Is it just me?

[jim stone]

Thanks for the clarification and apologies if I
have misrepresented the practice. I was
extrapolating from recent prosecutions for
polygamy in Utah, which I thought were of
Mormons.

Mormons
certainly got a lot of bad press in
the 19th century, didn't they? I actually
read a Sherlock Holmes story blasting
them, of all things.

The question 'Why shouldn't homosexuals in
monogamous committed relations be given the
same legal rights as the rest of us when we marry'
is different from the question 'Why shouldn't
homosexuals be given the right to marry?'
The latter group is wider than the
former, just as with heterosexuals.

As to secular answers to the second
question--they were covered earlier
in this thread.

Principally these had to do with the
institution of marriage being harmed
thereby, at a time when it is already
serious trouble due to a 50 percent divorce
rate; society and families suffering
accordingly.

First, there are a fair number of male homosexuals,
though certainly not the majority,
who will marry and divorce scores of times.
I have known people personally who
would have married maybe 100 times
in their 20s. The response was offered
that heteros in their 20s get married
and divorced a fair amount, but I think
we're talking about different leagues here
This will be widely advertised, all
over day-time TV,
and it will make marriage a mockery
in the eyes of many people. Many people (especially young people)
will take marriage as a joke. This will be destructive
to the institution of marriage.

Also gay activists say that once they
have the right to marry they will work
to change the model of marriage so that
it is no longer a bar to multiple sexual
relations--not only for gays but for the
public at large. We ought to take them
at their word. Married people militating
for a new conception of marriage,
so that it is no bar to promiscuity,
is destructive to the institution of
marriage. The response was offered
that most gays won't agree with this,
which is true, but the advocacy
will be happening, it's likely to be covered
in the media (and day-time TV), there will be plenty of examples,
and it may well be destructive to the instituiton
of marriage, already in serious trouble.

Male homosexuals say themselves that
they have a harder time of staying in
stable relationships than heteros do.
Having close gay friends and colleagues,
I've witnessed this personally. If gays
marry, their divorce rate will be higher
if only for this reason. Put all three together
and the divorce rate is likely to
go much higher for both homos and heteros
--which is also destructive
to the institution of marriage.

Because of its critical importance
to families and therefore to social stability,
the institution of marriage needs to be protected, especially
now. Changes that will weaken it considerably
further are a luxury society can ill afford.

In addition, we really do not understand
homosexuality very well, and a great deal
of what is said flows from this or that
politcal agenda. 'Born or chosen'
is a false dichotomy--for there are
plenty of conditions, including various
emotional problems, which are neither.
Homosexuality is in many ways an unfortunate
condition, at least for a fair number of
homosexuals. It can lead to instability
in relationships, an extraordinary level of
promisciuity (with attending public health catastrophes
that we have witnessed recently),
and some pretty striking personality
disorders (e.g. a ferocious level of
narcisssm and an obsession with sex
that can warp personality). There is
reason to believe that a great deal
of lesbianism flows from unresolved anger
toward men due to childhood sexual abuse
and other traumas.

Plenty of conditions that are neither born
nor chosen are accessible to counseling
and therapy--the jury is still out as to whether
homosexuality is one of them. As homosexuality
appears to be an unfortunate condition
for many homosexuals, legitimizing
homosexuality may not be doing homosexuals
a favor. Homosexuality should be viewed with
tolerance, certainly, but sending the message
that it is just as good as heterosexuality
is imprudent, it certainly seems not to
be true in a large number of cases,
and it may substitute political
expedience for genuine compassion.

Finally once we open up marriage to
homosexuals, it will be very hard to find
a principled way to withhold it
from polygamists, from adult siblings, from
adult parents and adult children, from
groups of three or four or whatever.
Once we give up the idea that the
majority morality can constrain marriage,
there will be no principled place to
call a halt.
Put it all together and we are inviting
widescale social disruption, the
destruction of marriage as a binding
and serious institution in the minds
of most people, economic chaos
(consider health insurance).

I offer these arguments, not because I'm
persuaded by them, but as a way
of defining the issues.

[Nanohedron]

Lorenzo, you old troublemaker! Always with the fox in the chicken-coop.

