In short, a California judge has determined men and women are identical, and hence same-sex marriage is now constitutional. I think Dennis Prager brings up some good points (by no means a complete list of the dangers of yesterday's decision) in this 30 minute radio segment (in case you need some background sound). I find Dennis Prager to be one of the most logical thinkers in the media, and while people may disagree with some of what he says, i think you will find it of value.
http://media.townhallstore.com/dp/rs/dp_rs_20100805_hr_1_Thu_a648a6a2-3e04-4d49-9f41-808044399757_radio-show_Hi.mp3
I am no Dennis Prager expert. I have only listened to this one show. But based on that, I still think my time, as I ride my bicycle around town, is better spent listening to 'The Agenda' with Steven Paiken or 'Democracy Now' with Amy Goodman than to Dennis Prager. Not only does he repeat himself again and again and again (I am reminded of the preacher who in his sermon notes said “weak point, speak louder”) I really don't find him a clear thinker. Just a few observations:
ReplyDeleteResistance to the recognition of homosexual unions (or condemnation of) is not limited to Christians or Jews by any means. Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and most traditional religions have as much of a problem with homosexuality as Christianity. To my knowledge, it was only the ancient Greeks that in certain cases celebrated homosexuality, to the point where temples were built to that end. So resisting and condemning homosexuality is conservative without any of the current American trappings. Having said that, none of the great religious teachers, including Jesus, have anything significant to say about homosexuality. The significant pronouncements (interpretations) are made by their followers.
He says this is Earth shaking – it does not get any bigger than this – but he does not give a single example of how this will change anything. So I have a serious question: practically, (other than more work for lawyers) what will change as a result of this ruling? I don't doubt that some things will change, but what confidence do we have that these changes will be devastating
He correctly says that a small elite have made this 'earth shattering' decision. But that's always the way it is! What's new? Is it right? Sometimes. Usually not. How many people participated in the decision to engage in a per-emptive war into Iraq? How many people decided the torture of people accused of certain crimes could be tortured? How many people are involved in the decision that the CEO of a company is “entitled” to a million dollar salary when an assembly line worker in the same company gets ___? These, in my opinion, were (are) Earth-shaking” decisions. Do you want me to elaborate?
Your analogies don't make sense to me. One judge ruling that 5000 years of history are unconstitutional? What is the analogy to the systems of a democracy voting to attack Iraq (the President, senate, and congress all voted in favor of the measure to attack)? A CEO making far more than the line workers, is a decision many make. The line worker made the choice to prioritize other things than becoming a CEO (at least at that given point) and the board of the company, and their shareholders decides on pay for CEOs. If line workers don't think it was worth the money, they can do something else.
ReplyDeleteI think how it is earth shaking is simple:
1. Redifining the most fundamental institution of society, is a big deal. What is more important, redistribution of taxes? Global Warming? I can hardly think of something more important longer term to how society functions.
2. Sexuality is not fixed. As you rightly stated, in ancient Greece man-boy love was celebrated and therefore part of the culture. If we now say to kids, you can marry a man or a woman, I think longer term it is unclear how many will choose one lifestyle over another. Has society really thought this through?
I listened to Amy Goodman's report on same-sex marriage (since you noted you find value in her), where she interviews two gay activists who were celebrating the decision (or course no alternative views on her show, despite 65% of Americans being for traditional marrige only). She completely ignores the issue that Prop-8 was deemed constitutional before the vote, and the measure to keep marriage between one man and one woman, was approved by a majority of California voters (along with the 38 other times it has been voted on in other states). Does the irony of this and her title of "Democracy Now" strike you in any way?
ReplyDeleteI just don't get it! I don't get Prager, I don't get gay activists.
