and women are different. Many a man has fantasizes about a boudoir of sexual encounters, but the more intelligent - not necessarily IQ - realize that, in the real world, it is dangerous behavior that will get themselves killed.; 5/28/14, 5:57 AM
tim maguire said...: Gay couples didn't invent the open marriage. Does anyone imagine that gay couples who want open marriages have them at a greater rate than straight couples who want open marriages?

If the answer to that is yes, then this point might be valid. But I doubt it is.

Beldar is right, this is a fake issue, the next thing for gay marriage opponents to get excited about. Because apparently they always have to get excited about something.; 5/28/14, 6:10 AM
Unknown said...: Years back, Megan McArdle was making this argument - that the effect of gay marriage on traditional marriage would be felt at the margins. In my heart I was and am in favor of what was eventually termed "marriage equality"; but my mind had to agree with her: we could not predict what the effect of a fundamental change in a social norm that had arisen spontaneously would be. I concluded then that it would be my strong preference that gay marriage or whatever it was going to be called also be allowed to arise through social change (or, more directly though still with the strong probability of unintended consequences, through legislation based on legislators' responding to their constituents' will) rather than in the courts.

But my side lost, and now we'll see what those unintended consequences will be. I hope they won't be too dire; these are real lives at stake.; 5/28/14, 6:10 AM
Brando said...: None of this affects the basic reason why gays should be allowed to marry--it has no effect whatsoever on the rest of our marriages. Just because some random straight couple decides to be swingers and enjoy multiple partners or go through multiple divorces and flash marriages, this has nothing to do with me. So why should it matter more even if it were proven that gay couples were more likely to do these things? I never understood how conservatives who can be so articulate about why government should not be running our lives and individuals should have the right to be let alone can suddenly lose all that when the subject of gay people marrying each other comes up.; 5/28/14, 6:21 AM
Big Mike said...: I'm waiting to see what happens to the legal presumptions regarding divorcing spouses when both are of the same gender.; 5/28/14, 6:34 AM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, FWIW Andrew Sullivan was obliquely warning about this when his "justification" for gay marriage was that many heterosexual marriages are seriously flawed so why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry.; 5/28/14, 6:40 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Children do better with a male Daddy and a female Mommy."

You know this...how?

Children will thrive in a loving family environment, and will have difficulty in a family environment riven by discord, anger, distrust, spite, and lovelessness.

There are plenty of fucked up kids coming out of fucked up families where mommy was a lady and daddy was a man.; 5/28/14, 6:52 AM
Robert Cook said...: Each marriage is unique, and each is uniquely defined by its members. That married gays may not all have monogamous marriages no more "redefines marriage" than do all the straight married couples who engage in swinging, S & M, posting videos online of themselves having sex, etc., etc.

Please, all this fake sturm und drang about gay marriage is sanctimonious bullshit.

Really, who gives a shit about anybody else's marriage?; 5/28/14, 7:02 AM
rhhardin said...: Yes, well, they're not married married.; 5/28/14, 7:14 AM
David said...: Robert Cook said...

Really, who gives a shit about anybody else's marriage?

Liberal hacks do.

One example among many: Newt Gingrich.; 5/28/14, 7:15 AM
Tank said...: "...we now know..."

Um, we've had this gay marriage thing for about two seconds. We don't "know" anything yet.

I really don't care if gays get married, but everyone knows that it isn't marriage marriage, it's something else. We'll call it marriage.

If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

I don't know if this is good for "marriage" (I doubt it makes much difference, marriage has already been pretty damaged), or kids (probably not good, but better than nothing), but I guess we'll find out.; 5/28/14, 7:40 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Surprise Surprise, Cooktards the unrepentant Stalin apologist is advocating for the destruction of the nuclear family.

The Science is Settled! that children develop best with a male father and a female mother, one of each, married together the whole time.; 5/28/14, 7:54 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: The genie was out of the bottle already however, with the destruction of the family institution and glorification of single mothers and permissive divorce.

I say let the homos do whatever they want, just don't ask me to have to praise them for it.; 5/28/14, 7:58 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: "There’s even prostitution in the Bible, for heaven’s sake, as well as polygamy and concubinage, all of which are approved, or at least tolerated, by the Biblical texts that describe them."

Prostitution, polygamy, and concubinage are depicted in the Bible. As are murder, idolatry and swindling.

The Bible is not a hagiography of plaster saints that we are expected to emulate in every way.

