The answer is: it doesn't hurt my marriage (if I were married of course!). But changing the definition of marriage to include same sex partnerships will hurt society and potentially my freedom. Government support of traditional marriage implicitly supports the particular family structure that emerges from such marriages. The structure of mother, father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, grandfather, grandmother and so on is the natural institution that flows from the foundation of marriage. When such marriages remain intact, this 'family tree' can become quite large where each branch has a blood tie to other branches of the tree with a resulting natural affection and concern for each member's welfare. To quote Professor Robert P. George from Princeton, "This structure is the original and best department of health, education and welfare."
If government were to support gay marriage, they would essentially be withdrawing their support of this traditional family structure. Children are not a natural extension of gay relationships, so if government supported the formation of gay 'families' they would be supporting the idea that it is perfectly healthy and morally neutral to willfully bring children into a non-traditional family setting. They would essentially be saying that there is no ideal family structure. It is true that single mothers exist, gay couples end up with children from previous relationships or through invitro, and other alternative family situations arise. But should government be encouraging these scenarios? Are we really to believe that a position of neutrality would produce no ill effects on society as a whole?
As indicated in my previous post 'A Defense of Traditional Marriage', such natural institutions as the traditional family are critical if we are to maintain the American ideal of limited government. As the family structure breaks down, someone must step in to fill the role. Politicians are only too happy to fill this role as they can secure power in governmental spheres by promising to take care of the victims. This leads to the deprivation of liberty in various forms. I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that come most easily to mind:
1) Property rights violations. Politicians begin participating in schemes of wealth redistribution to care for the poor and the needy. Although they are trumpeted as acts of fairness, these schemes are really the inevitable result of a people who have failed to take care of their own.
2) Loss of religious liberty. Marriage and the traditional family structure are pre-political institutions. Government did not invent marriage, but government has chosen to promote and recognize this natural institution in every culture we are aware of. When a legal definition is pitted against a pre-political and religious definition, attacks on religious liberty are certain to follow. Take the example of Catholic Charities in Boston. This group was forced out of the adoption business because church leaders refused to allow adoption to gay couples. Rather than compromise their religious convictions, they gave up their adoption license. Gay marriage activists have, and will use anti-discrimination laws to whip the masses into line.
I would appreciate it if anyone can challenge my assertions, or post arguments supporting the idea of gay marriage. If I am missing something, I would like to understand the other side of the argument more clearly.
Posts
14 comments:
These are great thoughts Sam! And eloquently said. I admire you for putting your foot forward and boldly stating your thoughts and opinions. Many echo your sentiments and I am glad you have represented us so well. Two thumbs up for the family as we know it - a stable, committed and supportive institution through generations bound by blood. Idealism - shoot for the moon, land on the stars. I fear we as a society have forgotten to look heavenward at all.
I disagree. I think your posts were made without consideration as to whether some of your Facebook friends or family would find them insensitive, offensive, and hurtful. If nothing else, the posts are divisive, even if majority of your friends agree with them. What does that accomplish on Facebook, other than to divide yourself from people who would otherwise consider you a friend?
As much as I disagree with your views, I have no problem with you blogging them. I do have a problem seeing them on Facebook when I log in, so I've made sure that it won't happen again. That's a consequence of mixing social websites with politics.
Amen to lance.
I am hurt.
I can't believe you don't recognize gay relationships as having the same equal rights available to... say Greg my ex (on his 4th marriage) or someone who meets someone drunk in Las Vegas and gets married that night.
That is a mockery of marriage- not a couple who love each other for years and would like to experience the same rights as other couples in love.
Grandstanding your intolerance for other people's equal rights in a public forum for your family and friends to see is insensitive and ignorant. I thought you were more compassionate than that.
Please know that I love you and respect your feelings, but be aware your actions hurt.
Agree to disagree.
Aunt Annie
To not allow gay marriage will not change anything in respect to whether those relationships exist or not. There will not be more or less gay relationships if you allow them to marry. What a legal gay marriage will do is to protect the legal rights of children and spouses from such relationships.
As to the traditional marriage, you portray that as the "natural way" as though marriage has always thru time eternal existed as a one one male/ female relationship where in fact this type of marriage was only formalised by the Catholic church 1800 years ago and only in Europe. Before Christianity and in other parts of the world in other cultures other forms of relationships have existed and still exist.
