tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post8010867083950314236..comments2023-08-04T04:31:39.771-07:00Comments on My Life and Hard Times: Toward Marriage ClarityJames Goldberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-66107978492965668922014-02-04T12:00:40.991-08:002014-02-04T12:00:40.991-08:00"I don't think the current debate over sa..."I don't think the current debate over same-sex marriage is just about same-sex marriage. I think it's a political extension of a roughly fifty-year-old cultural debate over what marriage should mean in the modern world." – Rightfully stated. While many of us may stand at opposition and have different views on marriage, I think one thing is clear: the value of marriage has indeed devalued through time such that it sometimes is nothing more than a legal confirmation of a couple’s exclusivity.<br /><br /><a href="http://appellatelawoffice.com/" rel="nofollow">Lynette Mcguire</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05350108252911382941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-6831523590402003772013-12-20T01:05:21.547-08:002013-12-20T01:05:21.547-08:00Makemylove.com, India's leading matrimonial po...Makemylove.com, India's leading matrimonial portal site strive hard to provide you the perfect match with a touch of tradition from a wide array of community, caste, city and much more for the global Indian community you can find your life partner with help of makemylove<br />matrimonials sites india<a href="http://www.makemylove.com/all-happy-stories.aspx" rel="nofollow">Matrimonial<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497848010575434599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-6727783652345931602013-04-03T19:44:32.911-07:002013-04-03T19:44:32.911-07:00You're right about what we talk about. But as ...You're right about what we talk about. But as someone who lived in CA through Prop 8, it's pretty hard for me to feel like there wasn't some sui generis ire for same-sex marriage. Short of being called to a full-time mission, there's nothing the church asks us to do that is that intense, ever. <br /><br />It seems like we're back where we started though, because I'm happy defending a broader set of traditionalist norms against emerging alternatives (and not bother to waste my time cutting gays out of traditionalist marriage).<br /><br />Nate Oman has a great piece that just went up. "Ultimately, I think that gay marriage is a good idea. I think that recognizing gay marriage has the potential to create stronger gay families and a better environment to grow up in for the children of homosexuals. It also carries within itself the possibility for an ethic of gay chastity, which ultimately strikes me as superior to either gay celibacy or gay promiscuity." http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/04/why-gay-marriages-are-a-good-idea-but-marriage-equality-worries-me/Cynthia L.http://bycommonconsent.com/cynthia/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-2720960619499096352013-04-03T08:25:22.113-07:002013-04-03T08:25:22.113-07:00Re: "Why not go after the anti-traditionalist...Re: "Why not go after the anti-traditionalist straight people?"<br /><br />I'm pretty sure the church has been doing that for a LONG time. I've seen a lot of arguments on Facebook that basically go "marriage is in crisis anyway so it's hypocritical for religions to suddenly be worried about same-sex marriage." What those arguments miss is the constant, unrelenting, and often unpopular calls over churches, especially over the past fifty years, in defense of traditional marriage on other issues. <br /><br />Our prophets and apostles talk far more about the divorce epidemic than about same-sex marriage. Far more about premarital sex, marriage as a norm, families, accountability, etc. <br /><br />That's one reason I'm saying we need to start using separate terms. This is not just about whether marriage should be male-female or gender-neutral--and if we want to defend a broader set of "traditionalist" norms against "emerging" alternatives, we need to say so. James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-15765030118990972202013-04-02T18:41:45.977-07:002013-04-02T18:41:45.977-07:00"The thing many people seem to miss is this: ..."The thing many people seem to miss is this: interracial marriages debates were not about the definition of marriage; they were about which restrictions could be placed beyond that core definition."<br /><br />Well that's what these always come down to, right? People who support the change say that the change doesn't change the "core," and those who oppose the change say that it does. That's precisely what you and I are going back and forth on--I think a core traditionalist marriage definition isn't particularly perturbed if gays happen to not be excluded. <br /><br />"would you concede that there's a meaningful possibility that definitional change could turn out badly? Or do you fall more into the school that seems these definitional debates as smoke and mirrors to cover animus?"<br /><br />Definitional changes could turn out badly in some cases, sure. But I do also think that this particular definitional debate is, for a majority though not all of debaters on the "no" side, smoke and mirrors for animus. Deeply subliminated animus that isn't consciously being covered up by smoke and mirrors. But animus nonetheless.