[SIZE=-1]Skip to comments.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage[/SIZE]
<small> The Tech (M.I.T.) - Cambridge, Mass. | Tuesday, February 17, 2004 | Adam Kolasinksi </small>
<small>Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 1:28:38 PM by rightcoast</small>
[SIZE=+1]The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage[/SIZE]
<small> The Tech (M.I.T.) - Cambridge, Mass. | Tuesday, February 17, 2004 | Adam Kolasinksi </small>
<small>Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 1:28:38 PM by rightcoast</small>
THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
Adam Kolasinksi
The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
Adam Kolasinksi
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.
The Case Against "Same-Sex Marriage"
MARGARET SOMERVILLEThis is a brief presented on April 29th, 2003 before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Canada. Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor of Law and Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.
<table width="50" align="right"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life. (What such respect now requires has become an unprecedented issue in light of recent advances in reprogenetic technology. I discuss that shortly.)
To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding. It would be to change the essence and nature of marriage as the principal societal institution establishing the norms that govern procreation. Marriage involves public recognition of the spouses' relationship and commitment to each other. But that recognition is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life and to protect and promote the well-being of the family that results. It is not a recognition of the relationship just for its own sake or for the sake of the partners to the marriage, as it would necessarily become were marriage to be extended to include same-sex couples.
Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately, the future of human life depends. That is the primary reason why marriage is important to society. In our highly individualistic societies, we tend to look only at its importance to individuals. That is necessary, but not sufficient in deciding on the future of marriage.
People advocating same-sex marriage argue that we should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. They are correct if the primary purpose of marriage is to protect an intimate pair-bond. But they are not correct if its primary purpose is to protect the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding or to protect an intimate relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential. When marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, there is no need to choose between these purposes, because they are compatible with each other and promote the same goal. The same is not true if marriage is extended to include same-sex couples. That would necessarily eliminate marriage's role in symbolizing and protecting the procreative relationship. We now need the procreative symbolism of marriage more than in past, because of new technoscience possibilities for transmitting life, if we believe that, ethically, there should be limits on the use of these technologies.
Culture is what marks us as human; it is what distinguishes us and allows us to distinguish ourselves from other animals and, in the future, from intelligent machines. In the past, we used religion as an important forum and force in the foundation of culture — we did so by finding shared values through religion. That is not possible in a secular society; one result is that it makes it more difficult to find consensus on values.
To form a society, we must create a societal-cultural paradigm — the collection of values, principles, attitudes, beliefs, and myths, the "shared story" through which we find values and meaning in life, as both individuals and society. In establishing a societal-cultural paradigm all human societies have focused on the two great events of every human life: birth and death. Marriage is a central part of the culture — values, attitudes, beliefs — that surrounds birth. We require a culture related to birth in a secular society, at least as much as in a religious one, and must establish it through secular means. That is one reason why the legal recognition of marriage is important.
One argument in favour of same-sex marriage is that the culture of marriage has changed over the years and that recognizing same-sex marriage is just another change. A common example given is the change in the status of the woman partner, in that marriage is now seen as a union of equals. But that change goes to a collateral feature of marriage, not its essential nature or essence as recognizing same-sex marriage would. In short, these two changes are not analogous; rather, they are fundamentally different in kind.
Advocates of same-sex marriage also argue that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples based on society's need for an institution that symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, means that opposite-sex couples who cannot or do not want to have children should be excluded from marriage, or, more extremely, that only a man and a woman who produce a child should be allowed to marry.
Marriage between opposite-sex partners symbolizes, however, the reproductive potential that exists, at a general level, between a man and a woman. Even if a particular man and woman cannot or do not want to have a child, their getting married does not damage this general symbolism. The reproductive potential of opposite-sex couples is assumed at a general level and is not investigated in individual cases. To do otherwise would be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy. It is also sometimes argued that the absence of a reproductive potential is obvious "on the face of the record" when a woman well past the age of child-bearing enters a marriage and yet we recognize such marriages. But again these marriages do not damage the reproductive symbolism of marriage in the way that same-sex marriages would. Indeed, they continue this symbolism at the grandparent level and, therefore, across the generations.
Marriage's role in upholding respect for the transmission of human life — which is the first event in procreation — is of unusual importance at present. We are facing unprecedented challenges to that respect because of new technoscience that opens up unprecedented modes of transmission of life. That is another reason why marriage should remain limited to opposite-sex couples. Without it, we would have no institution that establishes a social-sexual ecology of human reproduction and symbolizes respect for the transmission of human life through sexual reproduction, as compared, for example, through asexual replication (cloning).
Recognizing that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life provides a corollary insight: Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not related to those people's homosexual orientation, or to them as individuals, or to the worth of their relationships. Rather, the exclusion of their relationship is related to the fact that it is not inherently procreative, and, therefore, if it is encompassed within marriage, marriage cannot institutionalize and symbolize respect for the transmission of life. To recognize same-sex marriage (which is to be distinguished from same-sex partnerships that do not raise this problem) would unavoidably change and eliminate this function of marriage.
The alternative view is that new reproductive technoscience means that same-sex couples will be able to reproduce as a couple, so they should be included in marriage as the institution that institutionalizes, recognizes and protects procreative relationships. I discuss this argument in the next section.
The inherently procreative relationship institutionalized in marriage is fundamental to society and requires recognition as such. Marriage carries important norms and values, "memes" (long standing units of deep cultural information passed on from generation to generation) related to reproduction. Marriage makes present in the present, the deep collective human memory concerning the norms and values surrounding reproduction. Extending marriage to include same-sex couples (or de-legislating marriage, which I discuss shortly) would seriously harm all of these societal level functions of the institution of marriage.
3. Reproductive decision-making
Our societies manifest "intense individualism" — including "intense moral individualism" (Frances Fukyama), "…my preferences are my moral values". As a result, decision making about "life" (reproduction) and "death" is seen as purely private. Pursuant to this view, those decisions are regarded as no one else's business and certainly not the state's, especially to interfere with through law. This view would favour the state getting out of the "marriage business", one of the options on your committee's agenda.
But, as Samuel Johnson said, marriage involves a third party beyond the man and the woman — "Society [and] if it be considered as a vow — God". In short, marriage is not just a matter of private decision-making, it is also of concern to society. That becomes most apparent when a marriage breaks down and ends up in the divorce courts.
If society has a valid interest in marriage, as I believe it does, it must remain involved in marriage through the law.
Our societies have also adopted adult-centred as compared with child-centred reproductive decision-making. Child-centred means, among other requirements, that we should work from a presumption that, if at all possible, children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents. We must consider the ethics of intentionally creating a situation that is otherwise: It requires justification.
There is an ethical difference between individuals choosing to create such a situation and society authorizing or facilitating it. While society would have ethical obligations not to interfere with the freedom of individuals in relation to reproduction (subject to restrictions on the use of reproductive technologies, discussed below), it also has obligations not to facilitate the creation of situations that are not in the "best interests" of children. In short, the compliance of society in helping to create non-traditional families in which children will be raised is not an ethically neutral act.
One common response to the position I outline above, by those advocating same-sex marriage and families, is to point out the deficiencies of marriage. The issue is not, however, whether all or most opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage in relation to fulfilling the needs of the children they produce. Neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution — it is not. It is, rather, whether we should work from a basic presumption that children need a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. I believe they do. The issue is, also, whether society would be worse off without the aspirational ideals established by traditional marriage. I believe it would be.
The combination of adult-centred decision-making and intense individualism, together with reproductive technology can result in a claim of rights to "absolute reproductive freedom" (eg. See John Robertson, University of Texas).
In this respect the judgement of Blair, RSJ, in Halpern et al v. Canada (Ontario Divisional Court) merits consideration. He addresses the argument that the same-sex partners could not reproduce with each other and, therefore, that extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples was not justified. He rejected that argument on the grounds that same-sex couples could use reproductive technology to have children (pp33-34).
It is relevant to note, first, that in doing so, the judge recognizes that a fundamental feature of marriage is related to procreation. And, second, to the extent that the judge's ruling implies that people have a right to "absolute reproductive freedom", it would mean that there would be duties not to interfere with access to reproductive technologies to make reproduction possible or, for instance, with two men married to each other, having access to a surrogate mother. There would, also, probably be a duty to provide access to the means for "collaborative non-coital reproduction" (procreation through the use of reproductive technologies). After all, if exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is found to be discrimination by way of comparison with opposite-sex couples, not providing same-sex couples with the means for procreation — that is, excluding them from procreating with each other — when procreation is possible between opposite-sex couples, is a related discrimination. Indeed, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has held that failing to provide an infertile couple with access to reproductive technology was discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although justified, in that particular case, under Section 1 of the Charter (Cameron v Nova Scotia Attorney General).
These technologies open up a wide range of possibilities for having children. Does a duty of non-interference with their use mean, for example, that creating a child by cloning, or from two ova, two sperm, or multiple genetic parents is ethically acceptable? Could homosexual couples argue that it is discrimination to prohibit them from creating children between them by using reprogenetic technologies in whatever way they saw fit? It merits noting that Bill C-13, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, as recently amended, would support this argument:
4. Mutual respect
The reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage matters: If the reason for denying same-sex marriage is that we have no respect for homosexuals and their relationships, or want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for homosexuals and their relationships. It is also discrimination.
On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and that essence is to protect the inherently procreative relationship, then excluding same-sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for them and their relationships. And such a refusal is not discrimination.
Respect for others' religious beliefs in a multi-cultural society can raise complex issues. Some people object to same-sex marriage on the basis of their religious beliefs. These beliefs are often profound and the people who hold them see a complex interplay in marriage between its voluntary formation, religious sanction, social legitimation and natural origin. Even if we do not agree with these beliefs, indeed even more so if we do not, we need to understand what they are in order to understand the impact on the people who hold them of legally recognizing same-sex marriage.
We must also likewise, take into account the impact on same-sex couples of refusing to recognize their relationships as marriage. We are in a situation of competing sorrows or harms.