The Bible is a record of fallible human beings who live in non-Christian cultures and often fail to resist temptation.

The point being that failure to be perfect does not cause God to stop loving you.; 5/28/14, 8:03 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...everyone knows that it isn't marriage marriage, it's something else...."

What is a "marriage marriage?" Oh, you mean, a woman and a man? And why is that--and only that--a "marriage marriage?"; 5/28/14, 8:25 AM
Moose said...: All is proceeding as I have foreseen. Lucky us...; 5/28/14, 8:30 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Surprise Surprise, Cooktards the unrepentant Stalin apologist is advocating for the destruction of the nuclear family."

Hahahaha! Learn to read for comprehension, President of Vice Mom Jeans: you make two errors in your one sentence.

"The Science is Settled! that children develop best with a male father and a female mother, one of each, married together the whole time."

Where's the science? How and when was it settled? Given the endless varieties of marriage humankind has practiced over the span of our existence, the hissy fits opponents of gay marriage continue to have, and the nonsense they spout in their fits of hissy, and their patently fake concern for the well-being of the children, well...it is to laugh.; 5/28/14, 8:34 AM
Fritz said...: They've been trying to destroy marriage.

Mission accomplished.; 5/28/14, 8:34 AM
TosaGuy said...: Looking forward to the articles on gay divorce.; 5/28/14, 8:35 AM
m stone said...: Agree with Ralph Hyatt.

Further, scripture (God) does not sanction prostitution, polygamy, and concubinage and even hrashly condemns idolatry. Murder, even mass murder is sanctioned and called for by God in the face of idolotry, child-sacrifice and other acts. Achan and his family were killed by his own people, the Jews, for much less.

You can also read about Sodom and consequences.; 5/28/14, 8:37 AM
Tank said...: Robert Cook said...
"...everyone knows that it isn't marriage marriage, it's something else...."

What is a "marriage marriage?" Oh, you mean, a woman and a man? And why is that--and only that--a "marriage marriage?"

Cook, there is something substantially different between a male/female marriage and a gay marriage. If you can't figure out what that is, then you can't be executed.

The fact is that these are two different things. A = A. That's not an argument against letting gays marry.; 5/28/14, 8:40 AM
PB said...: I liked his term "radical traditionalist".; 5/28/14, 8:41 AM
Kevin said...: I always said that if in 1980 Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell came out 100% in favor of gay marriage, that gay sex was EXACTLY equal to straight sex, i.e. a sin outside the bounds of matrimony, then supporting gay marriage today would be seen by all as a crime against humanity, instead of the path to enlightenment.

Gay activists are playing a game for which gay marriage is just the first move, and that move is a feint.; 5/28/14, 8:49 AM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote:
"Children do better with a male Daddy and a female Mommy."

You know this...how?

well first off, the hetero relationship is the norm, and both mommies and daddies bring unique things to the table that the other doesn't. If you are going to be hetero its good to be socialized in a hetero relationship. But more importantly, even though there is adoption children usually d better with their biological parents who are SUPPOSED to be the ones that raise their kids. And that's why marriage is between a man and a woman. No other arrangement allows the biological parents to raise their biological kids. In all others there are one or more step parents.; 5/28/14, 8:57 AM
jr565 said...: I heard that one of the arguments for gay marriage was that gays couldn't see their loved ones in hospitals like married folks. But, neither could single people . If you were single and wanted to have your girlfriend visit you you couldn't do it either, since she isn't family. But what if you don't want to get married but want your gf to visit you?
That doesn't sound like a case for redefining marriage so Mapuche as a case for redefining who is allowed to visit you at a hospital,; 5/28/14, 8:59 AM
Drago said...: Cookie: "Oh, you mean, a woman and a man?"

yes cookie. It was such a crazy leap to speak of marriage marriage as the union of a woman and a man.

I mean, what a bizarre and obscure concept.

I'm surprised you were able to pull that one out.

So, to summarize, now that marriage has been redefined the current left position is to feign surprise (shock?) that when referring to "marriage marriage" one might actually mean between a woman and a man.

That is the new "What?!!eleventy".; 5/28/14, 9:03 AM
jr565 said...: Brando wrote:
None of this affects the basic reason why gays should be allowed to marry--it has no effect whatsoever on the rest of our marriages.

that's a TERRIBLE argument. What marriage effects other marriages? if one were to marry a dog, would it effect your marriage? so then redefine marriage to include dogs?
If you married an 8 year old its not like it would hurt my marriage in a personal way (unless you were perhaps marrying my daughter). So then legalize underage marriages? clearly! that is not a valid argument for why we need to legalize gay marriage or any other type of marriage.; 5/28/14, 9:04 AM
Drago said...: cook: "There are plenty of fucked up kids coming out of fucked up families where mommy was a lady and daddy was a man."