<br /><br />As someone who cannot reproduce biologically without artificial intervention, I'm also not personally really inclined to see interventionless procreation as being necessary to a meaningful marriage relationship. Of course the definition of marriage must include those who are statistically prone to interventionless, even accidental, procreation. I support an understanding of marriage in which creating enduring, intergenerational family dynasties is a primary purpose, and I think it would be fair to say that easily-procreating people have a starring role in that. But even conceding that point, I still don't see a lot of point going out of one's way to draw that boundary so tightly that it excludes every last person who is not so blessed. It will always be the case that the vast majority of married people fall into the prone to interventionless procreation category (gays are what 8% of the population on the high end of estimates?). Why strain at gnats trying to cut out a tiny percent? Sure, they might not really be the front line of supporting a core pillar of our traditionalist understanding of marriage. But saying that is not the same as saying that their mere presence knocks down the pillar, any more than infertile people knock down any pillars. At some point, the influence on the overall definition is so tiny that, yes, it does seem like animus to bother worrying about it. What would we think of someone who proposed laws to ban elderly (post-fertility) couples from marrying? Wouldn't it seem odd and a waste of time, even to the most zealous possible believer in the procreative pillar of marriage?<br /><br />Here's some interesting reading: http://oppenheimer.squarespace.com/blog/you-cant-talk-traditional-marriage-without-shaming-divorce-r.html Although not exactly the same as what I've been saying, it echos some themes of, "Why not go after the anti-traditionalist <i>straight</i> people?"Cynthia L.http://bycommonconsent.com/cynthia/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-62577066667438717872013-04-02T09:21:09.231-07:002013-04-02T09:21:09.231-07:00Re: the parallel universe argument
Your feeling s...Re: the parallel universe argument<br /><br />Your feeling seems to be that of the 5 values of traditionalist marriage I've outlined, 2 (a strong emotional attachment to biological procreation and a belief in two genders complementing each other) are not actually important to the institution's health. <br /><br />You may well be entirely correct. Those two may not, so to speak, be weight-bearing pillars of marriage. It may be that in a parallel universe a view of marriage could evolve with traditionalist views #1, #2, and #5, a modified #3, and no #4 and would end up functioning in almost exactly the same way 5-point traditionalist marriage here does. <br /><br />I have my doubts, though. I think #3 and #4 have value of their own. And I think that taken down those two pillars does threaten the other pillars. But I absolutely could be wrong. <br /><br />Just out of curiosity: would you concede that there's a meaningful possibility that definitional change could turn out badly? Or do you fall more into the school that seems these definitional debates as smoke and mirrors to cover animus? James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-6606546275736042332013-04-02T09:05:32.402-07:002013-04-02T09:05:32.402-07:00Since my grandparents got married over the objecti...Since my grandparents got married over the objection of an interracial marriage law, I'd like to chime in on that specifically. <br /><br />The thing many people seem to miss is this: interracial marriages debates were not about the definition of marriage; they were about which restrictions could be placed beyond that core definition. <br /><br />Everyone knew that interracial marriages were marriages. The main problem people had with them, in fact, was that they were obviously procreative. Interracial marriage bans were separate, specific laws often created to specific situations: my grandparents, for example, were informed that an Arizona statute prohibited a "Hindoo" man from marrying a Caucasian woman. When interracial marriage laws were struck down, the law code changed by dropping those laws, not by redefining what marriage meant. <br /><br />Now, people could still have argued that allowing interracial marriages would destroy marriage as an institution, but they typically didn't. They argued that interracial marriages would destroy society--because society relied on a racial classification system mixed-race kids made a mess of. The assumptions against interracial marriage didn't have to do with the definition of marriage; they had to do with definitions of race and nation and the importance many people placed on those distinctions. <br /><br />While interracial marriage debates may provide useful parallels to same-sex marriage debates in many areas, it's also important to remember key differences: like whether the definition of marriage was at stake. James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-63346232160244181422013-03-30T12:15:26.585-07:002013-03-30T12:15:26.585-07:00I've been thinking about this post off and on,...I've been thinking about this post off and on, and it occurred to me that "matrimony" might be co-opted/specialized (drawing a blank on the linguistic term for it, though I'm sure you know what I mean) as a distinguishing term for traditionalist marriage. It's gendered at its root and is already a synonym for marriage that puts an emphasis on the religious aspect. Not sure how one could turn it into a verb, but I have faith in the plasticity of the English language. :)Hillaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07966370717526592703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-60184796985702504082013-03-29T15:08:21.311-07:002013-03-29T15:08:21.311-07:00(BTW someone decades ago could equally well have s...