porcelainprincess wrote:A fundamental premise of the "First Things" essay, and indeed, the anti-gay marriage camp as a whole, is that same-sex marriage "...would radically change the customs, laws, and moral expectations embedded in millennia of human experience." This is easily shot down, as a multitude of customs have changed radically over time, some of them now almost universally seen as untenable, such as human sacrifice and slavery, and arguing for preventing change to customs per se is weak, if not incoherent.
Amen & well said... culture, by its very nature is a changeable entity. If it does not change, evovle, adapt (whatever word you plan to use), it becomes stagnant and will eventually die out. As you mentioned, there are many customs, laws, and moral expectations that are drastically different than they were even 100 years ago -- woman's suffrage, segregation/civil rights, to name two you didn't.
Sure, the evidence suggests strongly that a stable, healthy society is one where the majority of children are raised by fathers and mothers together...
I will allow that two-parent-opposite-sex (TOSP) households may be better. However, that does not mean that a two-parent-same-sex household (TPSS) is detrimental. "Better" is not "best," nor does it, by its meaning imply that same-sex households are bad. It is a comparative word. For example, if my bf is shorter than me, that doesn't make him short. It just makes him less tall than me. (By the way, I'm 198cm/6'6" and he's 187cm/6'. Anyone think he is short? Especially for a Taiwanese?!?!?)
The jury is still out on whether a society with a large percentage of same-sex couples raising children would not be detrimental... though I would say that it surely could be detrimental, as children in large numbers are robbed of immediate role models of one of the sexes... This is not taking into account other factors such as the stability of the parental relationship, of course.
Yes, a TPSS household would not provide a role model for an opposite-sex (to the parents) child. But, as you mentioned, neither do single-parent homes. Very few people, today, would say that single parents can not successfulyl raise children. In fact, some women are now choosing to have children without getting married or having a father involved, other than the sperm donor. Single-parent houses are no longer the exception, though I don't know that they are the norm, either. My point is, how do these single-parents deal with providing role models for opposite-sex children? Why could a TPSS household not provide role models in similar ways.
Plus, wouldn't a two parent household, whether opposite- or same-sex, be better for the child, overall, than a single-parent one? I would think there would be more support & more stability. Talking of that, I definitely think you have to take into account the stability of the relationship. There are many TPOS households where the relationship between the parents is horrible and/or ends in divorce. Wouldn't a stable home, even a TPSS household be better for the child?
But the answer to that is that there is no danger that America is going to "go gay" in a large way. Even those on the far right are beginning to accept that it is not a choice, but part of one's chemical/physiological makeup affecting a small percentage of the people out there.
I lived in an conservative, Christian, opposite-sex parented, stable relationship home for 25 years. I am still a gay man!
If being part of a certain "environment" influence your sexuality, than why am I gay. And, to extend that idea, why are there homosexuals at all? For most of history... until the last decade?... homosexuals (individuals or couples) raising children was unheard of.
Therefore, the overwhelming majority of those of us who are gay grew up in "straight" households. So, if environment plays a role in sexual orientation choice, why were we not "influenced" to be straight, instead of gay? Especially considering the fact that, even today when gays & lesbians are more visible, the whole of society is basically heterosexual-oriented (and the majority of people out there are actually straight). Where did this "gay influence" come from that caused us all to be straight?
Having said that, even though same-sex couples raising children will be a small percentage of the people as a whole, there's a chance they would congregate in certain communities and thereby make up a larger percentage of the local populace.
The reason that many homosexuals congregate in certain cities or areas of cities is because it is a place they can go and feel comfortable. Out in the "general society" they can face a lot of prejudice. Therefore, I think that, if society could accepted those same-sex families as just as valid as opposite-sex families, there would be no need for "same-sex family communities."
Another standard complaint was uttered just now by Jerry Falwell on CNN. To wit: if we allow gays to marry, then what about men and boys, as per NAMBLA? That's easily shot down as well: marriage is to be prescribed as a public union between consenting adults.
Humans and dogs? Consenting human adults.
You covered this one fine... I won't even comment further.
A brother and sister? Brother and brother? Father/mother and son/daughter? This is where it gets icky for some. If there is no coherent argument against gay marriage (and I don't believe there is), then it follows that there is no coherent argument against incestuous marriage
Um... I don't have any research to back this up, but I would think that incestuous marriages already take place from time to time. At the very least we know that there are incestuous relationships out there. Hey, just watch Jerry Springer.
Seriously... I don't believe that allowing same-sex marriage would encourage incest. Incest has existed for a long time and probably always will. As for having to accept incestuous marriages, if you accept same-sex marriages... I'd have to say you are probably right. There is no way to defend/oppose one without defending/opposing another.
There probably is no logical, nor moral/ethical, prohibition against incest or incestuous marriages. Well, with the exception of the the "ick" factor, which is based, I think, in the biological prohibition that close members of the same genetic family procreating is not a pretty thing, causing genetic glitches and such. Even so, I doubt that the percentage of people who engage in incest and
would be interested in marriage is very large. If it was, I think you would have seen more political actionism on this by now.
Ditto with polygamy. No argument against it makes sense if you allow same-sex marriage.... proponents of gay marriage are going to get tripped up by their own logic if they try to argue that two gays should be able to get married, but three gays should not. I've already seen a couple of advocates side-step this very question in televised debates.
Again, I'm not sure there are ethical/moral prohibitions against this. It was certainly a part of Biblical history. And, even today, there are many societies/cultures that still allow it. Though, why you would want more than one partner, is beyond me.
One is enough! But... that is another thread.
As for 3 gay men getting married to each other... that would never happen. Too much drama! TOO MUCH DRAMA!! Sheesh, you don't know gay men, do you!?!?! :mrgreen: