Ruth Institute Blog

Strong words. Dead on. Misandry and Misogyny are the order of the day.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. How utterly bizarre and nonsensical. To argue that social welfare policies create single parenthood, instead of providing a safety net for the poorest of the poor, for women who are leaving domestic abuse situations, for disabled, for families who could not otherwise survive, reveals an utter lack of understanding about the causes of poverty and the need for welfare. To suggest that to protect women and children and allow a means for female heads of households to be economically independent of abusive and controlling men or to feed their children when the fathers abandon those children amounts to a promotion of single parenthood is intellectually dishonest and, worse, displays a gross lack of empathy or compassion for some of the most vulnerable citizens: poor women and their children.

But wait! It gets even worse from there and goes into total non sequitur mode. After blaming fiscal policies that help the poor for actually causing the irresponsibility of men who can create babies but not help to support or raise them, it then compares the plight of impoverished single mothers and their children with women who are infertile and might consider IVF as a means to become mothers, which clearly, would be a planned decision instead of an unplanned pregnancy. Somehow, these infertile women, some who may be in same-sex relationships and therefore would not function as single parents if they did elect IVF, will end up just like the impoverished single mothers and their children will all turn into thugs.

Finally, to compound the irrationality and add illogical insult to injury, Ari connects all of this to the quest for marriage equality by gays and lesbians, as if that had any bearing whatsoever on the ability or desire of heterosexual men to be responsible for the children they bring into this world and to refrain from abusing women and children. Man, I know that right-wing arguments rely on a lot of logical fallacies and untruths about human beings, but seriously, this may be one of the worst examples I’ve seen in a while!

Here’s a few bullet points to help you figure a few things out, from a person who has actually been an unwed single mother on welfare, has an almost-grown and amazingly well-rounded, healthy, and successful child born out of wedlock, and is now in a same-sex relationship raising a toddler with another woman:

1. The cycle of poverty is a multi-faceted and complicated phenomenon that can nevertheless be reduced to an essential truth of inadequate income to support one’s self and/or one’s family.

2. Without welfare policies to help poor women and children, you would force some women to remain with abusive male partners, and other women would have no means to feed, clothe and house their children if their male partners decided to leave them.

3. The very best anti-poverty measures are good-paying jobs and affordable and reliable child care.

4. Economic dependence on men by women is a frightening thing if you are a woman, especially if you are a woman in an abusive relationship, in one in which your partner cheats, or even in one in which your partner is economically unreliable or otherwise unable for any reason not to work (unemployment, disability, etc.).

5. Women who are not sexually attracted to men neither hate men nor want to encourage widespread fatherlessness, and they are in no way preventing heterosexual men from being responsible for the children they father with other women.

6. Gay men are not preventing heterosexual men from being responsible for the children they father.

7. Gays and lesbians wanting to get married has nothing whatsoever to do with heterosexual men being responsible for the children they father.

8. Infertile women who make a planned decision to become single mothers are different from women on welfare with children who are impoverished.

9. The problems associated with poor single mothers and their children do not stem solely from a lack of involved fathers, or from a lack of marriage. Instead, there are many other factors such as: lack of education, the stress of single parenthood, trauma, domestic abuse, substance abuse, bitter divorces and father abandonment, disabilities, poor employment opportunities, lack of adequate and affordable child care, and others.

10. NONE of the above-mentioned problems associated with poverty and single parenthood have anything whatsoever to do with gays and lesbians getting married, nor do they have anything to do with the outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents.

Hope the list helps. Hey, you don’t have to believe me, though. I’ve only lived it; what would I know?

Oh, and Marty, there’s no need for you to read man-hating into policies intended to help poor people, nor a desire by gays and lesbians to get married and/or raise children. I promise that man-hating has nothing to do with either.

And what in the world does a small percentage of gay and lesbian people wanting to get married and/or raise children have to do with “mass fatherlessness?” Don’t even give me the crap about disconnecting the idea of children with the norm of male + female + marriage = family. Regardless of the minority percentage of same-sex marriages and the children raised in them, the vast majority of babies are still going to come from, and be raised within, heterosexual relationships. It does not follow that gay marriage will lead to mass fatherlessness. That just doesn’t make even a lick of sense. Mass fatherlessness has been around long before the queers started pushing for equality, and might I suggest, as in the rape discussion, that such a phenomenon suggests a problem with MEN?

Heidi, I’ve got nothing against policies that help the poor, but YOUR comments positively REEK of Misandry.

Reading up, it’s almost as if you’ve never even met a man who wasn’t abusive.

As a matter of fact, Marty, I absolutely HAVE met plenty of men who are not abusive, my daughter’s father included! See, unlike many teenage boys (and even adult men) who become fathers, he stepped up to the plate and helped to support and raise his child. He is a good man and a good father, even if we weren’t a great couple together. All I’m saying is there is nothing preventing men from being good fathers, especially the quest for marriage equality. But let’s be realistic about the REAL cause of fatherlessness–decisions made by individual men to walk away from their children, or decisions made by women to leave men who are abusive to them. Gays and lesbians have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

And actually Ari, my comments couldn’t be further from your sarcastic offering from Ms. Baez. I’ve worked in child abuse prevention before becoming an attorney, I’ve seen family breakdown, I’ve represented women who have left abusive spouses, and I’ve seen the detrimental effects on children of abuse and abandonment. My position has nothing to do with singing Kumbaya. Instead of denigrating gays, lesbians and poor women, why don’t you focus your animosity where it belongs–on men who fail their children?

