Definition of Marriage
Although this was not addressed first in the article, my comments on this question are prefatory to replying to this sorry excuse of an analysis. Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the idea that marriage has historically been between one man and one woman, and has been unchanging. In spite of what the opposition has to say on the matter, the definition of marriage has changed multiple times throughout history to adapt to evolving social and cultural norms. In pre-modern times, marriage was arranged by the parents as a way to improve upon one's social status. Women were essentially treated like the husband's property. It is no wonder that one could not marry outside of one's socio-economic status, religion, or race. The idea of marrying someone out of love is a relatively recent concept. There was also a time when it was acceptable for a man to marry a twelve-year old girl, and none of this counts all of the polygamy that existed outside of Western civilization. Even the Bible itself doesn't hold to the one man/one woman definition of marriage (see below). The argument that "marriage has always been between one man and woman" is simply false. Even if it were true, it is still falls under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem because the fact that something has been done for many years has no bearing on whether it is correct. Like any other institution, marriage can adapt and evolve for the better. In its simplest terms, marriage is a contract between consenting individuals that want to develop a committed relationship. Being able to legally sign such a contract is not only a civil right, but is one of the most basic of economic rights that exists.
Is Allowing Same-Sex Marriage a Violation of Religious Beliefs?
I have to answer this question with a resounding "NO!" I tackled the issue of the violation of religious beliefs a year ago, and the Heritage Foundation's argument does not apply here. The author mentions allowing businesses to run their business in accordance with the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. This argument is inaccurate because whether a baker is forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding is a separate issue from whether two consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry each other. One has the right to believe that same-sex marriage is against the Bible, but no one has the right to impose that right on society. Doing so would be a violation of the First Amendment. If you do not like same-sex marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex!
Is Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Based on Reason, and Not on Prejudice?
This is another question I have to answer with a resounding "NO!" The last thing upon which the opposition to same-sex marriage is based is reason because there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage (see here, here, here, and here). The author argues that "the bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were aspects of a much larger insidious movement that denied the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated citizens." This is the author's attempt to try to make interracial marriage and same-sex marriage as dissimilar as possible. One of the differences between the two is that one can hide their sexuality, but one really cannot hide the color of their skin. If homosexuals had some distinguishing mark on them, it would be reasonable to assume that they would have undergone a segregation similar to those subjugated under Jim Crow laws.
The author's implication that homosexual individuals do not experience discrimination or that are not deprived of their fundamental equality and dignity is as egregious as it is ignorant. For one, homosexual individuals still have to deal with workplace discrimination. In terms of hate crimes, LGBT individuals are still high on the list of being victimized (see FBI Hate Crime data). LGBT youth make up for forty percent of those living out on the streets. Homosexual individuals in most states cannot adopt children. Although there has been progress made in terms of LGBT rights, most notably in terms of the right for same sex-marriage, there is still a lot of progress that needs to be made before the [legalized] prejudice against homosexual individuals stops.
Why The Fight For Same-Sex Marriage Is Similar to That of Interracial Marriage
There are many similarities between the fights between these two civil rights, one of them being that the Religious Right used the Bible to justify their views on both. With interracial marriage, it was twisting the verses about interfaith marriage, amongst other verses, to justify their bigotry. Now they're erroneously using Leviticus 18:22 to advance their agenda. For either one, opponents use the argument that this sort of union was unprecedented, abominable, unnatural, will destroy society and "traditional marriage," and will end up being a slippery slope to polygamy and incest. Also, there is that fun argument of "Oh, gay people can just marry people of the opposite sex" is very similar to "Oh, people are allowed to still marry, as long as it's within their own race." Rather than being dissimilar scenarios, the arguments that were used against interracial marriage mirror those that are currently used against same-sex marriage (see Loving v. Virginia as a legalistic example).
The fight for interracial marriage was not only won based on the idea that the color of one's skin is only skin deep, but the idea that at the end of the day, we're all human and we are all looking for love, companionship, and a deep commitment with someone, all of which are essential components of a marriage. I hope there is a day where the vast majority of Americans realize that much like individuals of color, homosexual individuals are human beings like anyone else, and as such, should be afforded the same opportunity to experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAs I said recently, I'm a big fan. This topic, however, is one of the very few with which I fundamentally disagree with both you and the Libertarian Party in general. Without delving into the whole for-or-against gay marriage issue at large, I would just like to comment on the assertion that not supporting gay marriage is unreasonable and is the equivalent of not supporting inter-racial marriages.
Consider that plenty of people who do not support gay marriage are willing to back the concept of civil unions with essentially all basic rights save the term "marriage" being applied to it. Now let's look and see if the prevailing (even existent) view a century ago was "well, we don't mind if the black man and white woman get together and have kids and cohabitate, so long as they don't actually call it a marriage."
Furthermore, it's inherently reasonable to assume that gay marriage and traditional marriage are different if you acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between men and women. Differences that are essentially non-existent between two men (or women) of different races. If the building blocks are different, the eventual structure will be as well. The idea that there's no difference between a gay marriage and a traditional marriage is based on complete intercompatibilty of the sexes, and that's simply not reality.
I've also honestly never understood the throwing up of the red herring of all the different types of marriages (Levirate, polygamous, etc...) It doesn't matter if it was an old guy and a young girl, or whether it was Levirate or not. The graphic was cute, but in every one of those the fundamental building block of the marriage was a male and female. Or females, in the case of polygamy. But a polygamous marriage was effectively multiple monogamous marriages (by the women) with one individual (the man). Yes, you're correct that marriage has evolved over the years, but in some aspects it's stayed constant.
Always love reading your blog, even if I happen to disagree.
kol tov,
Zac
Dear Zac,
DeleteIn spite of you disagreeing, I still appreciate both your praise of my blog and your comments on this particular post, not to mention your decorum on such a hot-button topic. Even after reading your comments, I still have to disagree.
First, you say Now let's look and see if the prevailing (even existent) view a century ago was "well, we don't mind if the black man and white woman get together and have kids and cohabitate, so long as they don't actually call it a marriage.” Not only did people have these views, but most states codified those views into law in the form of anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited individuals of different races to get married. It was only until 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment. Anti-miscegenation laws are just another way that the fight for same-sex marriage is similar to that of interracial marriage.