[Lorenzo]

Lorenzo, you old troublemaker! Always with the fox in the chicken-coop.

I'll admit I get a little mixed up when I hear "Toss the Feathers." I don't know whether to bring the pipes, a whistle, or a maybe a study??

[Nanohedron]

Lorenzo, you old troublemaker! Always with the fox in the chicken-coop.

I'll admit I get a little mixed up when I hear "Toss the Feathers." I don't know whether to bring the pipes, a whistle, or a maybe a study??

*tosses cookies*

[Chuck_Clark]

You know, it occurs to me that if strictly heterosexual, monogamous marriage is such a perfect model, why does it only work less than half the time?

Susan

On the contrary, I don't think you were long-winded. I appreciated the explanation. It should be noted that the Mormons were not the only religion to allow polygamous marriages. The Koran still allows it for Muslims, at least in some circumstances.

I really think a large part of our problem with some Islamic people comes from the perception that Americans are a culturally insensitive nation that automatically and arrogantly dismisses the beliefs of other peoples. They're right, I suppose, not that Europeans or perhaps even Muslims are any different.

Jim Stone

Do you have some sort of voice typing software? If I tried to type that much, my hand would quit working for a week. That said, I really enjoy reading your well thought out and expounded messages. Keep up the good work.

[jim stone]

Thanks, chuck. I'm actually struggling to understand
some of these issues--which tend to go very deep.
The constitutional stuff is especially fascinating to me.
Thanks to you for raising them so forcefully
and intelligently. This whole business of where
the majority ends and the minority begins
is immensely interesting, and there is a
certain underlying libertarianism--as long as
I'm not harming you, leave me alone--which
is very attractive yet for me problematic.

I've travelled in Islamic countries, and I
was alarmed by what I saw of the
treatment of women. Maybe this has
something to do with my bad view
of polygamy. But it's a mistake for me to assume
that because polygamy is practiced in
a culture where (I think) women can
appear often to be chattel, polygamy is itself
inherently exploitive, or that it is in
Mormon culture, etc. or even that it
is part of the problem in Islamic
countries. I need to think about it more.
As to your view that the free exercise
clause was violated for Mormons,
as I really don't know what
happened, and as religion surely
played a big role, you may well be right. Best

P.S. On the gay marriage thing, I support it,
on the principle: 'When you really don't know what
is going on, and you're fundamentally confused
about what to do, be kind.'

[Chuck_Clark]

In a very real sense, I've always rather admired the Mormons. Not their spiritual beliefs, perhaps, but then by now it should be clear that spiritual beliefs don't really hold any importance for me. Still their ethic of hard work and self-reliance and their survival through adversity have always struck me as almost archetypically American.

[elendil]

hey stoner,

i was wondering how this thread that i checked out when it was only 2 pages long ever got to 18 pages--now i know.

my father is a clinical psychologist, has been for close to 60 years, and i'm quite sure he and virtually anyone who has had firsthand experience would agree with what you wrote at the top of the page.

but as for finding the constitutional issues fascinating, as a lawyer my advice is--get over it!! i have a cat who's deeper than kennedy. that's part of the problem. legal education is not designed to encourage deep thinking, nor is the legal profession, then we put these people on the supreme court and invite them to set policy on matters the complexities and ramifications of which totally elude them.

i just read a book by robert kraynak called something like 'christian faith and liberal democracy.' you don't actually have to be a christian at all to get something out of it. while i disagree with his assessment of the western christian tradition (he sees it as a basically integrated whole from augustine to calvin, i see it from a philosophical standpoint as a working out of the implications of plato's thought as mediated by augustine--with aquinas being a noteworthy exception, but essentially a voice in the wilderness) his analysis of the inherent shortcomings of liberal democracy are worth pondering, especially in the current context. he uses 'liberal' in its classical sense, stemming from the enlightenment and the thought of english types like locke and hume. he also lays great emphasis on kant's influence, which i totally agree with. kraynak plumps for what he calls a politics of prudence, i.e., based on the prudential wisdom of the greeks and medievals. i don't want to give me whole plot away, so i'll leave it at that.