(BTW someone decades ago could equally well have said that "Arguments for interracial marriage tend to put the individual over the institution. If one's desires don't line up with the definition of marriage, it's the definition of marriage that ought to be changed.")Cynthia L.http://bycommonconsent.com/cynthia/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-51902673339208446612013-03-29T15:00:51.733-07:002013-03-29T15:00:51.733-07:00"Arguments for same-sex marriage tend to put ..."Arguments for same-sex marriage tend to put the individual over the institution. If one's desires don't line up with the definition of marriage, it's the definition of marriage that ought to be changed."<br /><br />It may be that rhetoric sometimes goes in this direction, but I don't see it as a necessary thing to understand their participation as changing the institution in any way other than adding their participation. Put it this way, if we woke up tomorrow in a parallel universe culture where the traditionalist view of marriage was strongly held, but gays were allowed to marry, I think that could be a cultural worldview with more than enough coherence to be workable and carry enough social force to regulate behavior. (Certainly no less coherent than saying that elderly can marry or known infertile individuals can marry in a traditionalist view of marriage.) So if it is true that a coherent traditionalist view that is inclusive of gays is possible, then it is simply the technicality that we have needlessly excluded gays in the past that is necessitating their need to ask for a change, not any fundamental incompatibility, right? So then saying that what's wrong with gay marriage is the mere fact that gays are asking the institution to change becomes, to me, a really vacuous argument from tradition. You can't ask for a change because asking for a change is per se wrong?<br /><br />On the other hand, I think the scenarios you describe in your comment above *are* fundamentally incompatible with a traditionalist view of marriage. I can't imagine waking up tomorrow in a parallel universe holding strongly to a traditionalist view of marriage that also happily includes such arrangements, and seeing that that worldview has any coherence. (You've picked extreme examples; we could also talk about pride parade hedonism, but I don't see the relevance there either.) It sounds like you're sounding a slippery slope warning bell that allowing gay marriage will lead to familial anarchy, but I've been trying to argue that isn't the case. To me, that alternate universe of gay-inclusive traditionalist approach makes sense and I'd rather use whatever voice and social capital I have in the world to push towards that goal, than fight a two-front war against both gay marriage and emerging marriage when I don't see really any *necessary* connection between the two. (again, apart from rhetoric some have happened to deploy and how things happen to have unfolded historically)Cynthia L.http://bycommonconsent.com/cynthia/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-89111876353965149592013-03-29T12:20:29.133-07:002013-03-29T12:20:29.133-07:00I've known gay men who believed in traditional...I've known gay men who believed in traditionalist marriage on all five counts, including that marriage is between a man and a woman. These men experience various kinds of love, but do believe in remaining celibate. <br /><br />There are also many gay Americans who side with the traditionalists on some aspects (for example, exclusivity) and with experimenters on other aspects (for example, gender). <br /><br />As you suggest, acceptance and freedom are primary values among gay Americans, so many do fall squarely into the emergent camp. <br /><br />I don't know that we've proven that emergent marriage is less stable than traditionalist marriage. But the higher rates of divorce and continuing disappearance of strong extended family values suggests to me that something in the emergent view is trading stability for freedom. Maybe gender is not an important part of stability. But from my perspective, most changes that have been made to marriage in the name of freedom and acceptance have come at a cost in stability and so I won't be surprised if changing gender requirement represents the same freedom-stability tradeoff. James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-32652560432366444392013-03-29T12:01:42.071-07:002013-03-29T12:01:42.071-07:00Cynthia,