While gender might differentiate same-sex marriage and “traditional” marriage, at the end of the day, they are both still forms of marriage. Although there are typically differences between men and women, it is just as much of a reality that approximately six percent of people are predominantly or exclusively attracted to the same sex. The fact that society has both recognized that fact and been considerably more accepting of that fact is why same-sex marriage exists.
As for the difference in the gender of the partners, those who oppose same-sex marriage cannot adequately answer why it matters that marriage has to exclusively be between one man and one woman. Compare a same-sex couple to an infertile, heterosexual couple. The only difference between the two couples is the gender of one of the partners. The only way that the aforementioned “different building blocks” would actually be important is if procreation were a prerequisite for marriage, which would be a ridiculous requirement for marriage because that would annul a lot of current marriages. Even if childrearing were a prerequisite for marriage, there are other ways to procreate than the “old fashioned way.” Same-sex couples can use in-vitro fertilization, surrogacy, or adopt. Procreation notwithstanding, the marriages of same-sex couples have all the essential components that the marriages of straight couples have. The fact that same-sex couples can and do have loving and committing relationships is not only why same-sex marriage bans are akin to anti-miscegenation laws, but it is also part of the reason why the concept of marriage is evolving to include same-sex couples.
Kol tov,
Libertarian Jew
Libertarian Jew,
DeleteI think it's possible you may have misunderstood my point comparing inter-racial marriage bans and same-sex marriage bans. I did not mean to imply that inter-racial marriage bans were not codified in law at the state level. That's a fact. My point was that the mindset of the very same people who codified those laws was, in fact, not open to inter-racial domestic relationhips (or even, in many cases, non-domestic relationships) with all the trappings of a marriage, lacking only the title of marriage. That's in direct opposition to the large number of modern day proponents of traditional marriage who also happen to be (more or less) in favor of civil unions, but draw the line at the use of the word marriage. Given that the mindset on approaching the issue is (was) so different, it highlights for me why the conflating of pro-traditional marriage and antimiscegenation is mistaken. Caveat: Perhaps I'm explaining this poorly, and/or interpreting your reply incorrectly.
As for the rest, I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally am persuaded by the arguments in favor of traditional marriage based on gender differences and complimentariness (if that's even a word), as well as religious rationale for it. It seems ot me that the majority of the "evolution" on views for same-sex marriage are actually rooted in a false sense of equality...by which I mean the ignoring of gender differences.
It is interesting that you bring up the "other means" of reproduction. I can't find the link now, but there was an interesting piece in the Federalist somewhat recently that argued that the new shift in gay marriage acceptance premised on that notion of "other" reproductive means would invariably lead to the concept of artificial reproductive means being cast as a positive right, since those without it would be disadvantaged compared to couples that had access to natural means.
Also, while I really, really enjoyed reading the piece you did on whether the Torah actually prohibits all forms of homosexual activity a while back and how it bleeds into this issue, I still have to respectfully disagree. In the case of that article, mainly b/c I'm less Torah-learned than I should be, so I'm unwilling to agree with you until I can find out for myself, as it were.
Kol tov,
Zac
Zac,
DeleteIf I am understanding this correctly, your argument is that “civil unions” is a compromise that traditionalists are willing to accept, which is more than interracial couples had a century ago. By your own admission, civil unions have all the rights that a marriage does, and it is “lacking only the title of marriage.” If the difference is in name only, don’t you think people will catch on? Heck, you’ve already caught on. If the relationship that you find ignores gender differences is being legally recognized in all aspects except for the word itself, what does the word “marriage” mean at that point? Why cling on to a word when everything else has been conceded, including the stark gender roles?
You never explicitly stated whether you were in support of civil unions. Given your advocacy for marriage based on gender differences (You keep saying that well-defined gender roles are vital, and have yet to produce a rationale for it. I’m still waiting for a response from my last comment as to why it matters in the first place.), I will have to assume [unless you say otherwise] that you do not support civil unions as a “middle ground.” Regardless, both same-sex marriage bans and civil unions are still violations of the 14th Amendment comparable to Plessy v. Ferguson (the only difference is the extent to which the 14th Amendment is violated), which is yet another parallel between interracial and same-sex marriage. Although you have pointed out one difference, although it is minimized by the fact that many states still prohibit same-sex couple from receiving legal recognition of any kind (and until very recently, most states didn’t legally recognize same-sex couples), when all is said and done, there are a lot more similarities between the two than differences.
If I don’t hear from you beforehand, I wish you a Chag Pesach Sameach!
Kol tov,
Steve
Steve,
ReplyDeletePersonally I am on the fence about civil unions. I see pros and cons, but have not made a firm decision to support them in large part b/c it seems increasingly that the civil union argument is pretty much moot. I emphatically disagree that civil unions are some violation of the 14th amendment. Equality is generally required when things that ARE the same are treated differently, for whatever reason. Equality does not require that things that ARE NOT the same be treated as if they were.
As to why cling to the word...words have power and meaning. What we call something matters. I could just as easily ask why civil unions are a problem if they are intrinsically the same as marriage absent a certain label.
As to why gender matters in a marriage...Marriage has long been understood as such, largely because procreation (or at the very least, the presumption of procreation) has been at the heart of it. Even in the case of an elderly presumeably non-fertile couple marrying, it is a reinforcement of a cultural/religious norm, and technically they might not be infertile (e.g. Abraham and Sarah). It's understood historically that males and females were not interchangeable. Only in very, very rare circumstances does anyone know beforehand if an opposite-sex couple is guaranteed to be infertile, while it's a given that same-sex couples can never reproduce on their own.
Beyond the basic reproductive science aspect, marriage is very much also a parternship that fosters mutual growth. Different genders bring different skill sets to the table. The only difference between men and women is not reproductive, as many modern cognitive studies point out. All this points to male-female relationships being substantively different than male-male (or female-female) relationships. Marriage has always been recognized as special and distinct from mere friendships (even BFFs). What this all boils down to, at least in my humble opinion, is that the difference of the aforementioned "building blocks" matters if you expect the final construct to be a certain way.
I would suspect a divide we have is in the definition of marriage itself. I'm inclined to think that you see it almost exclusively as a societal convention and a contract. And while I believe it obviously is a contract, there is more to it than merely convention (by which I mean something created for convenience).
Thanks for the response, and Chag Sameach to you as well.
Kol tov,
Zac
Zac,
DeleteYour argument boils down to a) only male-female partnerships can have the profound bonds required for a marriage, b) procreation is at the heart of marriage, and c) this is the way marriage has been defined, and it’s the way it should be defined (I already covered the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem both in the initial blog entry and in my comments).