You say that gay the rights movements enforce things on you where in fact "religious" societies enforce their narrow view (We are the only one true faith!) on those who have other believes. With this I mean most faiths not just Christians. Who is so arrogant as to say; only we know the one true way! I know many religious people that are appalled of this point of view because it creates 2 classes of people, the righteous and those who are wrong. Let that be decided in the afterlife by god, if there is one.
I don't get your opposition to redistribution of wealth, have you ever spent any time in Europe, Scandinavia? The standard of living there for everybody is so much higher in every way. Nearly everybody can afford to go to the best universities of their country. There is so much less poverty and deprivation, so fewer murders and homeless people.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere:) What a hornets nest I've stepped into. What is it they say about not mixing family, politics, and religion? You've at least got to hand it to me for achieving the trifecta. As I am something of a rookie in the online social world, I'll have to keep in mind that Facebook is kind of like the cyber version of a Thanksgiving table. Blogs, I suppose, are the proper place for this discussion.
The reason I started this blog was to provide myself with an outlet to not only voice my views, but listen to opposing arguments. I like to think that my views are dynamic and can be changed given the proper argument. I have gone out into the blogosphere to discuss, and it can get quite brutal. I hoped that by starting my own blog where I control the discussion, I can help to keep it more civilized. Opinions on the issues are acceptable, ad hominem attacks are not.
I also realize that the marriage issue is something that will always be divisive. My concern is that those who support traditional marriage are instantly seen as bigots and gay-haters, regardless of their reasons for doing so. I feel very strongly about supporting the traditional institution of marriage. Being a single 31 year old, it might seem like an ironic stance, but hopefully that lends an air of neutrality to my views. I intend to lend my support in whatever way I can in supporting this cause. If after reading my views I can convince you that by supporting traditional marriage I am an irrational idealist, a misguided zealot, or just plain ignorant, but not a gay-hater, than I will feel like I have achieved something.
Without addressing Gilded Dandelions points directly, let me rephrase my argument in defense of marriage and maybe that will clear things up a bit:
I see a large and oppressive government as being the single biggest threat to our liberty. This threat is real to everyone, gay and straight. An overly powerful government might be your friend today, but what happens when someone who doesn't agree with you comes to power? To keep the government out of running our lives, it is necessary that certain non-governmental institutions are protected and upheld that shoulder the primary responsibilities of caring for the needy, nurturing and raising children, instilling virtue and civic behavior in the citizenry etc. If these non-governmental institutions fail to uphold their end of the social contract, demand for government grows.
This relationship between the breakdown of the traditional family order, and the subsequent demand for greater government intervention is not a purely conservative proposition. It was acknowledged, and praised, by early Russian revolutionaries, including noted writer, Alexandra Kollontai. In this article (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm) she notes that easing of Russian divorce laws contributed to the breakdown of the 'patriarchal family'. As this phenomenon continued, she predicted that the state would become responsible for the rearing and educating of children. She saw this as a natural progression toward a type of utopia where the communist society was the only family. I suggest that any government powerful enough to fill the role of the family, is something to be feared.
I bring that example up not to suggest that gay-marriage is some type of commi plot to take over our country. I bring it up to show that even a staunch feminist like Alexandra Kollantai saw clearly the connection between the breakdown of the traditional family and the resulting growth of the state.
(continued from above)
So my issue with government promotion of gay marriage is not a knock against gay relationships per se. My issue is that it represents a complete abandonment of government support for the traditional family structure. This shift started in the 1960's with free and easy divorce. I don't deny that there are certainly gay couples that raise well-adjusted children, or who strive to promote virtue in their kids. Single mothers often raise fantastic kids as well. God bless them for doing so. But if government continues in the direction of taking a neutral stance toward the ideal family structure I fear that will result in negative consequences for society as a whole. As noted by Professor Robert P. George from Princeton University, the law is a teacher. It will either teach that marriage is the foundation of a particular social structure that is beneficial to the stability and freedom of society, or it will teach that marriage and family are personal choices. Where, when and how children come into the world has no bearing on their personal well being or society's welfare in general.
Gilded Dandelion, your arguments are a legitimate attack against heterosexual couples who abuse the institution and then seek to deny others the legal privileges that marriage entails. It does seem hypocritical.
The logical extension of my argument suggests then, that traditional marriage is in dire need of reform. We need to roll back easy divorce laws. Perhaps there should be a waiting time before people enter a marriage so that they can understand what they are getting into. Society is granting certain legal privileges and as such the marital contract cannot be so easily broken. In short, the only way we save traditional marriage is by reinforcing the institution.