ReplyDeleteMarriage has been around for 5000 years, probably much longer – long before California courst cared and long before California even existed. With respect to gay marriage: I simply cannot understand all the hoopla. One would think, listening to Prager, that as a result of this ruling divorce courts are going to be overwhelmed as [formerly] happily married heterosexual couples abandon those unions and enter into homosexual unions. It's not going to happen. I know it. Your know it. I married a woman because my hormones sent me a very strong message that this would be a good thing, a pleasurable thing to do. My culture sent me the same message, but this was secondary. Of third importance was what I was taught in the church, and a distant fourth was what Canadian law said. I have not followed the California debate, but I simply find it ludicrous to think that because of this one judge's decision, men whose hormones tell them to go after women (sometimes inappropriately), are now going to go after men. It's not going to happen!
It seems to me, marriage law is important for only one reason, and that is property rights. If two people, regardless of sex decide to live together and share their resources, there need to be some laws governing how property is divided if that relationship breaks down. The same law should apply whether they are married, live common law, be brother and sister, parent and child, two siblings or in a homosexual relationship.
I am not up-to-date on the California situation. If gays in California already had property protection, I then do not understand the vigour with which they pursue marriage recognition. Maybe I have not listened enough.
The debate as to whether sex is fixed or not has been waged by people who know much more about this than I do, and those people have not come to an agreement. I only am an expert in my own experience. I simply cannot envision having had a sexual relationship with a man. The very fantasy is repugnant! So I have two options when I encounter a man who claims to have the same attraction to men that I have to women: 1) deny their feelings, in essence saying “You think you are attracted to another man, but that is simply an illusion. Get with reality and realize that you are attracted to women”, or 2) acknowledge their feelings even thought they are totally foreign to me. Actually I feel sorry for someone who finds a homosexual relationship attractive but forces himself into a heterosexual relationship because his culture, church or government tells him that this is something he must do. I cannot see how I would ever have taken anyone seriously who tried to tell me I should try homosexuality.
But even if you assume sexuality is not fixed, why should I care what consenting adults do. As near as I can tell, Jesus didn't. To those who want to listen to me, I will extol the virtues and rewards of an enduring, monogamous, heterosexual relationship. But if they have understood that and still chose a different relationship, is it my business to try and stop them?
Regarding minority rights within Democracy, getting it right is not easy. How does one recognize the rights of the majority, and yet protect legitimate rights of the minority where the majority impinges on it. So 65% is a significant figure, but it is not clear to me what one does with that in a true democracy.
So bottom line: there is much reason to be concerned about the declining moral values within the US. If that is our concern, we need to look at the changing attitude towards torture, pre-emptive war (and other manifestations of American empire building) and the increasing disparity between the rich and the poor (for whatever reason), to name but a few issues. Given that context, one judge's ruling on gay marriage in California is a non-issue.
You are assuming many things, that have never been said by Prager or I. Lets just seek clarity on this.
ReplyDeleteThe judge is changing the defition of marriage, which in the context of being the first time in US history, and in the context of 5000 years of recorded human history, is a big deal. Family is how we structure society so this seems to be an important event and the judge is saying (perhaps you agree) men and women are basically the same. This is monumental but neither Prager or I are saying this will having any immediate impact as you claimed.
It is very sad to me, that you believe marriage law is only important for property rights - nothing else. If that is the case, gays have full property rights in California. The main point of marriage it seems to me, is that it is the structure through which we raise the next generation - children. This judge is saying that man/women, man/man, whats the difference. Do you believe it makes a difference if a child has a father and mother, or have we lost all common sense that it makes no difference anymore? Yes, certain gay couples will be better at raising children than certain heterosexual couples - but that is not how we structure society or laws. We don’t say "hey, this 11 year old is a better driver than that 35 year old, lets give driver's licsenses to 11 year olds now".