Marriage is a social convention and a contract because that is how it historically has treated and continues to treat marriage. Marriage is about creating a stable bond between consenting individuals who work to create a household, as well as a social and economic partnership. The only difference between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples is gender composition. Your argument that “marriage is very much also a partnership that fosters mutual growth” forces me to infer that you don’t know any same-sex couples because if you did, you would be very hard-pressed to make that argument. Same-sex couples are just as capable of forming families and households as opposite sex couples, which is why it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although SCOTUS has not recently ruled on same-sex marriages and the Fourteenth Amendment (they did rule that DOMA was a violation of the Fifth Amendment), district and federal courts have already ruled that same-sex marriage bans are indeed a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
You might say that procreation is at the heart of marriage, but it’s interesting how it is not a basis for determining the legal validity of marriages. Otherwise, there would be a lot of marriages that would need to be voided. People marry for more reasons than procreation, whether it is love, companionship, or friendship.
Allowing same-sex couples does not preclude opposite sex couples from marrying or conceiving children. Heck, even same-sex couples do not affect the stability of heterosexual marriages: straight people do! Ultimately, this is about allowing a sexual minority to be able form the same bonds and long-lasting domestic relationships that opposite sex couples have.
Chag Pesach Sameach,
Steve
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYour assertions for my arguments are largely correct. Nothing really to add to A and B. C, however, I woud argue is not necessarily a logical fallacy. My appeal to tradition is not simply that we should keep doing it JUST because it's been don that way before. But rather, more nuanced, we should keep it that way b/c it's ben done that way before, UNLESS there is a compelling reason to change it. That essentiall puts the burden of proof on those seeking to redefine marriage, and so far those attempts at justification have been failures, IMHO. The interchangeability of the sexes for the purpose of marriage and the concept of "it should be legal b/c I want to do it" are not compelling. I often ask myself why societies like Ancient Greece and Rome (both heavily pro-gay) still did not take that step to make marriage between men the equivalent of marriage between men and women. I don't full know the answer to that question, but it points to the idea that marriage between male and women is unique even in societies that have historically been extremel tolerant of homosexuality. That just goes to further my pont (not something I'm refuting based on what you said, however) that lack of support for gay mariage is not, in fact, equivalent to bigotry or hate or whatever else. It's simpl recognizing that different things are, in fact, different.
I do, in fact, no a few same sex couples (married and not), but my point is not that same sex couples cannot create mutual growth. Rather that same-sex couples cannot create the same type, breadth and depth of mutual growth inherent in an opposite sex couple. A man, for example (whether a sexual partner or a brother or a best friend) can never push, challenge and bring the same points of view and skillsets to the table of a relationship that a woman can. That's the crux of gender differences, summed up in that whole Mars and Venus thing.
In my mind I draw a very clear distinction between what the SCOTUS says as it pertains to legality vs. what it means objectively. Objectively, equality does not apply here since the two types of unions are not the same, and re:procreation, same-sex couples are NOT as capable of forming families as opposite sex couples. I certainly can and will concede that in a legal framework, same sex marriage seems to be on track to be granted equal status via the 14th and 5th amendments. But objectively viewed, this legalism is sophistry based more on feel-good politics and political correctness than on objective understanding of notions of equality or a concise and full definition of what marriage fully is (beyond the very shallow concept of it being solely a contract and a social convention between adults. As i've mentioned earlier, this is certainly necessary, but not sufficient to what defines marriage.)
And while it is interesting that actually bringing a child to term (or even just getting pregnant) is not considered a validation of a true marriage, attempting to get pregnant IS the historical real world (as opposed to spiritual world) validation technique. The procreative act, whether successful or not, has almost always been the standard for authentication of marriage. I imagine this is so because procreation IS at the heart of marriage, and attempting but failing to procreate reinforces societal norms on the issue.
You are right, of course, that heterosexual married couples are indeed a bigger threat to heterosexual marriage than homosexuals.
Chag Someach,
Zac
Zac,
DeleteI’ll start off by answering your question of why same-sex marriage had not been legal throughout most of history. Part of it would have to do with heteronormative cultural norms, part of it could be due to the fact that the idea of sexuality was not conceptualized until the 1870s, and part of it is arguably due to the fact that it took something like the women’s right movement to show that we don’t live in a world of absolute gender binary and stark gender roles. However, I have an explanation that is more economical and pragmatic. Throughout much of history, society was predominantly agrarian. Farming is labor-intensive, and considering that the infant mortality rate was high in pre-modern times (Thank you, technology, for changing that!), procreation was high on the priority list. We don’t live in that world anymore, which is why the definition of marriage has become more inclusive both due to economic reality and the change in sexual more that are based on what we now know about sexuality.
Your argument for the inherent superiority, for a lack of a better term, of an opposite-sex couple is, at least in part, based on the idea that opposite-sex couples are the only ones that can produce long-lasting relations of love, commitment, and stability. This argument fall under the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent because same-sex couples can also receive that desired result. I’d highly suggest talking to your friends in same-sex couples about their relations because you will find that their relations have the same essential components that opposite-sex couples have.
If you’re still unable to see that same-sex couple can and do have just as profound of relations as opposite-sex couple, and want to argue that gender is the sole basis of developing such a relationship, your argument has been undermined in two levels.
DeleteFirst, take a look at the state of marriage in this country right now. Two drunk strangers who just met can get married. Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian can be married for less than a week, and it’s acceptable because it “maintains your idea of societal norm.” And don’t even get me started on the fact that one in two marriages will end up in divorce. Are you sure you still want to argue the inherent superiority of opposite-sex couples? A point that merits repeating: same-sex marriage has all the same essential components that heterosexual marriage has.
Second, and more to the point, if you’re going to argue “Men are from Mars and women are from Venus,” you have an even bigger problem because as I’ve had male friends say to me before, “I don’t understand women. It’s like women are from a different planet.” Part of the human condition is that people are better able to get along with those who are similar to them. On a macro level, much of wars and international conflicts are based on people being different from one another. It also why there has been and still is discrimination both against people of different races and sexual minorities (I would additionally like to reiterate, much like I did in the initial blog entry, that there is still much discrimination against homosexuals. Why else would they be the most likely demographic to be victim to a hate crime after the Jews? Also, although you might be opposed to same-sex marriage solely because of your view on gender roles, I can tell you that there a whole lot of people out there who hate gay people simply for being gay). This feeling towards those who are different also holds true in the microcosmic sense. Do individuals with similar political views have an easier time connecting each other or those with different views? Is it easier to maintain a marriage between two Jews or between a Jew and a Catholic? People have an easier time connecting to those who are more similar to them, and same-sex marriage is no different. All things considered equal, men have an easier time connecting to other men, and women have an easier time connecting to women. If gender were the “make-or-break” factor in a marriage, then I would have to argue that same-sex couples would actually be more profound.
However, I realize that gender is not the sole factor as to whether a marriage will last, which is why I wouldn’t argue that same-sex marriages are inherently more profound than opposite-sex marriages. Gender is but one factor in a relationship, which is why justices are objectively ruling that same-sex marriage bans are a violation of both the 5th and 14th Amendments because again, the arguments against it are the same ones used against interracial marriage up until 1967. The compelling reason to change the law is because banning same-sex marriage is a clear violation of civil liberties, as well as a violation of the economic right of consenting adults to sign whatever contract they would like. The proof is not on proponents of same-sex marriage, but rather on opposition to prove that same-sex marriage harms society. An aversion towards violating one’s sense of gender roles is provides zero justification to prohibit same-sex marriages. The fact that same-sex marriage hasn’t torn the fabric of society in all the other countries that have already legalized it further proves the lack of justification. You have not been able to prove that expanding marriage to same-sex couples is deleterious, and I don’t blame you because the evidence does not exist. The reason that support for same-sex marriage has increased is because more and more people are able to see that there are way, way more similarities between heterosexual marriage than there are differences. Unless far-Right factions take over governments in the developed world and impose anti-homosexual laws, the trend is only going to be more and more in favor of same-sex marriage.
DeleteShabbat Shalom,
Steve
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that everything stems from this: "same-sex marriage has all the same essential components that heterosexual marriage has." And as I have reiterated many times, this is not fundamentally true, b/c it relies on the concept of interchangeability of the genders in any given situation. The traditional definition of marriage does not rely on the concept of gender roles, in the sense that men must be breadwinners or women must be stay-at-homes. It relies on the basic truth of gender differences and their complimentary nature.
And while it is basically true that like attracts like and it's easier to set up a relationship with someone more like yourself, that is an uncompelling argument as to why homosexual marriages should be allowed. Marriage is supposed to challenge people to get OUT of their comfort zone, not find easy ways to stay in it. This is what I mean by women and men having complimentary roles. Women force men to see the women's point of view on pretty much anything and vice versa. Add to the fact, once again, the reproductive factor and between the two you have a situation in traditional marriage that cannot be mirrored in homosexual marriage.
As a matter of legalism, a society absolutely does have the right to decide what type of behavior or societal norms are acceptable in that society. If not, then the philosophical concept of self-determination is absolutely meaningless.
And the idea that certain things are right when we are at a certain (agrarian) technological level and then they become un-right when we hit a certain other tech level seems to be thinly veiled moral relativism. Although it isn't surprising that if one holds that view, definitions of any insitution becomes more malleable, I find the entire concept of moral relativism to be, besides distasteful, akin to a house built on ever-shifting sands.
Good back and forth, though. I appreciate your zeal for this, even if I find it ultimately uncompelling.
Good Shabbos,
Zac
Zac,
DeleteI do appreciate the back and forth because you’re arguing a lot more cogently than I have seen same-sex marriage opponents argue in the past, and you’re not basing your argument on the Bible or a blatantly virulent hatred towards homosexuals that so many opponents show. However, you have not met the burden of proof as to why same-sex marriages should be banned, and I will go through my reasoning as to why:
1) Marriage has historically evolved and adapted based on the changes of societal norms. Much to your dismay, the starkness of “men work outside of the house and women tend to the house” used to be a vital part of the definition of marriage. There was a time where women being treated like property was also a vital part of the definition of marriage, as were the other facets mentioned in my initial blog entry. The argument of “this is how marriage always has been defined” was the exact argument used when society wanted to allow people of different races, religions, or socio-economic classes to get married.
There were three occurrences that rendered the “one man/one woman only” paradigm obsolete. First, parents no longer had the final say as to whom got married. Two, people were able to get married because they loved each other. Marriage used to primarily be an economic arrangement. Much of the “traditional marriage” paradigm is based on production factors (i.e., men worked outside of the home and women worked in the home to tend to the family) based on perceived gender roles. Third, which I would argue is the big one, took place within the past century. The third factor is the development of such technologies as the microwave, oven, and dishwasher allowed for women to go out into the labor market. This means that the traditional economic case for marriage dissipates, and we now have a new definition of marriage based on consumption complementaries, i.e., the joy of sharing things and experiences, as opposed to a marriage based on production. To phrase it slightly differently, marriage does not have to be based on “opposites attract,” but is now based on "let’s find someone with similar values and interests as me so we can derive greater benefit from our relationship.” This possibility is what makes gender a moot argument in the definition of marriage, and which also affirms the argument of “same-sex marriages have the same essential components of opposite-sex couples." Institutions evolve, and in the case of marriage and expanding the definition to same-sex couples, it is evolving for the better.
(Just as a side note: I would say that we should live in a world in which the government should not be defining marriage or providing benefits to those who get married. If the government is going to be involved, it might as well afford equal treatment and equal standing under the eyes of the law.)