Define "plenty".

And feel free to compare the "plenty" of screwed up kids emerging from intact families to children who lack a mother and/or father.

I wonder what possible trends we might discern......; 5/28/14, 9:05 AM
jr565 said...: Robert cook wrote:
"
What is a "marriage marriage?" Oh, you mean, a woman and a man? And why is that--and only that--a "marriage marriage?"
Well why isn't a man and a dog marriage? what is a marriage marriage? why isn't three men two dogs! five kids seven women and a partridge in a pear tree not a marriage marriage.
You're arguing essentiall, how can we define marriage. If you can't then my example would be as valid as a gay marriage. But if you can, then the reason that marriage is a man and a woman is because that's how it's been defined by society that saw value in defining it that way.; 5/28/14, 9:10 AM
Brian Brown said...: Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage all long?

Of course.

But gay marriage was never about "rights" it was always about trying to normalize gay behavior.

Which is not normal.

"We know that the sky doesn't fall"

Uh, really? How do we know?; 5/28/14, 9:11 AM
Brian Brown said...: Does anyone imagine that gay couples who want open marriages have them at a greater rate than straight couples who want open marriages?

Well, except 50% of heterosexual couples don't want open marriages.

I can't think of a more obtuse post in this thread than yours. (Beldar's was just embarrassing); 5/28/14, 9:13 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: I don't think same-sex marriage is going to have any effect on workable het marriages, because they are an entirely different social institution. Legally it may work decently, but as a social institution, the needs of male couples don't dovetail well with the social institution of marriage.

What will have an effect on het marriages are people's beliefs and principles. Ideals matter. The ideal of as one woman/one man dedicated sexual and lifetime bond exists because of the differing needs of men and women and the necessity to sacrifice a lot to raise children.

It will persist because of the fundamental needs of the participants, and the suffering of the kids who grew up in many broken homes.

I have noticed over my lifetime that the younger cohort feels more, not less, commitment to the marriage ideal than my generation. Boomer marriages are still breaking up at higher rates than those of the younger generation:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/09/opinion/schwartz-baby-boomer-divorce/

What's interesting is the apparent need among the gay subculture to believe that their lifestyles will change (for the better) all lifestyles. This is a growing meme, and from everything I know about younger people, it's completely off-base. So why?; 5/28/14, 9:28 AM
Robert Cook said...: "well first off, the hetero relationship is the norm, and both mommies and daddies bring unique things to the table that the other doesn't. If you are going to be hetero its good to be socialized in a hetero relationship. But more importantly, even though there is adoption children usually d better with their biological parents who are SUPPOSED to be the ones that raise their kids. And that's why marriage is between a man and a woman. No other arrangement allows the biological parents to raise their biological kids. In all others there are one or more step parents."

Not a single word above proves marriages children from straight marriages "do better" than children from gay marriages,(or, for that matter, are even statements of proven fact). It's just a litany of suppositions grounded in your personal beliefs.; 5/28/14, 9:33 AM
Robert Cook said...: "But gay marriage was never about 'rights' it was always about trying to normalize gay behavior.

"Which is not normal."

Given that there has been homosexual behavior among humans in every society throughout known history, (and even among animals in the wild), it has to be considered normal. Or, are only the practices of the majority considered "normal?"; 5/28/14, 9:36 AM
Joe Dirt said...: Robert Cook said...
Or, are only the practices of the majority considered "normal?"

ummm... That seems to be a fairly accurate description of normal; 5/28/14, 9:53 AM
Drago said...: Cookie: "Given that there has been homosexual behavior among humans in every society throughout known history, (and even among animals in the wild), it has to be considered normal. Or, are only the practices of the majority considered "normal?"

LOL

Seriously?

Wow.

No cookie, it doesn't have to be considered "normal".

A result of natural processes in some small percentage of the population as a whole?

Yes.

But those natural processes produce a large number of other abnormalities and just because something occurs in a small percentage across the entire population does not make any of those abnormalities the "norm".; 5/28/14, 10:01 AM
Drago said...: One can see that cookie, leftist that he is, is now hard on the case to redefine "normal" on top of the redefinition of marriage.