Will this hurt your or my marriage or cause us to turn gay - of course not, no one has suggested that. But I do believe that it would greatly increase the odds that your great-great-great grandchildren will choose same-sex marriage if this passes. You acknowledged in your initial response, that in ancient Greece man-boy love was common. Why, were Greeks just naturally gay for a time period? No. Because it was normalized and hence over many years, it changes a culture and hence over many generations people. That was my point about sexuality not being entirely fixed. In Thailand, Transexuals are common as it is fully accepted and accomodated. So as a society, I don’t believe we have thought through the longer term implications, and we do children a dis-service by suggesting it makes no difference if they are raised by two-men, two-women, or man-woman all things equal and in an ideal scenario.
Since there are no other comments, should I conclude people don’t find same-sex marriage to me a disturbing trend?
For the sake of clarity, understand that I am not defending the judge's decision. I don't know enough about it. Personally I prefer 'marriage' to mean a union between a man and a woman, and I would prefer another word be used for a homosexual union. I am referring to the meaning of the word. If you associate 'rights' with that word, many things may (or may not) change. I simply cannot understand why it is a big deal.
ReplyDelete“Family is how we structure society” -- absolutely. But whether California law says men and women are equal won't change that. We have always done that and will continue to do that, irrespective of what the law says. This is why migrant workers continue to send remittances home for years. That is why people remain committed to a marriage relationship when all hell breaks loose and there is no law. That is why, in the Soviet Gulag, couples went to incredible effort to be reunited after a forced separation.
I firmly believe humans are fundamentally (preponderantly) heterosexual. I have no idea what the judge meant when he said “men and women are basically the same.” It could mean so many different things. So I don't know if I agree with him.
For the sake of clarity, please define marriage – I mean in what way is it different from a common-law union. I frequently have this discussion with people I encounter who are living common-law. I have not yet found anyone who can give a good answer to that question. Aside from property rights, the law is irrelevant! Of course it “is the structure through which we raise our children”, but do people who are legally married do it any different than those living common-law? (Lest I be misunderstood, please know that I very much favour marriage – 'why' needs another discussion)
Absolutely, I believe the best home for a child is one where there is a father and mother in a loving, enduring relationship. But take out the loving and enduring, and my opinion changes. There are single moms, single dads. But there are also homosexual couples raising children. Can the law make that child's environment better? Surely that is the question we should be asking. In what way will the Walker ruling change this? Please enlighten me. I may change my mind.
How does 'society' think through the implications of anything? I haven't a clue! I don't think it does. Families, individuals, churches do sometimes, but mostly they all jump to conclusions. Is it done in a courtroom? Maybe. Maybe that's a good way of doing it – hear all the arguments for both sides and then make a decision. But then who makes the decision – those who have heard all the arguments, or the majority (who have not heard all the arguments). For the sake of clarity, are you critical of the system that allows one person to make such a decision (I think that would be the constitution) or the person (people) who chose Walker (is he really gay?) to make that decision. Unless you were there in the courtroom hearing the same things Walker heard, you can hardly be critical of his decision. Surely he was not given the task of reflecting the will of most Americans.
Children don't chose their families, their parents. This is done for them. Are you suggesting that those raised by homosexuals are to be told that they are growing up under less than ideal conditions, and that this is the function of the law. Or are you saying that where gays have children, these should be taken away from them. I don't understand.
Bottom line: compared to the big moral issues of the day, this is a non-issue.
If changing the definition of marriage, the foundation of a healthy society, is a non-issue to you, that is fascinating to me. Whether pro or con, I struggle to see how someone is neutral on it. Either you believe men and women are fundamentally differnt, each offering something important to family dynamics, or not.
ReplyDeleteIn what way will this ruling change the lives of children to the negative? When it says men and women are the same, and a same-sex marriage is equivalent to a heterosexual marriage it gives equal adoption rights to gay couples. All things equal, that is negative for children from a common sense standpoint. I also think, it is confusing to ask children - particularly little girls - "who do you want to marry, a man or a women." Is society willing to say that it makes no difference if over time, people choose to marry the same-sex or heterosexual, and not hold up a standard for what is optimal? Should we just say that all the great moral thinkers in history were biggoted in not pushing for same-sex marriage, or should we conclude that perhaps they had some wisdom? You bring up a fair point that same-sex marriage was also not a cause they spent much time speaking against, but i think it is illogical to think they would have viewed it as unimportant.