2) Your “opposite gender” argument doesn’t hold up. For one, same-sex couples have to deal with the uphill battle of dealing with discrimination and less access to legal recognition. A couple that is able to make it through the battle has developed a solid cohesion mechanism for staying together as a couple, not to mention they both grow as individuals, in spite of whatever obstacles they have faced in the process. Until we arrive at the point where there is no more legal or societal discrimination against homosexuals (which is more theory than anything at this point), I still fail to see your point. Marriages already come with their own difficulties, the vast majority of which both same-sex and opposite-sex couples experience in the relationship of marriage. There are plenty of other places in life where one can face adversity, grow, and become a better human being. Also, look at the divorce rate. If it is about creating cohesion and stability in a relationship [that is difficult to maintain unto itself] to make sure there’s a long-lasting commitment, why would another difference help? This brings me to my next point……
3) What is the alternative for homosexuals? The “one man/one woman” paradigm works for the ninety-plus percent that are attracted to the opposite sex. In the process, however, you are neglecting the reality that there is a sexual minority that is exclusively or predominantly attracted to the same sex. Would you rather have them marry a straight person of the opposite sex? Even if you decide to completely neglect economic and civil liberties (by the way, you haven’t formally stated your political affiliation, but if I had to guess, I’d say you have libertarian leanings because you said you enjoy most of what I write. If I’m wrong in that matter, please correct me), which is a terrible idea, I can tell you right now that scenario creates plenty of family instability, a scenario that is terrible for all parties involved, unless of course, gender is your only concern, in spite of trail of destruction it would leave as a result. Are you going to tell homosexuals they need to be celibate? I have three words for you on that: Lawrence v. Texas. Also, what gives you, or anybody for that matter, the right to tell same-sex couples that they cannot be together or legally recognized? Whatever happened to self-determination for all people, or does that concept only apply to heterosexuals? After the individual, the household is the smallest unit in a society. Marriage is a societal unit that helps create cohesion and stability for individuals. This might be part of your quandary of whether you think civil unions should be allowed, but why not expand that cohesion and courtesy to same-sex couples? The question of “what is the harm done by doing so” brings me to my next point…..
Delete4) Any policy comes with its costs and benefits. I have a Master’s degree in Public Policy. From a public policy standpoint, one would have to argue that the costs outweigh the benefits in order to even begin to argue for the prohibition of something. In spite of your unsubstantiated theorizing about gender roles and capriciously using such terms as “self-determination” and “thinly veiled moral relativism,” you have not once said how allowing for same-sex marriage would damage society (Please don’t go for the “same-sex couples can’t parent” argument because the consensus of the research is that same-sex couples can parent just as well as opposite-sex couples, which also diminishes your theory of “marriage and gender"). It’s even more difficult to prove that because 17 countries and 17 states in this country recognize same-sex marriage (that doesn’t even count the countries that legally recognize civil unions), and no surprise here, but the sky hasn’t fallen and those countries have not collapsed because of their acceptance of same-sex couples. Aside from the transition costs in the tax and regulatory systems, the only “cost” to society is the mere perception of harm in the minds of naysayers.
Delete"What benefits are there?", you might ask. There are economic benefits aside from gay weddings. The Congressional Budget Office found back in 2004 that allowing for same-sex marriage in all 50 states would allow for an extra billion dollars per annum in tax revenues, not to mention a net decrease in federal government spending. As I said in my last point, marriage is a societal unit of cohesion and stability, one that makes poverty less likely [because combining two incomes does that]. Not only would this help with the poverty level, but it would make homosexuals even more productive members of society. There is also the added benefit of making society more tolerant of people’s differences, which is also a plus in creating and maintaining a free society.
In summation, even if your theories about gender and marriage were right (which I already showed they are not), we live in a country that is based on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which means that individuals, straight and gay alike, are able to pursue whatever relationships they please. You have not proven how allowing same-sex couples to marry prohibits opposite-sex couples to marry because it doesn’t. You have not proven how allowing for same-sex marriage harms the marriage of opposite-sex couples because heterosexuals are doing that all on their own. The only basis for your argument is an antiquated view on gender roles while neglecting the fact that same-sex couples can and do form long-lasting, committed relationships that are a net benefit to society. This is why your argument wouldn’t make for good policy, and this is why the most inevitable result in American politics is that homosexuals will be granted the right in all 50 states to marry because that would be American ideals put into practice.
Shavua tov v’Moed tov,
Steve
PS: Due to the end of Pesach, the earliest I would be able to respond is Wednesday.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind words. For the record I am 1) A registered libertarian, though I lean conservative on some things, 2) I have the foundation for my opposition to same-sex marriage in my faith, actually, and everything flows from that. 3) It’s a matter of fact that marriage is a religious institution first and foremost; the secular state has only existed recently to co-opt it as a ‘public’ thing, and 4) I am much more sympathetic to getting the govt out of marriage than any other option, though that doesn’t really seem to be much of an option right now, alas.
As I said earlier, gender roles are not confined or even defined by the man-works-and-woman-stay-home paradigm. To disparage the differences of the genders by paring it down to just that is simplistic and incorrect. Genders are different, and even if their roles in society are different (or even reversed) men still bring something to the table distinct from what women bring to the table, and vice versa. This is the crux of the uniqueness of marriage.
I am generally skeptical of statistics and stat-studies, since anybody worth their salt can cherry-pick to form whatever conclusions they desire. I’m doubly skeptical about studies comparing gay couples with kids to hetero couples since A) there just aren’t nearly enough gay couples with kids to get a good, random sampling, and B) gay couples with kids, the studies, and the results are so dang new, we simply don’t have perspective. This is exacerbated by the political climate that demands certain outcomes from these studies. That said, the most recent study I’ve read about, by Dr. Mark Regnerus, at the very least raises some questions about gay-couple parenting. He acknowledges its shortcomings, but the results should at least make one stop and think. The CDC also has several pages detailing statistically the fact that gay men tend to be much more risk-prone and unhealthy than their hetero counterparts. Correlative, I know, not causative, but when enough correlations start to add up…
(Had to break it up, continued in next post)
...The recent Harvard study on econ mobility hit on the fact that marriage is a key factor in how well someone does. I think we agree on that. And there is certainly at least some evidence that children are better of with two bio parents than with two non-bio (adoptive) parents, from a paper written b J. David Velleman. If that’s true (I can’t insert links, so I’m dropping names. Sorry; best I can do) then it follows that bio parents (which MUST be opposite sex) create a better environment for kids than non-bio parents, regardless of whether they’re gay or straight.
ReplyDeleteSelf determination is certainly for everyone, but it’s a concept that, when dealing with society and public acts, must be exercised democratically. Maybe that does result in tyranny of the majority at times, but it’s the best system we’ve got on hand. And while it is certainly an option for gay people to actually live chaste lives (as opposed to blacks who can’t live white lives (Michael Jackson notwithstanding); which just goes to highlight how sexual orientation is simply not interchangeable with race) that isn’t their only option. Lawrence v. Texas is in regards to privacy. It never said anything about public recognition of such relationships, whether civil unions or marriage. I certainly believe the proper moral thing to do is to not engage in sinful behavior despite feeling an urge to do so (heck, that’s something everyone has to fight with all the time), but the choice for “what to do about gays who want to get married” isn’t as stark as re-definition of marriage vs. monasticism.