Language is always a casualty of the leftists.

It's inevitable since leftism flies in the face of reason and common sense.

Thus, reason and common sense must be destroyed when building the latest and greatest leftist utopia.; 5/28/14, 10:04 AM
Drago said...: Cookie: " It's just a litany of suppositions grounded in your personal beliefs."

Self-appraisal can be a useful exercise.; 5/28/14, 10:06 AM
jr565 said...: maxedoutmama wrote:
I don't think same-sex marriage is going to have any effect on workable het marriages, because they are an entirely different social institution. Legally it may work decently, but as a social institution, the needs of male couples don't dovetail well with the social institution of marriage.

hmm so its a different social institution ase parade from marriage. So then why do we need to redefine marriage to allow for it? wouldn't that be a civil union recongnized by civil society (but not necessarily by churches). If its separate but equal what's wrong with using separate but equal as a standard.; 5/28/14, 10:25 AM
jr565 said...: Crack wrote:
Tying them to black's Civil Rights Movement is extremely distasteful,...

agreed. Its simply not the same.; 5/28/14, 10:29 AM
jr565 said...: Robert cook wrote:
Given that there has been homosexual behavior among humans in every society throughout known history, (and even among animals in the wild), it has to be considered normal. Or, are only the practices of the majority considered "normal?"

so what ISNT normal to you? Is cannibalism normal? because you can find it in nature! and it has occurred in the past among humans. Under you standard there wouldbe nothing that wouldn't be normal.; 5/28/14, 10:32 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: I find Michaelson's disdain for "the Patriarchy's" desire to regulate sexual expression indicative of a lack of historical perspective.

Only in the last few decades have antibiotics and reliable birth control been available.

For most of human history sex led to procreation. Abortions were just as, if not more, dangerous than giving birth. (Infections were not really treatable you know.) Promiscuous sex usually led to illnesses that, once again absent antibiotics, could not be treated and could be passed to your wife who might then give birth to handicapped babies, who, in most societies, would have been exposed to the elements.

Perpetuation of societies required that someone care and provide for children. In agricultural societies where physical strength was needed to perform most farming tasks (no powered machinery) men were the primary source source of sustenance.

Marriage also provided men a socially acceptable outlet for their sexual energy. Without such an outlet young men are likely to end up causing problems. The energy has to be released some how.

What I am saying is that "the Patriarchy" did not regulate sexual expression just because it was a big party pooper. I suspect that if the Super Gonorrhea that is antibiotic resistant becomes wide spread, or antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria in general spread, or our society becomes poorer - making sex outside of marriage a risky proposition once again, then "the Patriarchy" which will strangely enough be composed mostly of women since they have the most to lose, will start regulating sexual behavior much more strictly than it is currently.

The counter argument to this is that not all societies regulated sex to such an extent and that outlets such as temple prostitution and just plain prostitution have existed. True, but then no society is completely consistent. Compromises exist because human beings are diverse and not consistent. Nonetheless, regulation of human sexual expression is a perfectly reasonable and necessary function of any society.; 5/28/14, 10:33 AM
Henry said...: Almost nothing in modern western family culture adheres to any past perfect "normal", let alone a biblical one. For all we know, the thing that really messes up kids is care, affection, and leisure time. Or the wrong gut bacteria.; 5/28/14, 11:06 AM
Duncan said...: Well, since there's some evidence that Lawrence didn't ban Adultery prosecutions (as it seems to have banned Fornication and Lewd Cohabitation prosecutions), there's always that option. Note that adultery is the one sexual sin that 91% of Americans think is always wrong (according to Gallup).; 5/28/14, 11:07 AM
n.n said...: Duncan:

Adultery is intimate betrayal of trust. It is the personal equivalent of treason.; 5/28/14, 11:23 AM
richard mcenroe said...: Was it Chesterton or CS Lewis who once said, "Never tear down a gate until you know what's on the other side?"; 5/28/14, 11:52 AM
richard mcenroe said...: Is Gay Marriage a Problem for Children?; 5/28/14, 11:56 AM
Sam L. said...: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/pro-gay-marriage-professor-under-fire-from-gay-marriage-speech-police.php; 5/28/14, 12:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Know what else has been practiced in every single society? Bestiality. I wouldn't call bestiality normal though. Same goes for pedastry.

As for raising children, is it better with a male and a female than with two of the same sex? One would think Cook already knows the answer to this but it just playing dense.