Well, I have found this discussion most interesting. I do not have an emotional interest in this matter but will acknowledge that I probably have not thought out the societal implications.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it is confusing to ask a little girl, who will you marry? Little children develop crushes on males and females. (age 3-10) Their feelings are motivated by the beauty of the person, the kindness etc...Later, sexual feelings come into play and crushes will form based on these hormonal urges.
Eric's point that people are overwhelmingly heterosexual makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but Karl's point regarding a certain period in Greek history also proves that societal structure plays a role in determining sexual behaviour.
As far as the actual home that children are raised in we must all agree that the love and respect in a home is much more important than the gender of the parents.
I admit that it is difficult for me to fast-forward several generations and predict the outcome of this. If sexual chaos and societal instability is the result then this is a tragic decision. In the very short time that same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada I see no such trends but then it may be too early to tell.
In my limited understanding of society structure I don't see a problem with same-sex marriage.
I don't understand what the implications of "there is no difference between man and woman" are. I can only say, Viva la difference!
I think you bring up some good points. But i just want to make sure everyone understands. By supporting same-sex marriage, you are saying that the rights of two men, that want to hire a technician and implant a women, not so she can be a mother, but a source for them to have a child - takes clear precedence over the right of a child to have a mother and father.
ReplyDeleteClearly there are some good single parents, and loving gay-parents. But as a society we are pre-meditating either no mother or father. As a reiteration, laws are created to uphold an ideal, and just like we don't give driver's licenses to 10 year olds because in general they are not prepared - even though there would clearly be some that would be better drivers than some 70 year olds - lets at least say as a society a child is better with a mother and father. But alas, we are saying that it makes no difference, and that is sad.
Karl brings up an important, troubling point. At what point ought society (or the law) step in to prevent a undesirable pregnancy? How do we determine what that point is. Who determines that? Lori can speak for herself, but within the context of this discussion there are other problems we need to solve first, because they are much more serious. I am speaking of FASD and similar drug related problems. I'm sure Diana would have no problem pointing out 10 women who are likely to get pregnant in the next two years and who will likely give birth to a FASD baby. Yet, because we recognize that the mother also has rights, we seem to be unable to deal with this ongoing tragedy.
ReplyDeleteI can accept that an implication of this ruling is the scenario you outline. But seriously, do you think many gay men want children? I don't doubt that some do, but many? Is that really what this is all about?
Allow me to reflect a bit on the history of the institution of marriage, at least as I see it. I think Karl is saying that this California court ruling is the biggest challenge the institution of marriage has in 500 years. I see things differently. Over the years the institution of marriage has changed profoundly – monumentally. At one time, polygamy was common. Today it is rare or non-existent in western society. Why the change? I don't know, but it is an interesting to speculate. I suspect, more than anything else, it had to do with a realization on the part of men, that the rewards of an intimate relationship with a single woman outweighed the pleasures (or whatever) of having access to a whole bevy of them. There was also a rising sense of justice over many things, including w omen’s rights. At one time women were viewed as property, either of their fathers or their husbands. This has also changed, and I think for the same reasons. During that time of polygamy and women as property, were there no intimate relationships such as we seek today? I definitely think there were, but I think they were less prevalent. (In my head I can't put together the “Song of Solomon” with 900 wives and concubines.)
I wonder what role the law had in these changes. I don't think it was significant, because I think with respect to social change, the effect of the law is to resist change, although in the modern state this may have changed. Not sure.
Lori is right when she says heterosexual marriage is necessary from an evolutionary perspective. But it is also kind of Darwinian (not scientifically) in another sense. Young folks, of marriageable age will look around – always have. They will model their marriage after what they see as beautiful around them. It's always been that way.