And finally, as regards cost and benefits, some costs and benefits play out over time (the two-parent home leading to social mobility, for example), and some play out in non-economic (even, non-empirically verifiable) terms. I don’t think more gay weddings are remotely compelling for changing the definition of marriage, for example. And if toleration is the end goal, equivocating is the wrong way to go about achieving it. The two words are actually quite different, though I know today (at least regarding this issue) they are used interchangeably. Pursuit of happiness is all well and good (even if I am forced to wonder why a govt seal of approval on an existing relationship equates to happiness), but it is merely the right of pursuit and not attainment. Everybody wants what everybody wants, but part of the whole social contract concept is to suborn our individual desires (at least to a point) to create a (theoretically) better functioning society. I think we probably agree that the building block of society is the family. And a family consists of certain parts….but I’m talking in circles again now.
Seriously didn’t mean to write this much. Ah well. Still enjoyed it.
Kol tov,
Zac
Zac,
DeleteSorry for not replying sooner. It’s been a crazy week and a half on my end. As I have done before, I will respond in a point-by-point fashion:
1) You still refuse to acknowledge the evolution of marriage, which by the way, is a social construct and not a religious one. While there generally are differences between the two genders, I will stipulate by saying that a) not everyone fits neatly into the gender binary you present, and b) more importantly, I have provided numerous examples of how marriage has adapted and evolved over time, particularly key examples that show why, under the more recent evolutions of the definition of marriage, gender is no longer a factor in the soundness a marriage. I can also point out that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples alike deal with the challenges of love, intimacy, trust, stability, and equity. You have sidestepped all of my examples of the evolutions in marriage [and the implications thereof] by ignoring them and saying “gender is the key factor,” all the while showing your inability to refute the fact that same-sex couples can be just as successful in having stable households as opposite-sex couples. All you have done is taken the definition of marriage, frozen it at a certain point in human history that suits what you believe marriage should be like, and completely neglect how marriage began, evolved, and will continue to evolve.
2) Responding to your take on statistics.
Delete2a: I was both disappointed and annoyed to read what you had to say on statistics. As you said, anyone worth their salt can cherry pick statistics to form whatever conclusions they desire, including yourself. You are skeptical of statistics, yet you are cherry-picking certain studies to make your case? According to you, the study of statistics doesn’t work, but if it helps bolster your case, I guess that’s fine, even though what you cite is methodologically flawed. The last time I checked, acting in such a manner was a textbook example of hypocrisy (and please note that I’m not calling you hypocritical, but the fact this particular criticism of yours is followed by the use of cherry-picked statistical studies qualifies as a hypocritical act). Let’s take the Regnerus study as an example.
2b: The Regnerus study is flawed. Let’s forget for a moment that the study received its $800K in funding from the conservative Witherspoon Institute and Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation (because they’d never have a stake in the outcome. Can we say “agenda-driven?") or that the peer review process was rushed. By Regnerus’ own admission, “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad” because this study was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships who opted to raise children together. The criterion he uses is whether the parent ever had a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, regardless of the length of that relationship, which unfairly boosted his raw sample size. Also by his admission, the study only had two stable same-sex couples in which the child lived with the same-sex couple throughout childhood. If you want to kvetch about a woefully inadequate sample size, two fits that criterion quite well. Finding unstable, opposite-sex couples from sham marriages in which they had to keep up the façade of being straight (which was the most common characteristic for those Regnerus lumped together as “same-sex households”) does not make for a valid comparison group. One cannot even come close to determining causation from the Regnerus study because using fractured families as the basis for the same-sex sample group does not constitute as “holding all variables constant,” which is a necessity for determining causation. This was not a study about openly identified same-sex couples in committed relationships, which is problematic because that is what opponents such as yourself think the study does. All the study shows is that divorce and one-parent households make for unstable living conditions for children, which not only is nothing new, but does absolutely nothing to provide insight about same-sex parenting.
Furthermore, the American Sociological Association, which is Regnerus' own professional organization, addressed his study and during their Supreme Court amicus brief this past summer to show just how flawed his study is. The ASA amicus brief also points out that there have been many studies with sample sizes larger than Regnerus’ study that show that there are no substantial disadvantages to same-sex couples raising children. The Regnerus study thusly has zero application to committed same-sex couples who are already raising children, which is what we’re talking about here.
2c: If you’re going to use the Velleman study or CDC report as evidence, you need to provide hyperlinks or titles of the works. Otherwise, I cannot not reply to confirm or deny the veracity of the reports.
2d: While an insufficient sample size is a general concern in such studies, you have only postulated as to why it theoretically might be problematic. Out of curiosity, are there any particular studies that show an insufficient sample size, or is this merely your way of trying to discredit a well-established consensus
Deleteof the academic literature [that dates back to the 1970s on this topic] simply because it doesn’t line up with your worldview? If it had only been a couple of years, then I would share your skepticism. That’s not the case here, which is why I’m going to take all that postsecondary education I have had in the social sciences and tell you that there has been plenty of time to develop an academic consensus on this topic. If there is a legitimate concern about sample size, give me some examples of studies on the topic that you think have a small sample size and tell me why you think it’s a small sample size, although based on my comments in 2b, that will be a tough task.
Also, in spite of this consensus, you’re still going to cry “not a large enough sample size”? You’re seriously asking that the results of a flawed study should make us stop and think, but you don’t ask the same thing when study after study shows that same-sex couples can parent just as well as opposite-sex households? Sorry to say, but if we’re going to have an intellectually honest discussion, that sort of double standard can only be described as a disingenuous form of selection bias.
3) Opposition to same-sex marriage based on faith, and that “everything else flows from there". Even more dismaying than your comments on statistical analysis was your statement that “the foundation for my opposition is based in faith, and everything else flows from there.” I thought we were having a secular discussion, not a religious one. Also, your assumptions are a prioristic, which is worrisome because if your concept of faith means ignoring empirical evidence in front of you, then you’re really not that different than a fundamentalist Christian. If you want to believe something because that’s how you interpret Judaism, that’s your First Amendment right. However, the First Amendment also helps ensure that people don't force their religious beliefs onto others.