We must ask which approach to marriage best accommodates mutual respect. Both sides in this debate must recognize that they can only demand respect from their opponents if they give it; that is, if respect is to be present at all, it will only be so in a context of mutual respect. To the extent that we can avoid transgressing people's religious beliefs, even though we do not agree with them, we should not transgress them out of respect for the people who hold them, not out of respect for those beliefs. The same is true for people who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, in relation to their having respect for homosexuals, if not for their beliefs. Ethics requires us to take the least invasive, least restrictive alternative, reasonably available and likely to be effective in achieving a justified goal. Maintaining traditional marriage and legally recognizing same-sex partnerships fulfils that ethical requirement.
Note, this same accommodation of respect for beliefs in the formation of public policy, would not apply to beliefs, based on religion, about the wrongfulness of homosexuality. While such beliefs may be privately held, they are not acceptable as the basis for public policy decision-making in a secular society, if only because the harm of recognizing such beliefs far outweighs the harm of not doing so. That is the reason why opposing same-sex marriage on the basis that it involves recognizing a homosexual relationship, is not valid, but opposition based on such recognition necessarily destroying the essence of marriage is a valid reason. There is a major difference between not destroying the essence of marriage for people who will enter into that institution and whose religious beliefs mean that recognizing same-sex marriage would destroy it, and recognizing, at any public policy level, the same people's anti-homosexual beliefs. The latter is unacceptable, because it directly denigrates homosexuals, rather than seeking a justified goal (maintaining marriage); and because others' sexual orientation, unlike the recognition of same-sex marriage, in no way directly affects the people who regard homosexuality as morally wrong.
5. Attributing Homophobia
Being against same-sex marriage is frequently alleged by proponents of same-sex marriage to be proof of homophobia (See "Same-sex hearings rife with 'gay- bashing,' critic says", Globe and Mail, 11 March, 2003, A6). A useful comparison can be made with people who take the view that being against infant male circumcision (IMC) is proof of anti-Semitism. (I, personally, have been subject to both sets of allegations in the public square.)
The strategy adopted in both cases is to shame those who are against same-sex marriage or IMC into silence. The choice of language and framing of the issues is carefully crafted to achieve this result. (See William Eskridge, who has articulated important insights in this respect, through his analysis of the techniques used by identity-based social movements to place courts in the position that they see their only alternatives in reaching a decision as being either to find discrimination or to believe that in not doing so they would be approving of discrimination and themselves engaging in it. In the same vein, see Halpern et al v. Canada and arguments considered by the judges.)
This strategy also involves using "ad hominem" arguments, that is, derogatorily labelling those who oppose same-sex marriage as homophobic or as religious (which is seen by some as a derogatory label), and claiming, therefore, their arguments against same-sex marriage should not be given any weight. The substance of these arguments, however, is not addressed.
6. Use of law
The use of law can never be neutral, whether we are enacting, changing or repealing it. We use law in post-modern, secular societies, such as Canada, to challenge or uphold our most important societal values. (Whereas, in the past, our moral and values discussions used to take place in religion, now they take place in our legislatures and courts. One way to regard our Parliament, legislatures and highest courts is as the "secular cathedrals" of our society.)
Same-sex marriage cases are already in the Canadian courts and the issue is before this committee. We cannot avoid the decisions of judges and Parliament regarding same-sex marriage affecting the values related to marriage — either to uphold or change them.
One of the options that has been proposed, of Parliament repealing the laws on marriage and abandoning the area of marriage, would not be a neutral act. It would necessarily change the values and symbolism associated with marriage. We legislate about matters associated with our most important societal values, therefore, de-legislating marriage would be to detract from its importance and the values associated with it. Whether or not we agree with all of the provisions in the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill (Bill C-13), mentioned previously, its enactment recognizes that there is a need — both practical and symbolic — to legislate in relation to reproduction. It would be paradoxical, if, at the same time, we were to de-legislate marriage.
At the individual level, many young people who see no problems with sexual relationships outside marriage or living together before marriage, get married either before having children or if pregnancy or birth occurs. That fact shows the current importance of the role of marriage with respect to the values governing procreation. We can argue that this reality makes maintaining the institution of marriage and the values and symbolism associated with it, more necessary and more important than in the past, and that requires maintaining marriage as a legal construct.
If marriage were not available as a societal institution, but only as a religious (quasi-private) one, to mark out and mark off the intrinsically procreative relationship from other types of relationship, there would be no societally sanctioned way these people could symbolize for themselves, others close to them, and society that their relationship had changed because they were becoming or had become parents. That would be particularly true for people who were not religious.
But what about homosexuals who bring children into their relationship, shouldn't those adults have access to marriage? This is the most powerful argument, in my view, for recognizing same-sex marriage, but I do not believe it justifies extending marriage to same-sex couples.
First, marriage institutionalizes and symbolizes for society the inherently procreative relationship. It cannot do that if it is changed to include same-sex couples.
Second, the joint reproductive incapacity of a same-sex couple must not be addressed through reproductive technologies. I believe that a child has a right not to be created from the genetic patrimony of two men or two women, or by cloning, or from multiple genetic parents. Therefore, same-sex relationships should not be included within an institution that symbolizes an inherently procreative relationship.
Third, bringing children into a same-sex relationship should not be seen as within the norm, but rather, as an exception to it. Although it is considered a radical view by some people, and often seen as politically incorrect, I believe that a child needs a mother and a father and, if possible and unless there are good reasons to the contrary, preferably its own biological mother and father as its raising parents. (Adopted children's search for their birth parents and current moves to give children born through reproductive technologies, using donated gametes, access to the gamete donors' identity, show a deep human need to know our biological family origins.) Recognizing same-sex marriage would make bringing children into a same-sex relationship part of the norm, rather than the exception.
We should recognize same-sex relationships and legally protect them and any children involved, but not by recognizing the same-sex couples' relationship as marriage.
Finally, within the context of the legal issues related to recognizing same-sex marriage, we must ask what the private international law impact of changing the law would be on all Canadian marriages, not just same-sex ones.
7. Social experimentation
It is relevant to consider the rules governing experimentation, in deciding whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The rules governing any experimentation are especially stringent when vulnerable populations — that is, children — and those unable to consent for themselves — that is, children — are involved. The burden of proof is on those wanting to conduct the experiment, to show that it is reasonably safe to do so. In comparison, if we structure the claim to same-sex marriage as a right not to be discriminated against, then the person allegedly discriminating has the burden of proof to show that their actions are justified.
Burdens of proof are not neutral in terms of the outcome of decision-making. In cases of equal doubt as to which decision should be taken, the burden of proof will favour the person who does not carry it, that is, the person with the burden of proof will lose his or her claim. Consequently, how the question of whether to include same-sex couples in marriage is structured, is not neutral with respect to the decision outcome.
8. Discrimination
Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage, but their intimate pair-bonding relationships are. It is argued that is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If that is correct, we must consider whether the discrimination is justified. I believe it is.
One way the justification can be articulated, is in terms of the doctrine of "double effect": The primary intent in restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is to maintain marriage as the institution that fulfils society's need to protect the inherently procreative relationship and its functions for society, and is not to exclude homosexual relationships because they are homosexual. The discrimination involved in the exclusion is a secondary effect which is not desired but unavoidable, and it is justified or excused by the primary purpose which otherwise cannot be realized.
A useful comparison can be made with the discrimination involved in affirmative action. That shows that sometimes discrimination and the harm it involves, can be justified when it is to achieve a greater good that cannot otherwise be achieved.
It is also argued by those advocating same-sex marriage, that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is the same act of discrimination as prohibiting interracial marriage, which has rightly been recognized as a serious breach of human rights. That argument is not correct. Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize the procreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. In contrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is not based on the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationship which is an essential feature of marriage.
Conclusion
In conclusion, society needs marriage to establish cultural meaning, symbolism and moral values around the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and thereby protect that relationship and the children who result from it. That is more necessary than in the past, when alternatives to sexual reproduction were not available. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would affect its cultural meaning and function and, in doing so, damage its ability and, thereby, society's capacity, to protect the inherently procreative relationship and the children who result from it, whether those children's' future sexual orientation proves to be homosexual or heterosexual.
Margaret Somerville, "The case against "Same-sex marriage". A Brief Submitted to The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, April 29, 2003.
Reprinted with permission of the the author.
For more information on this issue see the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture. The Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture is a non-partisan Canadian association for research and study of current trends and developments in marriage and family.
THE AUTHOR
<table width="79" align="right"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Margaret Somerville, AM, FRSC is an Australian/Canadian ethicist and academic. She is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and the Founding Director of the Faculty of Law's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University. She is the author of The Ethical Imagination: CBC Massey Lectures, Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide, The Ethical Canary: Science, Society, and the Human Spirit, and Do We Care?.
Copyright © 2003 Margaret Somerville
MARGARET SOMERVILLEThis is a brief presented on April 29th, 2003 before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Canada. Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor of Law and Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.
<table width="50" align="right"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
- Establishing context
- Marriage as culture
- Reproductive decision-making [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Intense individualism…
[/SIZE][/FONT] - [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adult-centred reproductive decision-making…
[/SIZE][/FONT] - [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Reprogenetic technologies… [/SIZE][/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Intense individualism…
- Mutual respect
- Attributing Homophobia
- Use of law
- Social experimentation
- Discrimination
- Conclusion
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]I oppose discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, whether against homosexuals or heterosexuals.
[/SIZE][/FONT] - [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]I believe that civil partnerships open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples should be legally recognized and that the partners, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, are entitled to the same benefits and protection of the law.
[/SIZE][/FONT] - [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]But I do not believe that we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship. I believe that society needs such an institution. [/SIZE][/FONT]
Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life. (What such respect now requires has become an unprecedented issue in light of recent advances in reprogenetic technology. I discuss that shortly.)
To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding. It would be to change the essence and nature of marriage as the principal societal institution establishing the norms that govern procreation. Marriage involves public recognition of the spouses' relationship and commitment to each other. But that recognition is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life and to protect and promote the well-being of the family that results. It is not a recognition of the relationship just for its own sake or for the sake of the partners to the marriage, as it would necessarily become were marriage to be extended to include same-sex couples.
Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately, the future of human life depends. That is the primary reason why marriage is important to society. In our highly individualistic societies, we tend to look only at its importance to individuals. That is necessary, but not sufficient in deciding on the future of marriage.
People advocating same-sex marriage argue that we should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. They are correct if the primary purpose of marriage is to protect an intimate pair-bond. But they are not correct if its primary purpose is to protect the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding or to protect an intimate relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential. When marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, there is no need to choose between these purposes, because they are compatible with each other and promote the same goal. The same is not true if marriage is extended to include same-sex couples. That would necessarily eliminate marriage's role in symbolizing and protecting the procreative relationship. We now need the procreative symbolism of marriage more than in past, because of new technoscience possibilities for transmitting life, if we believe that, ethically, there should be limits on the use of these technologies.
Culture is what marks us as human; it is what distinguishes us and allows us to distinguish ourselves from other animals and, in the future, from intelligent machines. In the past, we used religion as an important forum and force in the foundation of culture — we did so by finding shared values through religion. That is not possible in a secular society; one result is that it makes it more difficult to find consensus on values.
To form a society, we must create a societal-cultural paradigm — the collection of values, principles, attitudes, beliefs, and myths, the "shared story" through which we find values and meaning in life, as both individuals and society. In establishing a societal-cultural paradigm all human societies have focused on the two great events of every human life: birth and death. Marriage is a central part of the culture — values, attitudes, beliefs — that surrounds birth. We require a culture related to birth in a secular society, at least as much as in a religious one, and must establish it through secular means. That is one reason why the legal recognition of marriage is important.
One argument in favour of same-sex marriage is that the culture of marriage has changed over the years and that recognizing same-sex marriage is just another change. A common example given is the change in the status of the woman partner, in that marriage is now seen as a union of equals. But that change goes to a collateral feature of marriage, not its essential nature or essence as recognizing same-sex marriage would. In short, these two changes are not analogous; rather, they are fundamentally different in kind.
Advocates of same-sex marriage also argue that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples based on society's need for an institution that symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, means that opposite-sex couples who cannot or do not want to have children should be excluded from marriage, or, more extremely, that only a man and a woman who produce a child should be allowed to marry.
Marriage between opposite-sex partners symbolizes, however, the reproductive potential that exists, at a general level, between a man and a woman. Even if a particular man and woman cannot or do not want to have a child, their getting married does not damage this general symbolism. The reproductive potential of opposite-sex couples is assumed at a general level and is not investigated in individual cases. To do otherwise would be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy. It is also sometimes argued that the absence of a reproductive potential is obvious "on the face of the record" when a woman well past the age of child-bearing enters a marriage and yet we recognize such marriages. But again these marriages do not damage the reproductive symbolism of marriage in the way that same-sex marriages would. Indeed, they continue this symbolism at the grandparent level and, therefore, across the generations.
Marriage's role in upholding respect for the transmission of human life — which is the first event in procreation — is of unusual importance at present. We are facing unprecedented challenges to that respect because of new technoscience that opens up unprecedented modes of transmission of life. That is another reason why marriage should remain limited to opposite-sex couples. Without it, we would have no institution that establishes a social-sexual ecology of human reproduction and symbolizes respect for the transmission of human life through sexual reproduction, as compared, for example, through asexual replication (cloning).
Recognizing that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life provides a corollary insight: Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is not related to those people's homosexual orientation, or to them as individuals, or to the worth of their relationships. Rather, the exclusion of their relationship is related to the fact that it is not inherently procreative, and, therefore, if it is encompassed within marriage, marriage cannot institutionalize and symbolize respect for the transmission of life. To recognize same-sex marriage (which is to be distinguished from same-sex partnerships that do not raise this problem) would unavoidably change and eliminate this function of marriage.
The alternative view is that new reproductive technoscience means that same-sex couples will be able to reproduce as a couple, so they should be included in marriage as the institution that institutionalizes, recognizes and protects procreative relationships. I discuss this argument in the next section.
The inherently procreative relationship institutionalized in marriage is fundamental to society and requires recognition as such. Marriage carries important norms and values, "memes" (long standing units of deep cultural information passed on from generation to generation) related to reproduction. Marriage makes present in the present, the deep collective human memory concerning the norms and values surrounding reproduction. Extending marriage to include same-sex couples (or de-legislating marriage, which I discuss shortly) would seriously harm all of these societal level functions of the institution of marriage.
3. Reproductive decision-making
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Intense individualism… [/SIZE][/FONT]
Our societies manifest "intense individualism" — including "intense moral individualism" (Frances Fukyama), "…my preferences are my moral values". As a result, decision making about "life" (reproduction) and "death" is seen as purely private. Pursuant to this view, those decisions are regarded as no one else's business and certainly not the state's, especially to interfere with through law. This view would favour the state getting out of the "marriage business", one of the options on your committee's agenda.
But, as Samuel Johnson said, marriage involves a third party beyond the man and the woman — "Society [and] if it be considered as a vow — God". In short, marriage is not just a matter of private decision-making, it is also of concern to society. That becomes most apparent when a marriage breaks down and ends up in the divorce courts.
If society has a valid interest in marriage, as I believe it does, it must remain involved in marriage through the law.
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adult-centred reproductive decision-making… [/SIZE][/FONT]
Our societies have also adopted adult-centred as compared with child-centred reproductive decision-making. Child-centred means, among other requirements, that we should work from a presumption that, if at all possible, children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents. We must consider the ethics of intentionally creating a situation that is otherwise: It requires justification.
There is an ethical difference between individuals choosing to create such a situation and society authorizing or facilitating it. While society would have ethical obligations not to interfere with the freedom of individuals in relation to reproduction (subject to restrictions on the use of reproductive technologies, discussed below), it also has obligations not to facilitate the creation of situations that are not in the "best interests" of children. In short, the compliance of society in helping to create non-traditional families in which children will be raised is not an ethically neutral act.
One common response to the position I outline above, by those advocating same-sex marriage and families, is to point out the deficiencies of marriage. The issue is not, however, whether all or most opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage in relation to fulfilling the needs of the children they produce. Neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution — it is not. It is, rather, whether we should work from a basic presumption that children need a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. I believe they do. The issue is, also, whether society would be worse off without the aspirational ideals established by traditional marriage. I believe it would be.
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Reprogenetic technologies… [/SIZE][/FONT]
The combination of adult-centred decision-making and intense individualism, together with reproductive technology can result in a claim of rights to "absolute reproductive freedom" (eg. See John Robertson, University of Texas).
In this respect the judgement of Blair, RSJ, in Halpern et al v. Canada (Ontario Divisional Court) merits consideration. He addresses the argument that the same-sex partners could not reproduce with each other and, therefore, that extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples was not justified. He rejected that argument on the grounds that same-sex couples could use reproductive technology to have children (pp33-34).
It is relevant to note, first, that in doing so, the judge recognizes that a fundamental feature of marriage is related to procreation. And, second, to the extent that the judge's ruling implies that people have a right to "absolute reproductive freedom", it would mean that there would be duties not to interfere with access to reproductive technologies to make reproduction possible or, for instance, with two men married to each other, having access to a surrogate mother. There would, also, probably be a duty to provide access to the means for "collaborative non-coital reproduction" (procreation through the use of reproductive technologies). After all, if exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is found to be discrimination by way of comparison with opposite-sex couples, not providing same-sex couples with the means for procreation — that is, excluding them from procreating with each other — when procreation is possible between opposite-sex couples, is a related discrimination. Indeed, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has held that failing to provide an infertile couple with access to reproductive technology was discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although justified, in that particular case, under Section 1 of the Charter (Cameron v Nova Scotia Attorney General).
These technologies open up a wide range of possibilities for having children. Does a duty of non-interference with their use mean, for example, that creating a child by cloning, or from two ova, two sperm, or multiple genetic parents is ethically acceptable? Could homosexual couples argue that it is discrimination to prohibit them from creating children between them by using reprogenetic technologies in whatever way they saw fit? It merits noting that Bill C-13, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, as recently amended, would support this argument:
Principles sec. 2… (e) persons who seek to undergo assisted reproduction procedures must not be discriminated against, including on the basis of their sexual orientation or marital status;
New reprogenetic technoscience confronts us with questions no other humans have had to address, because in the past the only mode of transmission of human life was sexual reproduction in vivo: What is required for respect for mode of transmission of human life to the next generation? And what is required for respect for the children who would result from the use of reprogenetic technologies?
4. Mutual respect
The reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage matters: If the reason for denying same-sex marriage is that we have no respect for homosexuals and their relationships, or want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for homosexuals and their relationships. It is also discrimination.
On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and that essence is to protect the inherently procreative relationship, then excluding same-sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable from the perspective of respect for them and their relationships. And such a refusal is not discrimination.
Respect for others' religious beliefs in a multi-cultural society can raise complex issues. Some people object to same-sex marriage on the basis of their religious beliefs. These beliefs are often profound and the people who hold them see a complex interplay in marriage between its voluntary formation, religious sanction, social legitimation and natural origin. Even if we do not agree with these beliefs, indeed even more so if we do not, we need to understand what they are in order to understand the impact on the people who hold them of legally recognizing same-sex marriage.
We must also likewise, take into account the impact on same-sex couples of refusing to recognize their relationships as marriage. We are in a situation of competing sorrows or harms.
We must ask which approach to marriage best accommodates mutual respect. Both sides in this debate must recognize that they can only demand respect from their opponents if they give it; that is, if respect is to be present at all, it will only be so in a context of mutual respect. To the extent that we can avoid transgressing people's religious beliefs, even though we do not agree with them, we should not transgress them out of respect for the people who hold them, not out of respect for those beliefs. The same is true for people who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, in relation to their having respect for homosexuals, if not for their beliefs. Ethics requires us to take the least invasive, least restrictive alternative, reasonably available and likely to be effective in achieving a justified goal. Maintaining traditional marriage and legally recognizing same-sex partnerships fulfils that ethical requirement.