I'm worn out so I'll have to get back to your comments later David. Hopefully this post has pushed me closer to the 'irrational idealist' label than gay-hater:)
You're putting the cart before the horse. To say nothing of morality, gay marriage is not the cause of the decline of traditional family values; gay marriage is a symptom. Traditional family values began declining a long time ago for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
David said:
"To not allow gay marriage will not change anything in respect to whether those relationships exist or not. There will not be more or less gay relationships if you allow them to marry. What a legal gay marriage will do is to protect the legal rights of children and spouses from such relationships."
I don't doubt that gay relationships will exist with or without gay marriage. We don't have gay marriage now, but gay relationships still exist. Perhaps looking at statistics of European countries that allow gay marriage would answer that question. But either way, that's irrelevant to my point. My point is that by allowing gays to marry, government is changing the meaning of marriage and the societal structure that marriage underlies. My point is that by doing so, they are removing their support from a social structure that is a bulwark against the encroachment of the state.
David said:
"As to the traditional marriage, you portray that as the "natural way" as though marriage has always thru time eternal existed as a one one male/ female relationship where in fact this type of marriage was only formalised by the Catholic church 1800 years ago and only in Europe. Before Christianity and in other parts of the world in other cultures other forms of relationships have existed and still exist."
Marriage changes somewhat from culture to culture, but not in any great degree. Certain cultures support the idea of marriage as being a man and one wife, others allow multiple wives. But to my knowledge, until recently, no culture has ever supported the idea of gay marriage. I would be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary. I'd also be interested in seeing your evidence that the one male/one female marriage was first formalized by the Catholic Church.
David said:
"You say that gay the rights movements enforce things on you where in fact "religious" societies enforce their narrow view (We are the only one true faith!) on those who have other believes. With this I mean most faiths not just Christians. Who is so arrogant as to say; only we know the one true way! I know many religious people that are appalled of this point of view because it creates 2 classes of people, the righteous and those who are wrong. Let that be decided in the afterlife by god, if there is one."
As it stands, your point is a bit hard to follow. Are you saying that a religious person who claims that his faith is "the one true faith" is somehow forcing his beliefs on someone? In what manner does someone expressing their belief enforce something on someone? People tell me things all the time that I think are nonsense. I just disregard what they say. Maybe you meant something else, and I misunderstood. Let me know if so.
As to gays enforcing their views on others, that was the point of the Catholic Charities example. The Catholic Church supports the idea of traditional marriage. They believe this is the proper environment to raise children. Besides their religious convictions, there is a host of social science research to back this belief up. Yet they were run out of the adoption business for not allowing gays to adopt from their private, religious adoption agency. That to me seems like gays forcing their beliefs on a religious group.
David said:
"I don't get your opposition to redistribution of wealth, have you ever spent any time in Europe, Scandinavia? The standard of living there for everybody is so much higher in every way. Nearly everybody can afford to go to the best universities of their country. There is so much less poverty and deprivation, so fewer murders and homeless people."
I'll try to post something in the near future about why I disagree with the idea of wealth redistribution. For the purposes of this post, my intention was simply to show that more wealth redistribution will occur with the breakdown of the family.
Thanks for your comments David!
Monroe said:
"You're putting the cart before the horse. To say nothing of morality, gay marriage is not the cause of the decline of traditional family values; gay marriage is a symptom. Traditional family values began declining a long time ago for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality."
Did you really read my post? No where do I claim that homosexuality is responsible for the decline in family values. To the contrary, I make the point that the decline in the marital institution probably began in the 1960's with laws that made divorce easier to acquire. Although I don't mention it in my post, I would agree with the idea that easy divorce laws were passed because public morality had started to decrease. So, I actually agree with you. Gay marriage is not the cause of the decline in traditional 'family values' as you call them. But the passage of gay marriage would further undermine the insitution of traditional marriage and the family structure it supports. Demonstrating that is the whole point of my post.
Keep it comin' Sam! You're right on!
Sam,
Interesting thoughts--though I recognize that this was written eons ago in blog-time. I would say that I am sympathetic to a number of your views, or at least the underlying sentiment that motivates them, but that I dissent fairly substantially when push comes to shove.
I'm not honestly interested in getting into online debates over SSM any more these days, as I lost my stomach for it around October of 2008, but sometime we should chat in person about some of these issues.
thanks for the comment Scott. I'd be interested in hearing your dissent at some point. Although, as you say, this was written some time ago and I don't even agree with everything I wrote.
Post a Comment