4) Tolerance versus acceptance. Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. We not only live in a representative republic that tries to be respectful of minority rights and peoples’ liberties, but we also live in a pluralistic society in which we put up with other individuals’ differences, even if we don’t personally agree with them. For example, I don’t embrace, i.e. don’t accept, your stance, but in spite of my disaccord, I will stand up for your right to have that viewpoint, i.e., I tolerate it. In regards to this topic, that that means is that religious institutions are not to be forced to perform or accept same-sex marriages, but at the same time, those same institutions do not have the right to ban other religious institutions that decide to perform or accept same-sex marriages. It also means that same-sex couples, much like opposite-sex couples, have the right to sign whatever contract they want because they are consenting adults.
Delete5) I was hoping that you would have given me concrete examples as to how allowing for same-sex marriage would actually bring down society, but you did not because same-sex marriages creates net gains. Again, I know that’s difficult for you to prove because there are 17 countries [and 17 US states] that allow for same-sex marriage, not to mention quite a few other countries and US states that legally recognize same-sex couples on some level, and yet their societies have not collapsed because they legally recognized same-sex couples. In reality, there is a net positive economic benefit, and in case you needed more benefits aside from the economic or the importance of creating a more diverse and tolerant society, there are also the sociological and psychological benefits or marriage (You brought up the Harvard study, which I blogged on a few months back), which is why it baffles me that you would want to deprive a certain segment of the population of that form of stability.
If you don’t end up responding to anything else in my comments, at the very least, please complete the following sentence: “Allowing for same-sex marriage will harm society because____________.”
Kol tov,
Steve
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI have nothing set up to tell me when you respond, and I checked back for only about a week and I figured my responses just got lost in the shuffle. So i wasn't ignoring you. I just haven't gotten around to checking this particular blog post in a while.
1: I'm not in any way avoiding acknowledging the evolution of marriage, except this particular new phase (which doesn't even count to me as an evolution of marriage, since it deviates from the definition of marriage). We've already hashed over much of this. Marriage began between male and female. Marriage styles, contracts, etc...evolved....but they never (at least until very recently) evolved outside the basics of the male-female paradigm. I'm actually being quite consistent with the basic principles of marriage for all of recorded history. I'm not sure how that equates to me neglecting anything.
2: I'm certainly guilty of using what i like from statistical studies (if you can't beat'em, join'em). I do not have the links on hand for the CDC or other study. Will look for them when I have more time. Oh, and I am inclined to refute our assertion that there have been studies on this dating to the 70s. Given that gay marriage wasn't around until much more recently, i don't see how any studies (of any sample size, but certainly not a large one) could've been conducted that far back. Maybe you're referring to studies in other countries, though.
3: We are having a secular discussion, ultimately, and I'm not basing my arguments on the Bible. But the rationale for my opposing gay marriage (aside from basic disgust at homosexual activity) stems from my faith. You cannot seriously expect someone to hold a devout belief that A is wrong, but voting for A to become codified and protected by law? Conscience (in this case directed by faith) has to be of greater import than, well, almost anything I'd say.
ReplyDelete4: Tolerance is not equivocation. The gay marriage movement does not seek to be “tolerated.” It seeks validation and equivocation with the force of law behind it.
5: Same sex marriage will not bring down society in an apocalyptic fashion (or at least, I don’t see how, though admittedly anything is possible; Soddom and Gomorrah didn’t see it coming either, but divine retribution like that is beyond the scope of my point or this discussion). But there are dangers. There is the slippery slope, which I know that pro-gay marriage types like to laugh at as if it’s silly, but I’m sure people laughed at anybody in 1970 that said gays will be getting married by the turn of the century. More importantly, the gay rights movement as a whole seeks to make sexual orientation a protected class, akin to racial minorities. This is particularly troubling given that sexual orientation is a completely non-objectively definable designation. The APA, for example, recently re-designated pedophilia as a sexual orientation, only to back off and change it back under protest. Gay marriage plays only a portion of the role in the gay rights movement as a whole, but it is currently the forerunner for that agenda.
More to the point, there are some intellectually honest gay rights advocates who acknowledge what the original plan behind the gay marriage push was and what it still is for many.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/
I realize there are two types of pro-gay marriage advocates. The originators of the movement and those who actually want to see the institution of marriage taken down, done away with, and the modern family recast as non-nuclear are one side. The other side, made up of many gay and straight people (which I would imagine probably includes you) who are genuinely well-meaning, basing their opinions on notions of equality and fairness, but who are nonetheless helping the former achieve their goals. And as easy as it is to dismiss this sort of thing as alarmism, I’ll concede that it won’t happen overnight. And it I, of course, possible that it’ll never happen for one reason or another. But today’s lunatic is often tomorrow’s prophet.
Best,
Zac
Zac, thank you for your reply.
Delete1: You are right that we have hashed out much of this argument. However, to reply to your comments, what you are neglecting are the facets of marriage that have evolved that don’t fit your definition of marriage (i.e., marriage isn’t arranged, people decide to marry out of love, marriage is now based on consumption compatibility instead of gender-based production factors). Whether you like it or not, the aforementioned facets [plus what I have mentioned in previous comments] is what makes same-sex marriage work, and what renders your definition of marriage obsolete.
2: The studies referenced have to do with same-sex parenting, not same-sex marriage. Even if you want to argue that the consensus does not date that far back, the consensus has still existed long enough, which still makes me ask why you ignore the plethora of studies that show that same-sex couples do just as well at parenting while focusing on the one deeply flawed study.
3: In all sincerity, if your faith, or in this case, your interpretation thereof, is the sole deciding factor in your opinion, why bother having the secular argument in the first place if all the facts in the world aren’t going to change your mind? I don't mind someone have religious conviction, but at least for me, reality has shaped how I view my religion, not the other way around.
4: As long as the government is in the business of defining marriage, there is going to be some force of the law behind it, regardless of whether the government bans or legalizes same-sex marriage. At least with legalizing same-sex marriage, there is a legal acknowledgement of civil rights and contract rights.
5: Yes, the slippery slope argument is silly, and the reason it’s silly is because when used, it’s most probably a logical fallacy, which it is in this case. The premise behind the slippery slope argument is that it ignores the possibility of a middle ground. The only way the argument could possibly work is if there were evidence that the slip would occur. Otherwise, it’s as baseless as arguing that banning same-sex marriage could lead to the banning of all marriages.
If I’m getting this straight, your unsubstantiated theory is based on a minority view? The vast, vast majority of people advocate for same-sex marriage because it’s a civil rights issue, not because they want to erode marriage. Your argument is that expanding the definition of marriage to same-sex couples is going to erode the current institution of marriage. So allowing more people to marry is going to destroy marriage? Same-sex couples have been legally recognized for a quarter of a century now, and there is no indication whatsoever that what you postulate is going to take place, which I will ultimately take as “same-sex marriage does not harm society.”