Note, this same accommodation of respect for beliefs in the formation of public policy, would not apply to beliefs, based on religion, about the wrongfulness of homosexuality. While such beliefs may be privately held, they are not acceptable as the basis for public policy decision-making in a secular society, if only because the harm of recognizing such beliefs far outweighs the harm of not doing so. That is the reason why opposing same-sex marriage on the basis that it involves recognizing a homosexual relationship, is not valid, but opposition based on such recognition necessarily destroying the essence of marriage is a valid reason. There is a major difference between not destroying the essence of marriage for people who will enter into that institution and whose religious beliefs mean that recognizing same-sex marriage would destroy it, and recognizing, at any public policy level, the same people's anti-homosexual beliefs. The latter is unacceptable, because it directly denigrates homosexuals, rather than seeking a justified goal (maintaining marriage); and because others' sexual orientation, unlike the recognition of same-sex marriage, in no way directly affects the people who regard homosexuality as morally wrong.
5. Attributing Homophobia
Being against same-sex marriage is frequently alleged by proponents of same-sex marriage to be proof of homophobia (See "Same-sex hearings rife with 'gay- bashing,' critic says", Globe and Mail, 11 March, 2003, A6). A useful comparison can be made with people who take the view that being against infant male circumcision (IMC) is proof of anti-Semitism. (I, personally, have been subject to both sets of allegations in the public square.)
The strategy adopted in both cases is to shame those who are against same-sex marriage or IMC into silence. The choice of language and framing of the issues is carefully crafted to achieve this result. (See William Eskridge, who has articulated important insights in this respect, through his analysis of the techniques used by identity-based social movements to place courts in the position that they see their only alternatives in reaching a decision as being either to find discrimination or to believe that in not doing so they would be approving of discrimination and themselves engaging in it. In the same vein, see Halpern et al v. Canada and arguments considered by the judges.)
This strategy also involves using "ad hominem" arguments, that is, derogatorily labelling those who oppose same-sex marriage as homophobic or as religious (which is seen by some as a derogatory label), and claiming, therefore, their arguments against same-sex marriage should not be given any weight. The substance of these arguments, however, is not addressed.
6. Use of law
The use of law can never be neutral, whether we are enacting, changing or repealing it. We use law in post-modern, secular societies, such as Canada, to challenge or uphold our most important societal values. (Whereas, in the past, our moral and values discussions used to take place in religion, now they take place in our legislatures and courts. One way to regard our Parliament, legislatures and highest courts is as the "secular cathedrals" of our society.)
Same-sex marriage cases are already in the Canadian courts and the issue is before this committee. We cannot avoid the decisions of judges and Parliament regarding same-sex marriage affecting the values related to marriage — either to uphold or change them.
One of the options that has been proposed, of Parliament repealing the laws on marriage and abandoning the area of marriage, would not be a neutral act. It would necessarily change the values and symbolism associated with marriage. We legislate about matters associated with our most important societal values, therefore, de-legislating marriage would be to detract from its importance and the values associated with it. Whether or not we agree with all of the provisions in the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill (Bill C-13), mentioned previously, its enactment recognizes that there is a need — both practical and symbolic — to legislate in relation to reproduction. It would be paradoxical, if, at the same time, we were to de-legislate marriage.
At the individual level, many young people who see no problems with sexual relationships outside marriage or living together before marriage, get married either before having children or if pregnancy or birth occurs. That fact shows the current importance of the role of marriage with respect to the values governing procreation. We can argue that this reality makes maintaining the institution of marriage and the values and symbolism associated with it, more necessary and more important than in the past, and that requires maintaining marriage as a legal construct.
If marriage were not available as a societal institution, but only as a religious (quasi-private) one, to mark out and mark off the intrinsically procreative relationship from other types of relationship, there would be no societally sanctioned way these people could symbolize for themselves, others close to them, and society that their relationship had changed because they were becoming or had become parents. That would be particularly true for people who were not religious.
But what about homosexuals who bring children into their relationship, shouldn't those adults have access to marriage? This is the most powerful argument, in my view, for recognizing same-sex marriage, but I do not believe it justifies extending marriage to same-sex couples.
First, marriage institutionalizes and symbolizes for society the inherently procreative relationship. It cannot do that if it is changed to include same-sex couples.
Second, the joint reproductive incapacity of a same-sex couple must not be addressed through reproductive technologies. I believe that a child has a right not to be created from the genetic patrimony of two men or two women, or by cloning, or from multiple genetic parents. Therefore, same-sex relationships should not be included within an institution that symbolizes an inherently procreative relationship.
Third, bringing children into a same-sex relationship should not be seen as within the norm, but rather, as an exception to it. Although it is considered a radical view by some people, and often seen as politically incorrect, I believe that a child needs a mother and a father and, if possible and unless there are good reasons to the contrary, preferably its own biological mother and father as its raising parents. (Adopted children's search for their birth parents and current moves to give children born through reproductive technologies, using donated gametes, access to the gamete donors' identity, show a deep human need to know our biological family origins.) Recognizing same-sex marriage would make bringing children into a same-sex relationship part of the norm, rather than the exception.
We should recognize same-sex relationships and legally protect them and any children involved, but not by recognizing the same-sex couples' relationship as marriage.
Finally, within the context of the legal issues related to recognizing same-sex marriage, we must ask what the private international law impact of changing the law would be on all Canadian marriages, not just same-sex ones.
7. Social experimentation
It is relevant to consider the rules governing experimentation, in deciding whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The rules governing any experimentation are especially stringent when vulnerable populations — that is, children — and those unable to consent for themselves — that is, children — are involved. The burden of proof is on those wanting to conduct the experiment, to show that it is reasonably safe to do so. In comparison, if we structure the claim to same-sex marriage as a right not to be discriminated against, then the person allegedly discriminating has the burden of proof to show that their actions are justified.
Burdens of proof are not neutral in terms of the outcome of decision-making. In cases of equal doubt as to which decision should be taken, the burden of proof will favour the person who does not carry it, that is, the person with the burden of proof will lose his or her claim. Consequently, how the question of whether to include same-sex couples in marriage is structured, is not neutral with respect to the decision outcome.
8. Discrimination
Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage, but their intimate pair-bonding relationships are. It is argued that is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If that is correct, we must consider whether the discrimination is justified. I believe it is.
One way the justification can be articulated, is in terms of the doctrine of "double effect": The primary intent in restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is to maintain marriage as the institution that fulfils society's need to protect the inherently procreative relationship and its functions for society, and is not to exclude homosexual relationships because they are homosexual. The discrimination involved in the exclusion is a secondary effect which is not desired but unavoidable, and it is justified or excused by the primary purpose which otherwise cannot be realized.
A useful comparison can be made with the discrimination involved in affirmative action. That shows that sometimes discrimination and the harm it involves, can be justified when it is to achieve a greater good that cannot otherwise be achieved.
It is also argued by those advocating same-sex marriage, that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is the same act of discrimination as prohibiting interracial marriage, which has rightly been recognized as a serious breach of human rights. That argument is not correct. Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize the procreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. In contrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is not based on the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationship which is an essential feature of marriage.
Conclusion
In conclusion, society needs marriage to establish cultural meaning, symbolism and moral values around the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and thereby protect that relationship and the children who result from it. That is more necessary than in the past, when alternatives to sexual reproduction were not available. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would affect its cultural meaning and function and, in doing so, damage its ability and, thereby, society's capacity, to protect the inherently procreative relationship and the children who result from it, whether those children's' future sexual orientation proves to be homosexual or heterosexual.
See also: Margaret Somerville's notes for her Oral Presentation to The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Margaret Somerville, "The case against "Same-sex marriage". A Brief Submitted to The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, April 29, 2003.
Reprinted with permission of the the author.
For more information on this issue see the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture. The Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture is a non-partisan Canadian association for research and study of current trends and developments in marriage and family.
THE AUTHOR
<table width="79" align="right"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
Copyright © 2003 Margaret Somerville
The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
The marriage Revolution would Effectively Destroy Matrimony
By Tim Leslie
Originally published in the January 2004 Crisis magazine. Re-published on LifeSite with permission of the author
Anyone not living in a cave has noticed the intensifying attack on traditional marriage. In Vermont, Canada, and Massachusetts—and now California, with the signing of a de facto gay marriage bill—the war drums against traditional matrimony are beating with ever-growing intensity.
The onslaught will not be turned back unless the public is given better, more coherent arguments against same-sex spousal unions. While religion plays an obvious role in the debate, the effectiveness of faith-based arguments is limited because most Westerners care little what the Bible or theologians say. To argue from religion will only convince those who are already convinced and will simply alienate the rest.
So how can we assemble a coherent and persuasive case? By steering the discussion back to the historical understanding of marriage’s primary end.
In recent generations, we’ve seen the belief evolve that the overriding purpose of marriage is the spouses’ mutual pleasure. This is what enabled Sally Lieber (D-San Jose), my colleague in the California assembly, to say, “I don’t see how my marriage is any more moral than the same-sex couples I know.” This claim, of course, only makes sense if companionship and sexual pleasure are matrimony’s preeminent ends.
But this deviates from what every culture in history has recognized as the heart of marriage: the begetting and education of children. The happiness of the couple is vital, to be sure, but it’s not the only or primary purpose and never has been. Why? Because “happiness” produces no definitive benefit for society, whereas the rearing of children clearly does. As the Vatican recently noted, “Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.”
Because of this, it makes sense for society to support traditional marriage alone. Conversely, allowing same-sex spousal unions makes no sense. Indeed, we can only allow homosexual spousal unions if the central purpose of marriage is the spouses’ happiness. If that’s true, then heterosexual-only wedlock is indeed discrimination. But if marriage has a higher purpose, then anything that undermines its traditional framework also threatens to undermine its desired result—the rearing of healthy, productive, contributing citizens.
Promoting the General Welfare
If the central purpose of government is to promote the general welfare, then the state must promote always what is best for society’s health, security, and long-term viability. This requires the state to make prudential judgments about various segments of our population: Those under 16 may not drive. Those under 21 may not drink. You must possess a high-school diploma to join the military. Information about paroled child molesters must be made available so parents can protect their children.