I am ready to put this one to bed, but to borrow and mash a Pragerism, I still would like clarity on one point. What, in your opinion, is the difference between marriage and a common-law union? Given that there will be exceptions, what does a married couple do differently than a common-law couple?
A married couple if more committed, they have said their vow's to signify their partner comes first in life, typically in front of all the people that matter to them.
ReplyDeleteSo by making vows in front of God and friends and family, we are making a public committment, which should make a difference during hard times vs common law.
Practically do they act different, I dont know. Many in common law say "marriage is just a piece of paper." By that logic, baptism is pointless, we can just passively say we will follow Jesus without making a public committment.
To your point of FASD, the state wont step in as the abortion lobby is so strong and realizes that if we start to say the "fetus" has rights, then it opens a can of worms. So until as a society we give an unborn baby some rights, we will continue to be able to say nothing to the mother abusing it. Which logically to the abortion crew, makes sense. It is just a blob, so the mother is only abusing her own body.
Regarding marriage, I think I entirely agree with you. I think I have a very high view of marriage. When I (or my child) decide to get married, I want to invite all the significant people in my life to celebrate many things, but the more obvious are that these two have found each other, and to let others know that we two now belong to each other in a way we have not before. Done properly (in my view) something very significant happens at marriage. In Mary and my case, we did not kiss (passionately) until we were engaged, and we did not have sex until we were married. That is how we functioned within our society. I do believe people who enter into kissing, sex and co-habitation more casually are missing out on something quite important. Why did we do it that way? I find that hard to analyze. Significantly because we thought that is what the bible taught - that this is the way God had made us, but also this was what our parents expected. And there is more.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to point out within the context of this discussion, the law in this regard was insignificant. True, at our wedding, signing the register was part of the ceremony, but if I did it again, I do not think I would have the signing as part of the ceremony. I do not think the law has any bearing on whether a couple decides to marry or live common-law. Did it in your case?
By extension, I do not think the law will be a significant factor in determining how a homosexual couple will consummate their relationship.
I'm sure there is a lot of truth in your comment about FASD. But its more complex than that. Hitler decided he had the right to decide not only who could give birth but also who could live using a criteria we all find revolting. We find the Chinese criteria in this regard unacceptable. We call that totalitarianism. Creating a situation where society adjudicates between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus will open a can of worms, but that can of worms will be troublesome to many people. It will not be limited to abortion crew.
Again, back to our discussion, I can't see how anyone would be served where we have a legal restriction on homosexual parents raising children. California and Manitoba have child protection agencies which [in most cases implicitly] determine whether a particular home is suitable for the raising of children. Every once in a while, governed by [I hope] strict criteria, they intervene. I sincerely hope they can apply the same criteria, whether the parents are hetero or gay. In that sense I hope males and females are equal.
Peace!
I think you are correct, it appears we have satisfied the conversation, and clarified our differences, which is a good thing. So to reiterate (as I am too lazy to try and say it a better way) by supporting same-sex marriage (or more accurately perhaps more neutral), you are saying that the rights of two men, that want to hire a technician and implant a women, not so she can be a mother, but a source for them to have a child - takes precedence over the right of a child to have a mother and father. I on the other hand, think society should affirm that men and women are fundamentally different - although still equal - and that children benefit from both sexes and that is the ideal to uphold.
ReplyDeleteFor the record (if that is important) what you are saying of me might be a minor implication of what I am saying, but that certainly is not the essence of what I have been trying to say.
ReplyDeleteEric, I would have to say that by having your intimate relationship with Mary change as you became engaged and then married did have something to do with societal implications. This you yourself admitted, as of course your religion, church, and parental expectations are part of our immediate society. This was also the behaviour exhibited by many of your peers in the church.
