The Federalist Society debate on gay marriage

[MikeWaters]

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.24/default.asp

I've just read the first bit of it. But already, the discourse is far, far above what the church put out.

[Archaea]

It's a much healthier debate than exists here.

Amy Wax



BioHere are a number of concerns with legalizing same sex marriage.

First, whether we like it or not, a big part of the gay agenda for decades has been to repudiate what are regarded as overly restrictive expectations of monogamy and sexual fidelity. There still is considerable ambivalence on this point. Unfortunately, and despite wishful thinking, deviation from the strong norm of sexual exclusivity is very destabilizing of heterosexual relationships. Even more unfortunately, what has been happening in inner city and low income communities illustrates this all too starkly: the rise of multi-partner relationships as a way of life has been a major force in the decline of marriage. So we should be wary of extending marriage to a community with influential people who believe that sexual monogamy isn't that important, that sexually unfaithful partnerships are not such a big deal.

Second, there is a stark biological fact to contend with: in homosexual families, by definition, only one parent, at most, will be biologically related to the child. In effect, gay families are either adoptive families or blended families. Adoptive families at least solve a major social problem: parentless children. But blended families bring children into the world who are destined to live without two biologically related parents. What will be the overall effect of that?

A social science literature is now emerging that reveals the relative weakness and instability of heterosexual blended and step-parent families, compared to married couple families with shared biological children. The children in mixed families do no better than those in single parent families! Will homosexual blended families be equally unstable? Living with a biological father seems especially important, and children living with unrelated males do especially badly. Will that pattern extend to gay families? We don't know. It's a big social experiment.

Finally (and this is in some ways the most important concern for me, as a parent), legalizing homosexual marriage will of course create pressure to "normalize" those relationships in all contexts. This will extend to teaching in public schools (and private schools for that matter).

The absolute equivalence of hetero and homosexual relationships will become public orthodoxy. The result will be that parents will be effectively disabled from expressing any preference whatsoever for heterosexuality, heterosexual families, or traditional heterosexual marriage, and any disapproval or lesser preference for homosexuality, even for their own children. The parity of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and life styles will be aggressively pursued, and anyone who dares to question this will be defined as a bigot. Do I look forward to this breathtaking expansion of the empire of political correctness? Certainly not! The implications of such a state of affairs for religious practice and expression are staggering -- this is a whole different subject unto itself.

Amy Wax is getting it from all sides in the debate.

[Archaea]

Nagel also points out something which is usually dismissed by gay advocates:

Robert Nagel



BioProfessors Carpenter and Koppelman have made many forceful arguments. But something about this rush of words seems profoundly inadequate to me. Maybe my malaise began when, early on, Professor Koppelman asked whether the opponents of gay marriage didn't have any better arguments than this. (Things got more interesting later, I gather.) This issue, needless to say, is not a game or a competition. To put our smart arguments above the brute fact that for centuries in virtually all cultures marriage has been a heterosexual institution seems, to put it mildly, a bit arrogant. I think people should pay more attention to that history. I notice that California now will list the parties to a marriage as (I think this is right) "partner one" and "partner two." To me this captures the dismal potential for stripping the richness of a deep institution that is inherent in the gay marriage movement.
I know we have to think, as best we can, about changes in even deep traditions. But I would hope we would do so with a sense of how limited we are.
I remain convinced that recognition is the main goal of the homosexual marriage movement and that there is a strong possibility that institutionalizing gay marriage will not provide the desired reassurance. Then all the behaviors and words and traditions that honor traditional heterosexual marriage will have to be suppressed or at least delegitimized. Partner one, partner two.

But fortunately these professors are able to put on the gloves without getting personal.

[MikeWaters]

I've read about a third of it, and I think Amy's arguments are real, but weak.

I thought one point brought up by another dude was interesting--we generally are not privy to the sex lives of others, including our close friends. Personally, I don't know a single person that I know to be having an affair. But no doubt, there is at least one person. What effect is this person having on my own moral choices? Essentially none.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nagel also points out something which is usually dismissed by gay advocates:



But fortunately these professors are able to put on the gloves without getting personal.

I don't find this very compelling, given how common polygamy is in the world RIGHT NOW. he seems to be saying that there is only one tradition. Well, maybe there is a Western European, Catholic-centric tradition, but that doesn't mean it is the only tradition, both current and aged.

Marriage is not a single monolithic entity, but the anti-gay marriage people (including, ironically, Mormons) are arguing that it is.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I've read about a third of it, and I think Amy's arguments are real, but weak.

I thought one point brought up by another dude was interesting--we generally are not privy to the sex lives of others, including our close friends. Personally, I don't know a single person that I know to be having an affair. But no doubt, there is at least one person. What effect is this person having on my own moral choices? Essentially none.

You may be convinced of the arguments made by the two gay advocates, and I admit the debate was a refreshing take on it, it involved four capable advocates resorting to logic and reason, not emotional calls to something else.

An aspect which is NOT compelling for me to disagree with Brother Seattle is that this is the Human Issue of our time. If it is, then we have really about minutiae in comparison to other times.

Slave or free.

Right of suffrage.

Equal pay for same work and position.

Who gets civilly recognized as "married" to obtain identical inheritance procedures and insurance benefits? Doesn't really get the passions stirred.

I can see fighting wars over freedom, over racism, over sexism but over technical issues such as administrative procedures for inheritance and insurance benefits?

Jeez, and people wonder why it's not an interesting debate, but it's a debate primarily about money.

It's not about subjugation, it's not about freedom, the right to own property, the right to say or publish what one wishes, it's not about any of the grand narratives, but an issue about procedural rights, i.e., whether the probate laws apply or whether parties must address them in estate planning which should be required of all so that attorneys make more money, and whether certain insurance benefits accrue.

Does anybody who is a gay advocate see why it really isn't a big picture item, but just one of a million other small issues in our marketplace where people are fighting over every little dime?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't find this very compelling, given how common polygamy is in the world RIGHT NOW. he seems to be saying that there is only one tradition. Well, maybe there is a Western European, Catholic-centric tradition, but that doesn't mean it is the only tradition, both current and aged.

Marriage is not a single monolithic entity, but the anti-gay marriage people (including, ironically, Mormons) are arguing that it is.

The gay advocates did a much better job of addressing those concerns than you did. They weren't as dismissive as you and used better logic. I was impressed with the finesse of the gay advocates.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The gay advocates did a much better job of addressing those concerns than you did. They weren't as dismissive as you and used better logic. I was impressed with the finesse of the gay advocates.

There's really not much on the side of the anti-gay marriage to put forward. It's essentially a defense of tradition, and nothing else. Because of that, they resort to fear-mongering with no evidence.

Fear-mongering with no evidence is hard for me to take, when it's coming from the only true church on the earth.

[Indy Coug]

The argument is real simple: gay sex/marriage is not ordained of God.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There's really not much on the side of the anti-gay marriage to put forward. It's essentially a defense of tradition, and nothing else. Because of that, they resort to fear-mongering with no evidence.

Fear-mongering with no evidence is hard for me to take, when it's coming from the only true church on the earth.

That appears to be the difficulty you have placed yourself in. "Fear-mongering with no evidence" pretty much describes christianity from a secualr POV. But if one believes, as you claim to, that the LDS church is true, then it is something else and perhpas it most singulalrly distinguishing feature in these days is belief in a current prophet. So do you support this feature or not? If so, how far do you go? As with most things on this site, your protests here are much more about you than the issue itself, it seems to me.