Thanks for the thoughts. I will try to ...Cynthia, <br /><br />Thanks for the thoughts. I will try to expand on the origin/accountability issues I see--not to persuade you to change your position, but just to show you where my reasoning is. <br /><br />In a traditionalist view, the institution is seen as extant and important outside of the individuals. People are accountable to a certain core definition of marriage they don't negotiate. <br /><br />Arguments for same-sex marriage tend to put the individual over the institution. If one's desires don't line up with the definition of marriage, it's the definition of marriage that ought to be changed. Individuals can take a more active role in choosing/negotiating what marriage will mean. The main advantages to a negotiated view are greater flexibility and freedom. The disadvantage I see is that once you start renegotiating the conditions of marriage, it's hard to feel accountable to the limits of the institution the same way. <br /><br />I'll give a concrete example: a month or so ago, I heard an interview with author Andrew Solomon. He is a very bright, very empathetic, and very articulate man I have a lot of respect for. He's also married to his male partner under Connecticut law. <br /><br />Solomon and his partner have a child (I think adopted) of their own. His partner also fathered two children for a lesbian couple and has sort of an uncle or godfather type relationship with them. A close heterosexual friend of Solomon's got divorced without children and mentioned to Solomon how she regretted not having had children of her own. So Solomon offered to donate sperm and be the biological father to a child who she's raising on her own, though with Solomon in a sort of godfather role. If I recall correctly, the three sets of children each live in different states. <br /><br />Now, from Solomon's point of view this is a cool new nontraditional family structure. He and his partner have been pioneers in redefining marriage and can also act as pioneers in redefining family. <br /><br />To me, though, this suggests that redefining the gender aspect of marriage does lead to redefinitions of other aspects. Solomon and his partner do seem to feel an accountability to their biological children, but it's a very different (and less direct) sense of accountability than I want marriage to demand from people toward their biological children. <br /><br />There's also a strong differentiation on the origin issue in terms of Solomon's biological son's mother's situation. Basically, Solomon's reasoning seems to be that if he can marry a man and raise a child, why shouldn't his unmarried friend have the joy of raising a child? <br /><br />Again, that line of argument reflects an emerging view emphasis on freedom and acceptance rather than a traditional view that marriage is an important prerequisite to childbirth. James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-17713623063603540382013-03-29T11:07:00.537-07:002013-03-29T11:07:00.537-07:00The one knitpick I have with your article and also...The one knitpick I have with your article and also with this comment is laid in number one. It's in the concept of Stability and Accountability but also in the concept of Exclusivity. Some of the first civil unions started in 2006, so we simply now do not have the data to conclude that homosexuals would not hold up those concepts of Stability and Exclusivity. If you believed in no sexual relations before marriage but marriage was not available to you, would you then say that you were not allowed to love therefore you should never have sex? Your arguments about the two types of marriage would have more value if both parties were and had been allowed to marry for longer periods of time. There is no way to conclude that just because we think they want to do this means they would or wouldn't. They haven't been given any chance to prove themselves. <br /><br />Now yes, they do seem to be on the side of the emerging... why? Because those on the side of Traditionalist have not shown themselves to even allow the discussion to take place, so of course they would be on that side. If you as a heterosexual male were not allowed to be married, and there were two groups one side who wanted you to be able to be married and one who absolutely did not, and you believed more in the aspects of marriage as defined by the ones who did not but not the concept that you should not, would you decide to side with them simply over the moral argument? Or would you side with those that would help you to get the one thing you want above all else? Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04038217283897639201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-43308361188359710752013-03-29T08:58:52.593-07:002013-03-29T08:58:52.593-07:00I don't see as obvious a connection between tr...I don't see as obvious a connection between traditionalist marriage and opposing marriage equality as you seem to. I kept looking for an explanation of that, but it seems to be taken as given much of the time: "On issues of origin and accountability, the court's findings also leaned (albeit more subtly) toward emerging marriage by prioritizing the desires of individuals over the established norms of the institution." You see "more subtly," I see "didn't."