Some label these prudential decisions “discrimination,” but discriminating in such matters promotes the general welfare. The unique affirmation of heterosexual marriage operates under the same principle. Traditional matrimony is the foundation of society, and society should neither encourage nor recognize anything pretending to approximate it. Again, the reason for this relates to marriage’s primary purpose: The spousal union produces families, and such families are the building blocks of society.
Granted, many marriages don’t produce children. Most soldiers don’t face combat and yet are still eligible for veterans’ benefits. But the state rewards each institution based on its ability to provide society with a valuable function. Governments favor historical marriage and seek to strengthen it in its policies because virtually everything that happens in society, for good or ill, can be traced back to families and family life.
The Marriage Revolution Would Destroy Matrimony
The marriage revolution would not only undermine matrimony—and thus society—but it would effectively destroy it.
Gay Assemblyman Mark Leno asked during the floor debate for the California gay marriage bill, “Is marriage so fragile?” The answer is yes. The marriage rate is at an all-time low. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce.1 Annually, more than one million children experience divorce, and they will suffer in many ways as a result.2 More couples than ever are living together outside of marriage, which several studies show leads to an even higher divorce rate.3
By equating homosexual partnerships with marriage, society’s attitudes toward marriage will be cheapened to an even greater degree. As Canadian TV show host Michael Coren notes, “If marriage is suddenly fundamentally altered to include people of the same gender, it loses its genuine meaning to the rest of us. We may include the earthworm in the cat family. Does this make worms feline? Of course not. But it destroys the definition of cat.” Instead of being recognized as the crucial, indispensable building block of society—through which most of its benefits flow—marriage will simply be another choice among many. “What’s the big deal about marriage?” our children and grandchildren will ask. In the Sixties, this was a fringe sentiment. If gay marriage goes through, it will become the norm.
And as that happens, our society will slide with ever greater speed down the slope of social chaos. Why? Because it will only further encourage marital instability and broken homes, and children growing up in these situations are more likely to exhibit a variety of antisocial behaviors.4
Children growing up in traditional homes, on the other hand, have these problems to a significantly diminished degree.5 They have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, are less likely to engage in premarital sex, and do better educationally and economically.6 Finally, a recent Utah study found that divorce costs the federal, state, and local governments $33 billion per year. For all these reasons, the state has a vested interest in promoting stable traditional marriages.
Furthermore, these marriages provide the natural complementarity between the sexes, which benefits children. Studies show mothers devote special attention to their children’s physical and emotional needs, whereas fathers devote their primary efforts to character traits. David Popenoe of Rutgers University’s National Marriage Project writes, “Both dimensions are critical for an efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime.” Left unsaid is the fact that same-sex couples can never provide this complementarity and thus cannot provide an optimally “efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime.”
Same-Sex Couples are Fundamentally Different
Still, some would argue, since gays will continue adopting, shouldn’t we encourage same-sex marriage? Wouldn’t this help give children the stability they need? No, because studies by even homosexual researchers reveal that same-sex couples are fundamentally different from their straight counterparts. They are more promiscuous, have greater physical and mental health problems and shorter life expectancies, and the average duration of relationships is woefully short.7
And these differences don’t produce a healthy environment in which to raise children.8 Any number of indicators prove this; indeed, they prove that it would be detrimental and possibly even dangerous.9 For instance, the journal Adolescence reported that researchers found a “disproportionate percentage—29 percent—of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent.... Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.”10
So, while same-sex marriage might promote a particular welfare—that of the couple—it would not promote the general welfare, which arises from raising healthy, balanced children who have all the interior resources necessary to become contributing citizens.
Infidelity and Promiscuity: Just 26 of Homosexuals Believe in Commitment in Marital-Type Unions
Gay "marriage" would further redefine marriage in the way it treats conjugal fidelity.
In their book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison found that of the 156 couples they studied, 75 percent of the partners learned within five years that for the relationship to survive, cheating had to be tolerated, as long as one or the other did not become emotionally involved with the other sex partner. In her book The Mendola Report, lesbian Mary Mendola conducted a nationwide survey of approximately 400 homosexual couples. She, too, found that homosexuals distinguish between sexual and emotional exclusivity. Indeed, just 26 percent of homosexuals believe commitment is paramount in a marriage-type relationship.
This translates to an almost unfathomable degree of sleeping around. A recent Amsterdam study found that men in homosexual relationships cheat with an average of eight partners a year. Others have found that the average homosexual has between 100 and 500 sexual partners over his or her lifetime. One study showed that 28 percent have had 1,000 or more sex partners, with another study placing the percentage between 10 and 16 percent.
While adultery is certainly a factor in traditional marriages, it is comparatively rare. In fact, studies on matrimony place the male fidelity rate between 75 and 80 percent and that of females between 85 and 90 percent. The reason is simple: Unlike homosexual relationships, emotional and sexual fidelity within matrimony are inexorably linked and always have been by definition. To extend the concept of marriage to a situation wherein fidelity is not the norm would not only cheapen the institution, but it would have disastrous consequences for children. Simply put, a marriage is not a marriage without total exclusivity.
Homosexuals argue that marriage would make their relationships more stable. However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely. As UCLA sociologist Anne Peplau notes, "There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people."
Their argument also fails to take into account the institutions that have relaxed prohibitions against homosexuals. The most poignant example of these is the Roman Catholic priesthood. It was argued in the 1960s that allowing gay men into the clerical state would instill in them sexual restraint and celibacy. Just the opposite happened. Most of these men have consciously subverted the historic norms of priestly celibacy. Furthermore, the sex-abuse scandal was largely driven by homosexual priests in that 90 percent of victims were adolescent boys. One study of 50 gay Catholic priests found that only two abstained from sexual activity. Many were very open about their carnal habits. Therefore, we should seriously question the homosexual community’s soothing words regarding the consequences of gay marriage.
In response, gay activists point to Vermont and its civil unions and note the sky has not fallen there. However, people said the same thing immediately after the changing of divorce laws, which set in motion forces that would not be evident for 40 years.11 Says one homosexual researcher who opposes same-sex marriage, "This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven’t taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we’ve allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations."
Goal for Many is to Transform the Notion of "Family" Entirely
The final reason same-sex marriage would have a detrimental effect on society comes from homosexuals themselves: Many freely admit they want to redefine marriage, not only to include same-sex couples but to change its very scope and meaning.
Patti Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, once said, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so…. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."
Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer, says the goal of homosexuals is to "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely."
Even when homosexuals are circumspect about their intentions, their goals are clear. Gay pundit Andrew Sullivan has said the “openness” in many gay relationships would in reality fortify heterosexual marriages by allowing straight couples to see that adultery doesn’t necessarily destroy a marriage. Furthermore, once gay “marriage” is allowed, the faithful nature of traditional unions will be transformed accordingly. He says this is a good thing.
None of us should hate those with same-sex attractions. But while embracing them as people made in the image and likeness of God, we should instead make it clear that our problem is with their agenda because it goes against God’s plan and would do great damage to our culture and its future stability. These are complex arguments and do not fit easily into a news producer’s need for a sound bite. However, we must make the case for the central importance of marriage for society. If we don’t, it will result in an unprecedented societal breakdown every bit as catastrophic as the disintegration of the great cultures of the past.
End Notes
1. The State of Our Unions 2003, What are your chances of divorce? National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2003.h... ofDivorce.
2. Donna Kato, “Children suffer more from divorce than previously thought,” San Jose Mercury News, 1997, http://www.infidelity.com/the-kids/articles/children-suffer...., et al.
3. Katherine Kersten, “We should work to save kids from divorce,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 26, 2000, et al.
4. Patrick F. Fagan and Robert Rector, “The Effects of Divorce,” The Heritage Foundation, June 5, 2000, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1373.cfm, et al.
5. Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, New York: Doubleday, 2000.
6. The State of Our Unions 2003, National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2003.h....
7. Bridget Maher, “Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy,” Family Research Council, 2003; Mary Mendola, The Mendola Report, Crown, 1980; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Prentice Hall, 1984; Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage,” presented at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, May 14, 2003.
8. Tim Dailey, Ph.D., “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Family Research Council, 2003.
9. Ibid.
10. P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.
11. Divorce laws were first liberalized in the 1960s. It took several generations for researchers to gather statistics and study the negative effects of divorce on income, children, and the like.
California Assemblyman Tim Leslie represents Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, and part of Sacramento counties
Back to Top
The marriage Revolution would Effectively Destroy Matrimony
By Tim Leslie
Originally published in the January 2004 Crisis magazine. Re-published on LifeSite with permission of the author
Anyone not living in a cave has noticed the intensifying attack on traditional marriage. In Vermont, Canada, and Massachusetts—and now California, with the signing of a de facto gay marriage bill—the war drums against traditional matrimony are beating with ever-growing intensity.
The onslaught will not be turned back unless the public is given better, more coherent arguments against same-sex spousal unions. While religion plays an obvious role in the debate, the effectiveness of faith-based arguments is limited because most Westerners care little what the Bible or theologians say. To argue from religion will only convince those who are already convinced and will simply alienate the rest.
So how can we assemble a coherent and persuasive case? By steering the discussion back to the historical understanding of marriage’s primary end.
In recent generations, we’ve seen the belief evolve that the overriding purpose of marriage is the spouses’ mutual pleasure. This is what enabled Sally Lieber (D-San Jose), my colleague in the California assembly, to say, “I don’t see how my marriage is any more moral than the same-sex couples I know.” This claim, of course, only makes sense if companionship and sexual pleasure are matrimony’s preeminent ends.
But this deviates from what every culture in history has recognized as the heart of marriage: the begetting and education of children. The happiness of the couple is vital, to be sure, but it’s not the only or primary purpose and never has been. Why? Because “happiness” produces no definitive benefit for society, whereas the rearing of children clearly does. As the Vatican recently noted, “Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.”
Because of this, it makes sense for society to support traditional marriage alone. Conversely, allowing same-sex spousal unions makes no sense. Indeed, we can only allow homosexual spousal unions if the central purpose of marriage is the spouses’ happiness. If that’s true, then heterosexual-only wedlock is indeed discrimination. But if marriage has a higher purpose, then anything that undermines its traditional framework also threatens to undermine its desired result—the rearing of healthy, productive, contributing citizens.