If you think that mothers offer nothing to the rearing of children for the positive benefit of society, then I can't help you. If you think that fathers offer nothing to the rearing of children for the positive benefit of society, again, I've got no help for you.

Sometimes common sense isn't so common.; 5/28/14, 1:04 PM
Big Mike said...: BTW, I really wonder about the 50% in the cited 2013 survey. I know of several partnerships between two females (they aren't always "married") that seem very much like the idealized traditional marriage in terms of having a long-term, monogamous relationship. Did the survey cover only gay men? (Andrew Sullivan is pretty up front about male-male partnerships being not very often monogamous, and I think he would know.) Or are lesbian couples more like gay male couples and less like heterosexual couples than I had suspected? Meanwhile I'd like to know the what the statistics are for cheating spouses in heterosexual marriage.; 5/28/14, 1:21 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Cookie,

"Given the endless varieties of marriage humankind has practiced over the span of our existence"

Nonsense on Andre-the-Giant-sized stilts. There's only a few common patterns, not a single one of which had same-sex partners.

"Is cannibalism normal?"

Heck, I worked with people whose grandparents had been involved in this. Supposedly.; 5/28/14, 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: jimbino: I can't wait for civil marriage to be redefined out of existence, so as to free us singles and childfree from supporting and financing their 1000+ gummint and legal privileges.

Hey jimbino - this Memorial weekend we exploited our white privilege and enjoyed a visit to one of our beautiful national parks. With our children. Thanks for the subsidy!; 5/28/14, 3:28 PM
Drago said...: Titus said...
fuck you we won; get over it

Aww.

How cute.

Look who appointed himself topic monitor.

Titus, did you gin up a nice armband and sash to go along with your new self-appointed role?; 5/28/14, 8:37 PM
Saint Croix said...: Among the gay couples I know personally, two couples have adopted kids and are doing a wonderful job raising them. Another gay couple I know are foster parents who have helped several teenagers navigate successfully to adulthood.

I personally think our adoption agencies should favor a home where there is a mother and a father, as opposed to a single mom, or a single dad, or double moms, or double dads. Or, for that matter, triple moms or triple dads.

One might even say that over tens of thousands of years of Darwinian evolution, humanity has figured out the best way to raise children. And that would be a mother and a father.

Notice the starting point: children put up for adoption. Older kids in the foster-care system. You start with the wrong premise.

That's your starting point. I was talking about in vitro fertilization. Gay couples will try to procreate.

Consider a lesbian couple who uses IVF to impregnate a woman. Consider the legal instability this new family creates.

Does the biological father have any rights? Does he have any duties? Can he contract away his rights or duties? Does the stepmother have any rights, or duties? Does biology trump contract, or does contract trump biology?

I suspect the standard in these cases will be "the best interests of the child." But of course the best interests of the child is to be born into a married family, with a mother and a father.; 5/28/14, 9:18 PM
Bored Lawyer said...: The whole redefinition thing hit me several years ago. I am a lawyer, and I was talking to one of our paralegals. In the course of conversation, he mentioned his "parnter." Now as a lawyer, I always thought of a partner as someone you went into the law practice with -- a business or professional partner. That is always how I remember the term being used -- "my partner" meant the guy with whom I opened a law practice together, shares the bills, etc. So puzzled, I asked, "do you have a law firm on the side?" He said, "no, I mean my boyfriend."

Point is, there are many arrangments for two people to go into business together -- general partnerships, limited partnerships, corporations, LLPs, LLCs, etc., etc. Within broad parameters, the law allows you to set it up however you want (who controls, who gets how much profit, etc.) and you can end it whenever you want.

Marriage is a kind of partnership, but a very special one, that has its own rules, and own special privileges, because it is the glue that holds society together, and allow a stable environment for raising children.

What is happening, slowly, is that marriage is devolving into a mere partnership -- just a convenient arrangement for two people to pool their resources to live together. Once you decouple it from procreation and raising children, then there are no limits on what you can do. Why not three people marrying? Why not a marriage for a limited time (five years)? Why even require sex at all -- two elderly sisters that want to share an apartment can get "married," for example to take advantage of health control laws.

Heck, to take the facts of Windsor, why couldn't a wealthy father who wants to avoid estate tax not "marry" his son? Who says marriage requires sex at all?; 5/28/14, 9:29 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Oh look, our resident SOB Jimbino is back! (SOB == 'Son Of a Breeder'); 5/29/14, 4:20 AM