<br /><br />My own views are very traditionalist on all points except gender difference: Marriage is about stability and extends beyond the couple to creation of stable intergenerational family dynasties, sex ought to be thought of as exclusive to marriage including the premarital period, primacy of children in the definition--marriage is as much about creating a pair of parents as it is about creating a pair of spouses.<br /><br />I think that gay couples should--and can--be brought under the umbrella of this view of marriage. Indeed, for many gay couples, marriage is about exactly this. About creating a new branch in their extended family, about creating a stable foundation for the rearing of children and the lifelong support of children and grandchildren. The sense of accountability is just as strong. <br /><br />Bringing in gays to this definition of marriage would strengthen it against the real threats to marriage, which aren't gays but straight couples pushing towards the more permissive, individualistic understanding. If this traditionalist view of marriage is fighting an uphill battle for survival, don't we need all the troops we can muster on our side? <br /><br />Rejection of gays from the institution of marriage risks weakening it by causing it to take on negative connotations of "hate" and outdatedness in the eyes of younger generations. Shouldn't those of us who value marriage rejoice to see Facebook awash in an unprecedented show of visual support and enthusiasm for the institution? Would anyone have thought, in the heady days of the 1960s-1970s sexual revolution, that we would see legion young people stamping their feet demanding that marriage be seen as fundamental to participation in life and society? Let's leverage this cultural fixation on marriage, occasioned by the gay marriage debate, to re-enthrone marriage as the central organizing principle of society. My sense is that we can only do that if it includes gays. Whether any particular traditionalist sees that fact as right and just, or as a necessary concession to realpolitik is their own business, but I contend it is a fact.Cynthia L.http://bycommonconsent.com/cynthia/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-39471075811837046132013-03-29T06:47:21.954-07:002013-03-29T06:47:21.954-07:00Let's talk just about the Prop 8 case for a mo...Let's talk just about the Prop 8 case for a moment. <br /><br />The arguments in the Prop 8 case did not focus on the legal distinctions between the marriage and domestic partnerships, which were fairly limited (Israel would recognize states' marriages but not their civil unions and domestic partnerships, for example). They focused on a social and cultural weight of the word marriage.<br /><br />And it's that argument I think will prove most problematic in the long term. I agree that same-sex couples should be able to take care of each other. I don't agree that we should do that by stripping the word marriage of any restrictions. <br /><br />And if we do decide that having a definition of marriage with restrictions is discriminatory, I don't think we'll be finished by recognizing same-sex marriage. If two adult siblings who live together want the legal rights of marriage, by what reasoning should we deny them? Or is it OK to have sibling-run households counted as marriages? <br /><br />What do you think the legal and cultural normative limits on marriage should be? <br />-Should it be limited to sexual relationships? <br />-Should it be limited to non-related persons (this question sounds silly--but if two biological brothers who had been raised separately reunited and fell in love, should we bar them from marriage)? <br />-Should marriage be limited to relationships that are intended to be lifelong or should people be allowed to start fixed-term marriages? <br /><br />Which boundaries for marriage do you see as valuable--or do you think any two people should be able to decide for themselves what marriage means? James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-57282281787785692292013-03-29T06:22:26.847-07:002013-03-29T06:22:26.847-07:00In this post, I used "traditionalist" ma...In this post, I used "traditionalist" marriage rather than "traditional" marriage because I think it's important for Prop 8 proponents to acknowledge that our view of marriage, while closer to most historical views of marriage, isn't the same as every historical view of marriage. How could it be? <br /><br />A traditionalist view may can't be identical to "Biblical marriage," for example, because there are several vital differences between views of marriage within the Bible (Moses and Jesus have different standards on divorce, etc). <br /><br />As far as examples of dysfunctional marriages in traditionalist marriage: most of the examples I've seen on facebook are not from traditionalist marriages at all. Britney Spears's marriage is based on emerging view assumptions. And religious leaders have been arguing against those assumptions for a long time. Blaming many oppressive, unhappy marriages on traditionalist marriage may be fair. Blaming traditionalist marriage for Britney Spears's break-up is not. James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-54239009113040389282013-03-29T06:06:00.978-07:002013-03-29T06:06:00.978-07:00Bianca, thanks for the comments.