Promoting the General Welfare
If the central purpose of government is to promote the general welfare, then the state must promote always what is best for society’s health, security, and long-term viability. This requires the state to make prudential judgments about various segments of our population: Those under 16 may not drive. Those under 21 may not drink. You must possess a high-school diploma to join the military. Information about paroled child molesters must be made available so parents can protect their children.
Some label these prudential decisions “discrimination,” but discriminating in such matters promotes the general welfare. The unique affirmation of heterosexual marriage operates under the same principle. Traditional matrimony is the foundation of society, and society should neither encourage nor recognize anything pretending to approximate it. Again, the reason for this relates to marriage’s primary purpose: The spousal union produces families, and such families are the building blocks of society.
Granted, many marriages don’t produce children. Most soldiers don’t face combat and yet are still eligible for veterans’ benefits. But the state rewards each institution based on its ability to provide society with a valuable function. Governments favor historical marriage and seek to strengthen it in its policies because virtually everything that happens in society, for good or ill, can be traced back to families and family life.
The Marriage Revolution Would Destroy Matrimony
The marriage revolution would not only undermine matrimony—and thus society—but it would effectively destroy it.
Gay Assemblyman Mark Leno asked during the floor debate for the California gay marriage bill, “Is marriage so fragile?” The answer is yes. The marriage rate is at an all-time low. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce.1 Annually, more than one million children experience divorce, and they will suffer in many ways as a result.2 More couples than ever are living together outside of marriage, which several studies show leads to an even higher divorce rate.3
By equating homosexual partnerships with marriage, society’s attitudes toward marriage will be cheapened to an even greater degree. As Canadian TV show host Michael Coren notes, “If marriage is suddenly fundamentally altered to include people of the same gender, it loses its genuine meaning to the rest of us. We may include the earthworm in the cat family. Does this make worms feline? Of course not. But it destroys the definition of cat.” Instead of being recognized as the crucial, indispensable building block of society—through which most of its benefits flow—marriage will simply be another choice among many. “What’s the big deal about marriage?” our children and grandchildren will ask. In the Sixties, this was a fringe sentiment. If gay marriage goes through, it will become the norm.
And as that happens, our society will slide with ever greater speed down the slope of social chaos. Why? Because it will only further encourage marital instability and broken homes, and children growing up in these situations are more likely to exhibit a variety of antisocial behaviors.4
Children growing up in traditional homes, on the other hand, have these problems to a significantly diminished degree.5 They have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, are less likely to engage in premarital sex, and do better educationally and economically.6 Finally, a recent Utah study found that divorce costs the federal, state, and local governments $33 billion per year. For all these reasons, the state has a vested interest in promoting stable traditional marriages.
Furthermore, these marriages provide the natural complementarity between the sexes, which benefits children. Studies show mothers devote special attention to their children’s physical and emotional needs, whereas fathers devote their primary efforts to character traits. David Popenoe of Rutgers University’s National Marriage Project writes, “Both dimensions are critical for an efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime.” Left unsaid is the fact that same-sex couples can never provide this complementarity and thus cannot provide an optimally “efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime.”
Same-Sex Couples are Fundamentally Different
Still, some would argue, since gays will continue adopting, shouldn’t we encourage same-sex marriage? Wouldn’t this help give children the stability they need? No, because studies by even homosexual researchers reveal that same-sex couples are fundamentally different from their straight counterparts. They are more promiscuous, have greater physical and mental health problems and shorter life expectancies, and the average duration of relationships is woefully short.7
And these differences don’t produce a healthy environment in which to raise children.8 Any number of indicators prove this; indeed, they prove that it would be detrimental and possibly even dangerous.9 For instance, the journal Adolescence reported that researchers found a “disproportionate percentage—29 percent—of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent.... Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.”10
So, while same-sex marriage might promote a particular welfare—that of the couple—it would not promote the general welfare, which arises from raising healthy, balanced children who have all the interior resources necessary to become contributing citizens.
Infidelity and Promiscuity: Just 26 of Homosexuals Believe in Commitment in Marital-Type Unions
Gay "marriage" would further redefine marriage in the way it treats conjugal fidelity.
In their book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison found that of the 156 couples they studied, 75 percent of the partners learned within five years that for the relationship to survive, cheating had to be tolerated, as long as one or the other did not become emotionally involved with the other sex partner. In her book The Mendola Report, lesbian Mary Mendola conducted a nationwide survey of approximately 400 homosexual couples. She, too, found that homosexuals distinguish between sexual and emotional exclusivity. Indeed, just 26 percent of homosexuals believe commitment is paramount in a marriage-type relationship.
This translates to an almost unfathomable degree of sleeping around. A recent Amsterdam study found that men in homosexual relationships cheat with an average of eight partners a year. Others have found that the average homosexual has between 100 and 500 sexual partners over his or her lifetime. One study showed that 28 percent have had 1,000 or more sex partners, with another study placing the percentage between 10 and 16 percent.
While adultery is certainly a factor in traditional marriages, it is comparatively rare. In fact, studies on matrimony place the male fidelity rate between 75 and 80 percent and that of females between 85 and 90 percent. The reason is simple: Unlike homosexual relationships, emotional and sexual fidelity within matrimony are inexorably linked and always have been by definition. To extend the concept of marriage to a situation wherein fidelity is not the norm would not only cheapen the institution, but it would have disastrous consequences for children. Simply put, a marriage is not a marriage without total exclusivity.
Homosexuals argue that marriage would make their relationships more stable. However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely. As UCLA sociologist Anne Peplau notes, "There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people."
Their argument also fails to take into account the institutions that have relaxed prohibitions against homosexuals. The most poignant example of these is the Roman Catholic priesthood. It was argued in the 1960s that allowing gay men into the clerical state would instill in them sexual restraint and celibacy. Just the opposite happened. Most of these men have consciously subverted the historic norms of priestly celibacy. Furthermore, the sex-abuse scandal was largely driven by homosexual priests in that 90 percent of victims were adolescent boys. One study of 50 gay Catholic priests found that only two abstained from sexual activity. Many were very open about their carnal habits. Therefore, we should seriously question the homosexual community’s soothing words regarding the consequences of gay marriage.
In response, gay activists point to Vermont and its civil unions and note the sky has not fallen there. However, people said the same thing immediately after the changing of divorce laws, which set in motion forces that would not be evident for 40 years.11 Says one homosexual researcher who opposes same-sex marriage, "This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven’t taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we’ve allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations."
Goal for Many is to Transform the Notion of "Family" Entirely
The final reason same-sex marriage would have a detrimental effect on society comes from homosexuals themselves: Many freely admit they want to redefine marriage, not only to include same-sex couples but to change its very scope and meaning.
Patti Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, once said, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so…. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."
Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer, says the goal of homosexuals is to "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely."
Even when homosexuals are circumspect about their intentions, their goals are clear. Gay pundit Andrew Sullivan has said the “openness” in many gay relationships would in reality fortify heterosexual marriages by allowing straight couples to see that adultery doesn’t necessarily destroy a marriage. Furthermore, once gay “marriage” is allowed, the faithful nature of traditional unions will be transformed accordingly. He says this is a good thing.
None of us should hate those with same-sex attractions. But while embracing them as people made in the image and likeness of God, we should instead make it clear that our problem is with their agenda because it goes against God’s plan and would do great damage to our culture and its future stability. These are complex arguments and do not fit easily into a news producer’s need for a sound bite. However, we must make the case for the central importance of marriage for society. If we don’t, it will result in an unprecedented societal breakdown every bit as catastrophic as the disintegration of the great cultures of the past.
End Notes
1. The State of Our Unions 2003, What are your chances of divorce? National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2003.h... ofDivorce.
2. Donna Kato, “Children suffer more from divorce than previously thought,” San Jose Mercury News, 1997, http://www.infidelity.com/the-kids/articles/children-suffer...., et al.
3. Katherine Kersten, “We should work to save kids from divorce,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 26, 2000, et al.
4. Patrick F. Fagan and Robert Rector, “The Effects of Divorce,” The Heritage Foundation, June 5, 2000, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1373.cfm, et al.
5. Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, New York: Doubleday, 2000.
6. The State of Our Unions 2003, National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2003.h....
7. Bridget Maher, “Why Marriage Should Be Privileged in Public Policy,” Family Research Council, 2003; Mary Mendola, The Mendola Report, Crown, 1980; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Prentice Hall, 1984; Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson, “Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage,” presented at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, May 14, 2003.
8. Tim Dailey, Ph.D., “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Family Research Council, 2003.
9. Ibid.
10. P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772.
11. Divorce laws were first liberalized in the 1960s. It took several generations for researchers to gather statistics and study the negative effects of divorce on income, children, and the like.
California Assemblyman Tim Leslie represents Placer, El Dorado, Alpine, and part of Sacramento counties
Back to Top
Zit,
Nobody is reading that rubbish. Same sex marriage dont bother me because i dont hanker a cock. Now if someone did hanker one and had burning desires that they couldnt act out on because of religious beliefs or a wife or a dad that would beat the fuck out of you, then maybe that would drive that said person to jealousy and that could lead into disdain.
Im not saying....im just saying...
Nobody is reading that rubbish. Same sex marriage dont bother me because i dont hanker a cock. Now if someone did hanker one and had burning desires that they couldnt act out on because of religious beliefs or a wife or a dad that would beat the fuck out of you, then maybe that would drive that said person to jealousy and that could lead into disdain.
Im not saying....im just saying...
[FONT=arial,helvetica] The Case Against Gay Marriage[/FONT]
To achieve this goal, and under the banner of civil rights, gay advocates use all the arrows in their quiver: litigation leading to judicial fiat, liberal theology, legislative activism, medical revisionism, economic pressure and a mob of literati that tout the gay lifestyle in newspaper columns and movies, on radio talk shows, and with TV sitcoms and august PBS and cable network documentaries.