[Jerry Freeman]

Do you have some sort of voice typing software? If I tried to type that much, my hand would quit working for a week.

"You are old," said the youth, "and your jaws are too weak for anything tougher than suet; Yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak -- Pray, how did you manage to do it?"

"In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law, and argued each case with my wife; And the muscular strength which it gave to my jaw has lasted the rest of my life."

[jim stone]

I think Scalia is incredible--Nina Totenberg (sp?), who
almost certainly disagrees with him on the issues,
has called him the finest intellect on the
court. Large excerpts from Kennedy,
O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas are
reprinted in the New York Times, June 27.
(The sodomy decision.)
Scalia's dissent is extraordinary.
Something rather big may have just
happened--you recall the Chinese curse:
'May you live in interesting times.' Best

[Dale]

RE: The "Study" that Lorenzo cites.

The FRC is conservative and has an interest in the outcome of the study.

Yes. Much better to quote "liberal" or "moderate" organizations' studies, as they have no agenda.

No, no. I was thinking of, you know, scientific studies.

[Dale]

Lorenzo, you old troublemaker! Always with the fox in the chicken-coop.

I'll admit I get a little mixed up when I hear "Toss the Feathers." I don't know whether to bring the pipes, a whistle, or a maybe a study??

BRING A STUDY!

[Bloomfield]

Because of its critical importance
to families and therefore to social stability,
the institution of marriage needs to be protected, especially
now. Changes that will weaken it considerably
further are a luxury society can ill afford.

That is the foundation of your whole argument, and it is very weak. I don't understand from it why we should protect marriage, apart from a religious argument. Also, your argument proves too much, because you ought to be advocating the abolishment of divorce, and perhaps criminal sanctions for adultery.

Finally, a slippery-slope argument is extremely unsatisfying here (as everywhere else) because you are left to say to the committed monogamous gay couple: You can't marry even though we have nothing against your union/relationship because someone else might get ideas that we are worried about.

[Jerry Freeman]

It's hard for me to imagine how allowing gays to marry could weaken the institution of marriage. The percentage of married people who are gay will be a tiny, tiny number, and I can't imagine how they will have any influence at all on the behavior of the rest of the population.

Some gays will take the marriage vows very seriously, others won't. That's no different from heterosexual marriages. If you want to argue that some gay men are likely to marry and divorce again and again, or that some of them will want to allow sexual activity outside the marriage, that's already the case with some heterosexual marriages. How is that any of the State's business? If you say, "Because it will weaken the institution of marriage," I say, "Nonsense. It won't have any effect on the institution of marriage at all, except that some gays will be getting married."

And what of the State's business is it if a married gay couple chooses to allow themselves other sexual partners? Let's suppose George and Fred get married and agree that they will allow outside sexual liassons. They practice safe sex, and they get tested periodically. They remain married and live together for thirty years, and in all respects are models of responsible citizenship, sharing responsibility and caring for each other into old age. I can't see anything about that that I would consider anything other than a legitimate marriage (from a civil standpoint -- religion may have other specifications, but that's entirely another matter. Religion already considers some marriages to be invalid, and that's fine.)

I believe it's the case that lesbian women are more likely to establish long lasting, monogamous relationships than are gay men. How about, let's allow lesbians to marry, but not gay men?

As for the argument that allowing gays to marry somehow opens the door to other kinds of marriage, like marriage among adult siblings, I don't see how it does. The justices can draw the line anywhere they like. There is a compelling reason, it seems to me, for the State not sanctioning incestuous relationships, because of what inbreeding can do to children, whom the State has an interest to protect.

[jim_mc]

I'm with Jim on the idea that when unsure of how to proceed, we should err on the side of compassion. Compassion tells me that we have to allow gay marriage. All of the arguments I hear from the other side are fear based. Whether it is the fear of gays, or the fear of damage to the instutution, or the fear of cultural upheaval, or the fear of God's retribution, it's all fear, and it's all fear of possibilities, not of any proven outcomes.

Compassion without the fear of consequences goes back to Jim's point Christ's message of radical love. What would Jesus do, indeed?