A few clarifica...Bianca, thanks for the comments. <br /><br />A few clarifications: <br /><br />1) I don't find "freedom and acceptance" mutually exclusive with "stability and accountability." I just think that the two camps prioritize different ones. Emergent view advocates often do value stability/accountability, but their argument focus on freedom/acceptance. Traditionalists value freedom/acceptance, but tend to prioritize questions about stability/accountability. (In my metaphor: there's red in oranges, but the yellow is more dominant than in apples. There's juice is apples, but also more fiber than in oranges.) <br /><br />2) Many people prefer BS degrees. Others prefer BA degrees. Many prefer emergent marriage. I prefer traditionalist marriage. I don't believe any given American should value all relationships equally: I'm saying that if we're honest, the division isn't between gay and straight marriage, it's between emergent and traditionalist assumptions. I can think Britney Spears's marriage was built on poor assumptions; plenty of people think my marriage is built on backwards assumptions. But maybe we would get along better if we used clearer names for those assumptions. <br /><br />3) I definitely believe that individual people in same-sex relationships can and do sacrifice for each other and can have stable relationships. That's real. I'm not as convinced that over a broad population the assumptions of emergent marriage will lead to sacrifice at the same rates. But we'll see. Let's say emergent marriages are actually stronger than traditionalist ones: if they had their own name, it would likely gradually become more valued as a direct function of their success. Let's say we did keep "civil union." Gradually, the stories of gay and straight couples who chose that designation would give weight, history, and meaning to the term. James Goldberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14422536627746885883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-41193004424792465412013-03-28T22:58:59.656-07:002013-03-28T22:58:59.656-07:00What would you think about legally calling all uni...What would you think about legally calling all unions, "civil unions" and saving marriage for the religious ceremony? <br />That's actually what I vote for. I think it keeps things equal, allows us freedom to define things for ourselves and I think it would help reinforce the division between church and state that I feel would actually allow for greater freedom of religion. (not that I'm worried that if same sex marriage becomes legal it will put in jeopardy religious freedom, but some people are, and I just think it's a good practice to separate those things when we see them still tangled up.) <br />Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109158365404253711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-17940139414217448542013-03-28T22:09:31.701-07:002013-03-28T22:09:31.701-07:00I like a lot of what you have to say, James. I, to...I like a lot of what you have to say, James. I, too, look forward to a day when we will be able to see differences and not feel the need to be defensive about it. I also think we should allow those differences. That said, here are some things I wanted to take a closer look at in your argument. <br /><br />I think your comparison of BS & BA to marriage and civil unions falls short because we still value heterorosexual relationships over homosexual relationships—this is your admitted value system as well. Our society is dubbed heteronormative for a reason. Just because 60% or so of people don't see a legal reason to not let homosexual people get married does not mean we think homosexual relationships are just as good as heterosexual relationships, but simply for different people. (But that’s what you hope will ultimately happen—heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions ?) <br /><br />We prize marriage over civil unions, we prize heterosexual over homosexual. Until those words and their corresponding definitions, as you lay them out in your argument, are actually prized as two equal options--well, they won't be equal. And so we are back to the separate but equal conundrum. You say, “I see a vital difference between separate physical facilities and separate words.” The problem with separate but equal in my mind is that we prized white over black and that showed in the way we treated black people—in the case of segregation, it showed up in the physical facilities people had access to based on the color of their skin, and the quality of those facilities were based on what color of skin we as a society prized. I think there is a valid concern that if we call unions by separate names, but still value one over the other, this value system will be codified in a word and the discrimination homosexual people currently face will persist. I wonder how you can argue that separate but equal is not a problem when this assumption is embedded in your very argument?