Now that certain liberal church denominations have redefined gay sins as merely misunderstandings, and practicing homosexuals are now eligible for high clerical appointments, it seems that biblical principles have lost their chachet as yardsticks for making categorical judgments about whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong.
The latest controversy is the marriage ceremony, which itself is both a religious and a secular institution. For thousands of years, and in most cultures, marriage has traditionally been defined as the union of one man and one woman, although some cultures have endorsed multi-partner unions. This tradition is now under assault by gays, primarily on the basis of both the Equal Protection Amendment (anti-discrimination) and the Full Faith and Credit (portability) Clause of the Constitution.
Today, whether the religiously motivated construe same-sex marriage as desirable or an abomination no longer has a bearing in the debate, since secularists fight tooth and nail to keep private beliefs from informing public policy, unless, of course, the matter is put to a national referendum.
That leaves only one arena in which to do battle: Should the government continue to legitimize marriage as a secular institution? If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex or even multi-party unions, are government’s interests still served?
Although historically derived from religious teachings, the State has officially sanctioned monogamous, heterosexual marriage as a social institution to provide an ideal framework for conceiving and raising children. Regardless if marriages fail, this is still the ideal to which couples aspire. If marriages with children fail, the children suffer and, by extension, so does society.
Even though couples may choose to be childless, government policy is always based on the child-rearing model, since stable families promote the continuance of an orderly society.
Astute defenders of traditional marriage, like Stanley Kurtz, have noted that it is the unique sexual dynamic between men and women that domesticates men — from their youthful wild ways to supporting their mates as wives and mothers. Simply redefining the union of two men as a "marriage" will not bring those social expectations into play. And there will be no high price to pay for cheating on a gay spouse since, according to some studies, there is rampant promiscuity in the gay community, even among those who have formed unions.
If government permits marriage to include same-sex or group partners, the whole institution loses its social relevance. Why bother for government to sanction personal unions at all? Stripped of its moral foundation, why not allow persons to live in any arrangement they want? Who cares?
Many will want to live together and claim a marriage right, no doubt, merely to gain the financial benefits that were created with the monogamous heterosexual model in mind.
As if to prove this point, one week after the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, a polygamist in Utah petitioned the court, claiming the right to as many wives as he wants — it’s all about privacy.
Unless a rampant judiciary forces the nation to the brink, gay marriage proponents are going to run into the brick wall of majority opinion that homosexual practices are considered aberrant and deviant behavior. It has always been thus and always will be. For this reason alone, same-sex marriages should be prohibited, and children should not be raised by gay couples, regardless how well-intentioned.
Robert Bork put his finger on the problem when he noticed that the forces of radical individualism and egalitarianism often cooperate to thumb their noses at authority and traditional morality. Together, they deny the possibility that any one culture or moral view can be superior to another, and the result is what we are facing now — cultural and moral chaos, unfortunately both prominent and destructive features of our time.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Barrett Kalellis[/FONT]
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003
In its ceaseless efforts to normalize homosexuality in this country, the highly organized gay lobby continues to press forward by attacking any institution, both public and private, that tends to resist this encroachment by adopting discriminatory membership policies. In the recent past, these have included the U.S. armed forces, the Boy Scouts of America and various religious denominations.Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003
To achieve this goal, and under the banner of civil rights, gay advocates use all the arrows in their quiver: litigation leading to judicial fiat, liberal theology, legislative activism, medical revisionism, economic pressure and a mob of literati that tout the gay lifestyle in newspaper columns and movies, on radio talk shows, and with TV sitcoms and august PBS and cable network documentaries.
Now that certain liberal church denominations have redefined gay sins as merely misunderstandings, and practicing homosexuals are now eligible for high clerical appointments, it seems that biblical principles have lost their chachet as yardsticks for making categorical judgments about whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong.
The latest controversy is the marriage ceremony, which itself is both a religious and a secular institution. For thousands of years, and in most cultures, marriage has traditionally been defined as the union of one man and one woman, although some cultures have endorsed multi-partner unions. This tradition is now under assault by gays, primarily on the basis of both the Equal Protection Amendment (anti-discrimination) and the Full Faith and Credit (portability) Clause of the Constitution.
Today, whether the religiously motivated construe same-sex marriage as desirable or an abomination no longer has a bearing in the debate, since secularists fight tooth and nail to keep private beliefs from informing public policy, unless, of course, the matter is put to a national referendum.
That leaves only one arena in which to do battle: Should the government continue to legitimize marriage as a secular institution? If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex or even multi-party unions, are government’s interests still served?
Although historically derived from religious teachings, the State has officially sanctioned monogamous, heterosexual marriage as a social institution to provide an ideal framework for conceiving and raising children. Regardless if marriages fail, this is still the ideal to which couples aspire. If marriages with children fail, the children suffer and, by extension, so does society.
Even though couples may choose to be childless, government policy is always based on the child-rearing model, since stable families promote the continuance of an orderly society.
Astute defenders of traditional marriage, like Stanley Kurtz, have noted that it is the unique sexual dynamic between men and women that domesticates men — from their youthful wild ways to supporting their mates as wives and mothers. Simply redefining the union of two men as a "marriage" will not bring those social expectations into play. And there will be no high price to pay for cheating on a gay spouse since, according to some studies, there is rampant promiscuity in the gay community, even among those who have formed unions.
If government permits marriage to include same-sex or group partners, the whole institution loses its social relevance. Why bother for government to sanction personal unions at all? Stripped of its moral foundation, why not allow persons to live in any arrangement they want? Who cares?
Many will want to live together and claim a marriage right, no doubt, merely to gain the financial benefits that were created with the monogamous heterosexual model in mind.
As if to prove this point, one week after the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, a polygamist in Utah petitioned the court, claiming the right to as many wives as he wants — it’s all about privacy.
Unless a rampant judiciary forces the nation to the brink, gay marriage proponents are going to run into the brick wall of majority opinion that homosexual practices are considered aberrant and deviant behavior. It has always been thus and always will be. For this reason alone, same-sex marriages should be prohibited, and children should not be raised by gay couples, regardless how well-intentioned.
Robert Bork put his finger on the problem when he noticed that the forces of radical individualism and egalitarianism often cooperate to thumb their noses at authority and traditional morality. Together, they deny the possibility that any one culture or moral view can be superior to another, and the result is what we are facing now — cultural and moral chaos, unfortunately both prominent and destructive features of our time.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.
The liberal case against gay marriage
Public Interest, Summer, 2004 by Susan M. Shell
<style type="text/css"> </style> <!-- BEGIN WIDGET: FA Article Tools -->
<!-- END WIDGET: FA Article Tools --> <!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s1 weight=.7) --> THE issue of gay marriage brings to a head, like few other issues of our time, a central conflict between two moral positions that interact like seismic plates beneath the surface of contemporary American political life. It is commonly thought that the issue of gay marriage pits secular liberals against religious conservatives. While this understanding is accurate up to a point, it is also seriously misleading. The most stubborn and intransigent opponents in the conflict are both in their way sectarian.
<!-- google_ad_section_end (name=s1) --> <!-- BEGIN WIDGET: FA RELATED RESULTS --> <dl><dt>Related Results</dt><dd>Trust, E-innovation and Leadership in Change</dd><dd>Foreign Banks in United States Since World War II: A Useful Fringe</dd><dd>Building Your Brand With Brand Line Extensions</dd><dd>The Impact of the Structure of Debt on Target Gains</dd><dd>Project Management Standard Program</dd></dl>
<!-- END WIDGET: FA RELATED RESULTS -->
<!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s2 weight=.3) --> The first position is more or less a traditional Christian one. That is, it accepts the idea of an authority higher than human choice that must remain within limits set by that authority. New understandings of these limits have arisen in recent years, allowing the individual pursuit of happiness more leeway and removing much of the shame and guilt that once kept traditional sexual norms in place. Nevertheless, its basic familial ideal remains intact: a monogamous, heterosexual, and devotional relationship directed toward the rearing of children. For most proponents of this view, gay marriage represents a direct assault on the grounding authority by which life at its most serious and intimate is lived.
The second position, which takes human freedom as its central and highest good, could be classified as "liberationist" or postmodern. Distrustful of traditional rules as intrinsically oppressive, it seeks the individual's emancipation from all norms that might hamper the quest for spiritual and material autonomy. For the most radical liberationists, all universal norms are suspect, with the sole exception of something like a duty to "accept difference." Among the more moderate proponents, this suspicion is replaced by an uneasiness with respect to "moral judgment" that approaches or imitates humility of a more traditional Christian sort, at least when applied to others. Thus, for the liberationist camp, gay marriage is either a celebration of the individual's heroic struggle to find love and validation in a hostile world, or at the very least, it is no one else's business.
The debate over gay marriage is currently polarized by these two sectarian forces. It would be politically beneficial to define a genuinely liberal approach that is fair to both. Such an approach would include them in the ongoing and generally fruitful compromise between revealed religion and the principles of individual rights and freedoms from which the United States has historically drawn strength. The point is not to abandon the position formulated by Locke and other liberal thinkers, but to reaffirm and enhance it in the face of new conditions and challenges. Such thinkers have generally viewed marriage as a contractual arrangement between two individuals for the sake of mutual advantage and the generation and rearing of children to the point where they can be self-reliant (in Locke's thinking) and/or capable of exercising their individual rights in a responsible civic manner (according to Kant). How might such older liberal views be usefully adapted to the present?
The question is complicated by a common, relatively recent view that there is no one way to be a family--that all forms of family life are to celebrated equally as products of individual choice, at least so long as they make people happy. Conversely, it is said, intolerance and lack of respect for "difference" breed unhappiness. Liberals typically uphold the right of individuals to pursue their own understandings of happiness, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. What, then, can weaken an apparently liberal presumption in favor of allowing people to define marriage however they choose, other than an illiberal deference toward a particular religious norm that has no right to political establishment? The answer lies in marriage itself, as it has been understood and practiced almost universally.