Kol tov,
Steve
Steve,
ReplyDeletePoint 1: Consider all those points acknowledged. I've never not acknowledged that facets of marriage have changed. My point has been always that despite the changes, the male-female paradigm has (at least until very, very recently) been a constant. Basically everything in your pic in the original post is a numerator in the fraction that is marriage. The male-female structural component is the denominator. You also conveniently minimize the notion that marriage is intrinsically linked with parenting. I know the new fad is to say that marriage is only about love and (apprently) sexual attraction. That's problematic, and historically false, as well.
Point 2: I see the distinction. But to answer your question, I have yet to run across a study (mind you I haven't been out looking for many) that are not flawed in one way shape or form. Add that to my natural distrust of such studies anyway...and if I'm truly going to be skeptical about these things, I should ignore them all for the sake of consistency. But every study I've read has also included that children of same-sex parents are more likely to have gender dissociative disorders and to experiment with same sex sexual relations. That right there highlights two negatives less inherent in male-female parenting stuctures.
Point 3: Because Torah does not demand blind faith. You had a good post on this re: "knowing" that there is a G-d. If the Torah is true at all times and for all times, then there must be obvious corroboration in the real world, whether we see it now (or even can see it now) or not.
Point 4: Nothing you say there is technically false. Tolerance still isn't equivocation. And the issue, more broadly, is should people be restricted from not engaging ina contract, but from governemtn equivocation of contract A with contract B. My answer: no.
Point 5: The slippery slope argument is only potentially silly. One of my degrees is in history, and it is amazing how one generations expectations of "Oh, that'll never happen" happens. Happens all the time. And just b/c you support agenda A b/c of reason B, that does not mean that Agenda A will still not result in C or D, despite your best efforts. Just look at declining marriage rates (and, more importantly, declinging two-parent household raising children) in most Scandinavian countries as an example of long term effect. That doesn't mean it will happen here. But as a historian it's downright silly to ignore trends of this sort.
Kol tov,
Zac
Zac,
Delete1: I never denied your point that up until very, very recently, marriage was legally defined as between man or woman [or women]. My points of contention have been a) the way that marriage has changed, the male-female paradigm you depict is no longer relevant to the definition of marriage, and b) I don’t see it as a fad, i.e., it’s not going away anytime soon.
2: Much like humanity, studies are imperfect. While I was getting my Master’s degree, we called the imperfection the “endogeneity problem.” However, that does not render these studies useless. If you’re able to point to specific flaws in what has become the consensus amongst said studies, I would greatly appreciate it.
3: I will certainly agree that Judaism does not demand blind faith. However, the Torah was written with “black fire upon white fire” (Talmud, Eruvin 13a), which is to say that the Torah is a complex enough text that it can be interpreted in multiple ways.
4: As I have pointed out in previous comments, if the government was not in the business of defining marriage, that problem would be resolved. However, we live in a pluralistic, tolerant society. If organization does not want to recognize a same-sex marriage, that’s their prerogative, but that doesn’t mean that a same-sex couple should be denied the right to sign a contract, nor should a religious leader who wants to perform a same-sex marriage be denied the right to do so.
5: First, as you even pointed out in your previous comments, there is also the distinct possibility that nothing horrific will come of it, and if we’re going to talk about trends, a quarter century trend shows that nothing of the sort has occurred. Just because something can potentially happen does not mean that it will, and history has taught us that numerous times, as well.
If you want to use the Scandinavian example of long-term effects, I would point out that the marriage rate was in decline in Scandinavia prior to the legal recognition of same-sex couples. Also, as someone who has a post-secondary degree in history, I’m sure you know that there is rarely, if ever, a single cause to a certain effect or phenomenon. Looking at the history of birth rates, education (particularly women’s education), literacy, birth control, a declining infant mortality rate, women pursuing careers, reproduction no longer being a defining factor of marriage, and a service-based economy that does not require multiple children all have contributed to the declining birth rate. Using Israel as an example, it a developing country that has a fertility rate of approximately 3.0, which is to say that it’s not impossible to have a sustainable fertility rate in the twenty-first century. Ultimately, unless there’s something you know that I don’t, there is no indication of a slippery slope actually taking place.
Shabbat Shalom,
Steve
Also, ran across this article that I had mentioned before but hadn't linked. I actually don't know how to hyperlink, so apologies in advance for the inelegant clutter. You may or may not appreciate it, given that it is a take on the logical conclusions of some aspects of gay marriage (or slippery slope, as some might call it). I found it interesting, though, and generally germane to our discussion.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Zac
Whoops. Forgot the link. Here it be:
ReplyDeletehttp://thefederalist.com/2014/02/19/the-brave-new-world-of-same-sex-marriage/
Zac,
DeleteFirst, I feel like I responded to this indirectly when I refuted the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument. But responding more to the point of the article, this goes back to the point of "not only can adopted parents provide just as a loving home for children," but to the point that instead of treating children as mere artifacts, same-sex parents can raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples. As verbose as this article might be, you know that it's specious when the basis for speculation is a well-known piece of science fiction. If you were to cite Orwell, at least there'd be some historical precedent, but science fiction? Really? The problem with both you and Hanby is that what you're predicting is mere speculation. A new technology, innovation, or event can have many results, which is all the more true given how interwoven metrics, factors, and peoples' are in this global world. I could say that "American is going to define marriage as a strictly Christian institution" or "we might regress into a state of banning interracial marriages again" (the latter of which could make sense if you want to buy into slippery slope argument the way you do), but that also would be baseless speculation, which is why I don't subscribe to it. You can come up with a plethora of scary hypotheticals, but unless you can back them up with something more than mere speculation, it's basically a form of fear-mongering. But let's say you're right and that we'll eventually create a generation of test-tube babies (although that probably wouldn't happen at least for a generation or two, at the earliest). The point I have made and have continued to make is that technology, institutions, and societal norms change. It merits repeating, but the days in which the "one man/one woman household only" paradigm existed are over. There has been enough of a change in which there is room for alternative, successful household structures, and yes, that would include same-sex households. With very few exceptions, change is neither good nor bad; it's how we respond to the change that makes a difference.
Kol tov,
Steve