<br /><br />Personally I’m all for all legal unions to be called civil unions and let the definition of marriage rest in the hands of individual religions, but that, too, is not the debate we are currently having. <br /><br />I also see it being problematic that embedded in your argument is the assumption that because homosexual people don’t have clearly defined gender roles and are not currently capable of biological reproduction with one another that they don’t value all the other things traditional marriage values and are therefore incapable of “stable” and “responsible” relationships. <br /><br />What makes you feel that the same sorts of “sacrifices generations of traditionalists have made for the institution's sake” will not be made by those relationships composed of the same sex instead of the opposite sex? <br /><br />I also find it troubling that you find “freedom and acceptance” in a mutually exclusive position with “stability and accountability.” And I don’t think I’m missing the point, because you compare them to apples and oranges and apples cannot be oranges and oranges cannot be apples—that’s the point. <br />Biancahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109158365404253711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-4737806439263962612013-03-28T21:30:36.401-07:002013-03-28T21:30:36.401-07:00That was refreshing. Thank you for the courage to...That was refreshing. Thank you for the courage to share. I think the problem is that people, in the name of "fairness" want to get rid of all rules in case they might make someone feel "uncomfortable". You cannot be a true Christian and separate your behavior from your beliefs. Moral ambiguity will not lead to a better life. Most people just want to be free to do want they want to do. That sounds nice but if we truly followed that philosophy we would have no need for a justice system. There are many people who feel like they don't fit the mold. But the answer is not to break the mold. The ideal is still there and attainable. The church response was correct when they stated the legal problems it would cause to anyone with any Biblical standards at all. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is their discomfort worth losing the right of a church to practice their religion? That is what this is all about. There are laws that can be, and have been passed that provide "rights." A same gender couple is not the same, biologically, emotionally, legally as a traditional marriage. It may be possible to raise healthy children, but as a whole it turns society on its head. The defense of examples of disfunctional relationships in traditional marriage does not make the case. No amount of legislation will change what it is. Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831121827785260989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-75478762732914006352013-03-28T20:36:51.893-07:002013-03-28T20:36:51.893-07:00I really liked how you laid out the two different ...I really liked how you laid out the two different types of marriage at the top. We really are speaking past each other, probably much of the time. If I defined marriage the modern way, I'd think SSM was a go, too, but since I am a traditionalist, I just can't give up all those historical connotations. Also loved your conclusions. It will be interesting to see how this goes.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11450808986911204788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-25078296586310816592013-03-28T19:46:07.108-07:002013-03-28T19:46:07.108-07:00Thanks for taking the time to go into such detail....Thanks for taking the time to go into such detail. I think you've given a bunch of us a voice with this article.Adam Stallardhttp://www.goalzen.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-43073594346210020042013-03-28T19:32:52.394-07:002013-03-28T19:32:52.394-07:00I was happy to find this article. Good insights. N...I was happy to find this article. Good insights. Nice to see other perspectives. Menoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-64526421298552996452013-03-28T17:00:41.802-07:002013-03-28T17:00:41.802-07:00"I see a vital difference between separate ph..."I see a vital difference between separate physical facilities and separate words." There is a difference, but I'd say the difference between civil unions and marriage is closer to separate facilities than words. They're legal ones instead of physical, but that's still a pretty big deal.<br /><br />It's not just words. Civil unions are a separate part of the legal code. In some states that part of the code may mirror the marriage laws, but they're still separate laws. There were probably some "coloreds" restrooms that were actually equal facilities. It was still legal separation. And of course in many states the civil unions are separate and clearly unequal, granting nowhere near the same rights of marriage, just like public facilities were.<br /><br />Separate is inherently unequal, even when the laws mirror each other (and I most emphasize again that they often don't). Separate laws means its a matter of politics. What is given can be taken away. Operating under the same laws make it a matter of justice.<br /><br />I don't think you're a hate filled bigot; you don't believe in legal discrimination. But still you're supporting it, because you think it's just about words (which I agree are also important and matter), but really it's about legal right, just like it's being presented.Enoch Allrednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8005038831999639346.post-67865194723319071612013-03-28T16:04:52.774-07:002013-03-28T16:04:52.774-07:00HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAClevernamenoreply@blogger.com