ReplyDeleteI would submit that "the Law" is also a reflection of the attitudes of a society and so as the law changes the definition of marriage, marriages do change. As you say, polygamy used to be the norm and then there was a law against it and now it is not the norm. So, as there, is now a change in the definition of marriage society can expect more homosexual unions/cohabitation.
Whether this increase will have any negative effects on society remains to be seen.
Regarding Karl's point that the gay couple's right to have a child should not superscede that child's right to have a mother and father is an interesting one. I am not quite sure how to interact with that one as the homosexual couple who has a child is a couple who deliberately goes through great effort to have one, so is more likely already a caring responsible couple. (there are no 'accidents' resulting from their union)
The importance of Mother and Father is not that strong to me, perhaps I see too many cases of less than desirable mothers and fathers at the school where I work.
Still, as an ideal to uphold, it has merit.
Sorry I have not had time to follow blog and also don't have time to put together a proper response to this issue. I will be active again when back in Germany.
ReplyDeleteI have enjoyed the discussion on this topic.
So very generally I would just like to say that I think this is one of those examples where we as a society in general are so afraid of offending anyone that we simply say ok to everything instead of looking to where it might lead to.
What kind of a society will we be in the future if we continue to give up our principles and values?
I have long been discouraged that Mennonites whose grandparents lived under communism, appear to be anxious to return to communism. Here is a list of communist goals from 1963, and in my opinion, they have achieved many and with same-sex marriage they achieve more (#26, 40).
ReplyDeletehttp://upssa.com/1963-congress.htm
This list of goals appears in "the Naked Communist" written by an American. I am not sure if this is a list of actual goals OR a list of goals as seen by certain Americans. Do you know?
ReplyDeleteKarl, I do agree with you as to the discouragment felt when people promote communism. I am strongly, strongly against communism. It hurts my stomach to think there is even a communist party in Canada.
It is written by an American conservative in 1963. I can certainly understand how it could be seen as not a legitimate source as a result. However, in the context of the time, where people were trying to understand communist goals and here we are almost 50 years later and many of these look accomplished when at the time they seemed quite foreign it has some legitimacy to me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, and slightly off topic, here is a quote from Krushchev in the 1960s that seems sadly accurate:
You Americans are so gullible! We don't have to invade you! We will destroy you from within without firing a shot! We will bury you by the billions! We spoon feed you socialism until your Communists and don't even know it! We assist your elected leaders in giving you small doses of Socialism until you suddenly awake to find you have Communism. the day will come when your grandchildren will live under communism! - Nikita Khrushchev 1966
The Krushev quote is an interesting one. Surprising he could predict that, because it does seem to be coming in very small doses. Still I don't want to equate socialism with communism even though it may be the thin edge of the wedge.
ReplyDeleteThe communist system of the East Bloc was terrible and don't want to diminish it by equating it with the NDP or the Democrats.
Just a few comments:
ReplyDelete- Nikita Khrushchev was deposed as leader of the Soviet Union in October 1964.
- Khrushchev said "we will bury you" in a speech, although there are those who say that speech was mis-translated. The rest of your quote I have never heard before. What is your source?
- Is there any historical record of any socialist state morphing into a communist state? I can't think of any. In my [albeit limited] knowledge of history, Communism has always come in through revolution.
- Based on a limited reading of Karl Marx and a very few conversations I have had with passionate communists in Ethiopia, my insight would be that the most significant pre-condition to communist revolution is the perception that the gap in wealth between rich and poor is immoral. Our grandparents who lived under communism, loathed it and feared it, but I think they would agree with what I have just said.
- You would not have to a communist to predict the collapse of the American Empire, just like you would not have had to be a capitalist to predict the collapse of the Soviet Empire. In both cases the collapse came from within, or if you prefer, over-extending empire.
Sorry, I clicked on Post a bit too quickly. I did not mean to imply that America had already collapsed. But I would say this is my prediction.
ReplyDelete