The essence of marriage, liberally construed
Though it is often assumed that no principled liberal case exists against gay marriage, this is incorrect. In a liberal democracy, private groups may hold their own views on the desirability or reprehensibility of homosexual relations. But it is not the business of the state either to endorse or forbid such practices publicly. Neither is it the business of the liberal democratic state to define marriage in a way that speaks to the special needs of a single sect. Liberalism proceeds by taking its fundamental bearings from certain basic human experiences about which sectarians can reasonably be expected to agree--for example, the general human aversion to violent death and the claims to which that aversion naturally gives rise. Thus the first step in defining a liberal approach to marriage is to find a way of understanding marriage that is similarly true to the human situation and at the same time relatively impartial with respect to present-day sectarian conflicts.
A suitable account of marriage might begin as follows: Most human societies have honored the notion that special responsibility for children lies with the biological parents. This has also been the view of almost all influential thinkers on the subject--including "liberal" ones. No known society treats the question of who may properly call a child his or her own as simply "up for grabs" or as a matter to be decided entirely politically as one might distribute land or wealth.
continued here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_156/ai_n6143562
Public Interest, Summer, 2004 by Susan M. Shell
<style type="text/css"> </style> <!-- BEGIN WIDGET: FA Article Tools -->
<!-- END WIDGET: FA Article Tools --> <!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s1 weight=.7) --> THE issue of gay marriage brings to a head, like few other issues of our time, a central conflict between two moral positions that interact like seismic plates beneath the surface of contemporary American political life. It is commonly thought that the issue of gay marriage pits secular liberals against religious conservatives. While this understanding is accurate up to a point, it is also seriously misleading. The most stubborn and intransigent opponents in the conflict are both in their way sectarian.
<!-- google_ad_section_end (name=s1) --> <!-- BEGIN WIDGET: FA RELATED RESULTS --> <dl><dt>Related Results</dt><dd>Trust, E-innovation and Leadership in Change</dd><dd>Foreign Banks in United States Since World War II: A Useful Fringe</dd><dd>Building Your Brand With Brand Line Extensions</dd><dd>The Impact of the Structure of Debt on Target Gains</dd><dd>Project Management Standard Program</dd></dl>
<!-- END WIDGET: FA RELATED RESULTS -->
<!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s2 weight=.3) --> The first position is more or less a traditional Christian one. That is, it accepts the idea of an authority higher than human choice that must remain within limits set by that authority. New understandings of these limits have arisen in recent years, allowing the individual pursuit of happiness more leeway and removing much of the shame and guilt that once kept traditional sexual norms in place. Nevertheless, its basic familial ideal remains intact: a monogamous, heterosexual, and devotional relationship directed toward the rearing of children. For most proponents of this view, gay marriage represents a direct assault on the grounding authority by which life at its most serious and intimate is lived.
The second position, which takes human freedom as its central and highest good, could be classified as "liberationist" or postmodern. Distrustful of traditional rules as intrinsically oppressive, it seeks the individual's emancipation from all norms that might hamper the quest for spiritual and material autonomy. For the most radical liberationists, all universal norms are suspect, with the sole exception of something like a duty to "accept difference." Among the more moderate proponents, this suspicion is replaced by an uneasiness with respect to "moral judgment" that approaches or imitates humility of a more traditional Christian sort, at least when applied to others. Thus, for the liberationist camp, gay marriage is either a celebration of the individual's heroic struggle to find love and validation in a hostile world, or at the very least, it is no one else's business.
The debate over gay marriage is currently polarized by these two sectarian forces. It would be politically beneficial to define a genuinely liberal approach that is fair to both. Such an approach would include them in the ongoing and generally fruitful compromise between revealed religion and the principles of individual rights and freedoms from which the United States has historically drawn strength. The point is not to abandon the position formulated by Locke and other liberal thinkers, but to reaffirm and enhance it in the face of new conditions and challenges. Such thinkers have generally viewed marriage as a contractual arrangement between two individuals for the sake of mutual advantage and the generation and rearing of children to the point where they can be self-reliant (in Locke's thinking) and/or capable of exercising their individual rights in a responsible civic manner (according to Kant). How might such older liberal views be usefully adapted to the present?
The question is complicated by a common, relatively recent view that there is no one way to be a family--that all forms of family life are to celebrated equally as products of individual choice, at least so long as they make people happy. Conversely, it is said, intolerance and lack of respect for "difference" breed unhappiness. Liberals typically uphold the right of individuals to pursue their own understandings of happiness, so long as they do not encroach upon the rights of others. What, then, can weaken an apparently liberal presumption in favor of allowing people to define marriage however they choose, other than an illiberal deference toward a particular religious norm that has no right to political establishment? The answer lies in marriage itself, as it has been understood and practiced almost universally.
The essence of marriage, liberally construed
Though it is often assumed that no principled liberal case exists against gay marriage, this is incorrect. In a liberal democracy, private groups may hold their own views on the desirability or reprehensibility of homosexual relations. But it is not the business of the state either to endorse or forbid such practices publicly. Neither is it the business of the liberal democratic state to define marriage in a way that speaks to the special needs of a single sect. Liberalism proceeds by taking its fundamental bearings from certain basic human experiences about which sectarians can reasonably be expected to agree--for example, the general human aversion to violent death and the claims to which that aversion naturally gives rise. Thus the first step in defining a liberal approach to marriage is to find a way of understanding marriage that is similarly true to the human situation and at the same time relatively impartial with respect to present-day sectarian conflicts.
A suitable account of marriage might begin as follows: Most human societies have honored the notion that special responsibility for children lies with the biological parents. This has also been the view of almost all influential thinkers on the subject--including "liberal" ones. No known society treats the question of who may properly call a child his or her own as simply "up for grabs" or as a matter to be decided entirely politically as one might distribute land or wealth.
continued here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_156/ai_n6143562
I tried to read most of your arguments. While i appreciate its thoroughness, it is unnecessary to provide numerous essays with introductions arguments and conclusions, and for the purpose of an online discussion, it would have been nice if you could have edited it into a one page paper stating all of your arguments in a clear but succinct way.
From skimming i found the basic arguements you provide are
1. Marriage was meant to help produce and raise children and gays dont do that?
2. Marriage is sacred and gay marriage would undermine that? before i respond am i missing anything or is that the basic arguement?
From skimming i found the basic arguements you provide are
1. Marriage was meant to help produce and raise children and gays dont do that?
2. Marriage is sacred and gay marriage would undermine that? before i respond am i missing anything or is that the basic arguement?
There is the cost on society position in the secular paper. There are
also these points:
Still, some would argue, since gays will continue adopting, shouldn't we encourage same-sex marriage? Wouldn't this help give children the stability they need? No, because studies by even homosexual researchers reveal that same-sex couples are fundamentally different from their straight counterparts. They are more promiscuous, have greater physical and mental health problems and shorter life expectancies, and the average duration of relationships is woefully short.7
And these differences don't produce a healthy environment in which to raise children.8 Any number of indicators prove this; indeed, they prove that it would be detrimental and possibly even dangerous.9 For instance, the journal Adolescence reported that researchers found a "disproportionate percentage—29 percent—of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent.... Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50."10
So, while same-sex marriage might promote a particular welfare—that of the couple—it would not promote the general welfare, which arises from raising healthy, balanced children who have all the interior resources necessary to become contributing citizens.
In their book The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison found that of the 156 couples they studied, 75 percent of the partners learned within five years that for the relationship to survive, cheating had to be tolerated, as long as one or the other did not become emotionally involved with the other sex partner. In her book The Mendola Report, lesbian Mary Mendola conducted a nationwide survey of approximately 400 homosexual couples. She, too, found that homosexuals distinguish between sexual and emotional exclusivity. Indeed, just 26 percent of homosexuals believe commitment is paramount in a marriage-type relationship.
This translates to an almost unfathomable degree of sleeping around. A recent Amsterdam study found that men in homosexual relationships cheat with an average of eight partners a year. Others have found that the average homosexual has between 100 and 500 sexual partners over his or her lifetime. One study showed that 28 percent have had 1,000 or more sex partners, with another study placing the percentage between 10 and 16 percent.
While adultery is certainly a factor in traditional marriages, it is comparatively rare. In fact, studies on matrimony place the male fidelity rate between 75 and 80 percent and that of females between 85 and 90 percent. The reason is simple: Unlike homosexual relationships, emotional and sexual fidelity within matrimony are inexorably linked and always have been by definition. To extend the concept of marriage to a situation wherein fidelity is not the norm would not only cheapen the institution, but it would have disastrous consequences for children. Simply put, a marriage is not a marriage without total exclusivity.
Homosexuals argue that marriage would make their relationships more stable. However, given the runaway promiscuity in this subculture, the assertion is at best unlikely. As UCLA sociologist Anne Peplau notes, "There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people."
Patti Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, once said, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so…. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."
Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer, says the goal of homosexuals is to "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."
There is also the fact that the majority of Americans
find it disgusting and don't want it.
July 2008 Nationwide Poll
<table class="PollingTable" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>American voters oppose same-sex marriage 55 - 36 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Democrats support same-sex marriage by a narrow 47 - 43 percent margin, while Republicans oppose it 80 - 14 percent and independent voters oppose it 49 - 43 percent.
</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> Women oppose same-sex marriage 51 - 40 percent and men oppose it 61 - 31 percent.
</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> Voters also say 50 - 44 percent that states should not give legal recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Given three choices, 32 percent of American voters say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry while 33 percent support civil unions for same-sex couples and 29 percent say there should be no legal recognition for same-sex couples. </td></tr></tbody></table>
find it disgusting and don't want it.
July 2008 Nationwide Poll
<table class="PollingTable" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>American voters oppose same-sex marriage 55 - 36 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Democrats support same-sex marriage by a narrow 47 - 43 percent margin, while Republicans oppose it 80 - 14 percent and independent voters oppose it 49 - 43 percent.
</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> Women oppose same-sex marriage 51 - 40 percent and men oppose it 61 - 31 percent.
</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> Voters also say 50 - 44 percent that states should not give legal recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other states, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Given three choices, 32 percent of American voters say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry while 33 percent support civil unions for same-sex couples and 29 percent say there should be no legal recognition for same-sex couples. </td></tr></tbody></table>