LOL! Don’t blame me! I’m not wearing rose-colored glasses here, but I DO think that abuse can be lessened by a variety of means, not the least of which is teaching our boys at a young age that violence is not the answer to life’s problems, that women and girls are deserving of respect and equality, that women and girls are not here to serve men and boys, but instead to work with them as equal partners, and that it’s okay to have more than the one emotion that males seem to feel free to express in our society: anger.

Don’t get me wrong–I am not anti-marriage. But I don’t think that marriage is the solution to all of society’s woes. What good does it do to encourage marriage for women involved in violent relationships? None. What good does it do to encourage people to stay married when they clearly hate each other? None. If anything, men AND women need parenting skills, conflict resolution skills, and communication skills. I am happy to see a couple that stays together and successfully raises their children (whether that couple is straight OR gay); but I am ALSO happy when I see couples who can successfully and responsibly co-parent their children even if they don’t stay together. It IS possible. I did it. Was it always easy? No. I am a human being, and had to work very hard sometimes to keep any conflict that I had with my daughter’s father away from my daughter. And I’m sure he had to do the same with his feelings toward me. But we did it. Our daughter knows we both love and support her. She knows that we remain friends to this day. And because we were able to act like grown-ups and put her first, she ended up turning out okay even though we never married and even though we didn’t stay together. Marriage is not some golden solution to societal ills. It is merely one way of helping some families. And same-sex couples and their children could benefit from it just as much as straight couples and their children can and often do!

” But let’s be realistic about the REAL cause of fatherlessness–decisions made by individual men to walk away from their children, or decisions made by women to leave men who are abusive to them. Gays and lesbians have nothing whatsoever to do with it.”

I could give you countless examples of both men AND women who have walked away from their marriages & families because they up and decided they were gay/lesbian. Nothing whatsoever to do with it???

In fact, stats I’ve seen show that the majority of gay/lesbian households with children are children of previous failed heterosexual marriages. So it’s not as if anyone is “denied” a right to marry — they simply chose something different this time around.

People ARE denied a right to marry–the person that they love and want to spend their lives with, that is. Your examples of men and women who walked away from their marriages and their families because they were gay/lesbian only serves to prove the point that sexual orientation isn’t something you can fake. Regardless of the lies that someone may tell themselves to fit in, eventually the truth becomes too hard to ignore. As it becomes more and more acceptable for people to be who they are, you’ll see less and less examples of sham marriages ending in tragedy when the reality of a person’s real sexual orientation becomes too difficult to repress.

Okay Marty, how’s about we simply go the (supposed) Catholic route and deny remarriage to ALL divorcees? Then it would at least be consistent to deny it to same-sex couples. I’ll go for that.

In any case, I think rationally there needs to be a clear separation between fatherlessness due to single-parenting, and fatherlessness due to lesbian couples. Same with motherlessness on the flip side. Single-parent families have so many handicaps, God bless ‘em. I can’t imagine being a single parent- it scares me to death and is one in a long line of reasons why I would never consider divorcing…despite that others tell me I should. My wife and I have each other to tag when we get exasperated, or need a break with friends away from the kids. I have her to provide the kiddos love and direction, and a drive to soccer or baseball, when I’m at work. Having two parents makes a big difference, I just don’t maintain there HAS to be both a penis and a vagina involved. Simply a head and a heart, and a lot of love and patience.

Having two parents makes a big difference, I just don’t maintain there HAS to be both a penis and a vagina involved.

Actually, that’s EXACTLY what’s required. You, me, and everyone we’ll ever meet in our entire lives is the result of exactly one penis and one vagina.

Heidi says “sexual orientation is something you can’t fake”. Mother Nature laughs at your silly pretentions of “orientation”, and tells you just like she tells everyone: If you want to start a family, you’re going to have to do something very, very heterosexual. Fake it if you must, but there is no other way.

Sexual orientation doesn’t create families OR marriages. Only the combination of a man and a woman can do that. Orientation isn’t even relevant.

Oh, oh! I feel another quip coming on. “Mother Nature” says humans can’t fly, but technology gets me to the other coast in 5 hours. “Mother Nature ” says humans can’t hold their breath more than about 20 seconds or so, but my wife stays down 30 mins or more with SCUBA gear. “Mother Nature” has said a lot of things over the years, but we were given dominion by God over this world and By God we’re using that incredible brain God gifted us with to grow beyond the limitations of our biology. Be my guest if you want to return to subsistence agriculture and animal pelts. Guess we won’t hear from you again as the internets were never envisioned by “mother nature” either.

Lawfully, when two lesbians get together to “create a family” by sperm donation and turkey basters, there is still a completely heterosexual act taking place. They’ve just sterilized the ickyness away, so you don’t have to put up with a hairy sweaty man on your back.

He’s still there though, perhaps a little embarrassed, quietly wanking into a cup for a measly $50. Mother Nature is not amused by gender bias and neither am I.

Okay, Marty. Help me understand where “gender bias” exists here. You’ve said the phrase several times, but I’m not getting it the reference here. Be patient and descriptive- I can be a bit dense despite my 8 years of college level studies and three degrees…

lawfully_wedded_wife said: “I think rationally there needs to be a clear separation between fatherlessness due to single-parenting, and fatherlessness due to lesbian couples.”

LWW, you have not made the clear seperation. If it is as important as you say, then, you might make that your first task in your next comment.

Tell us what it is about lesbianism, or same-sex sexual attraction, or same-sex sexual behavior among women that makes the distinction or seperation that you’ve asserted.

If it is not about that stuff, then, any two persons who mutually support one another would suffice to meet your implied bilinear factor. Two persons. Like a mom and grandmom. Like two sisters.

If it comes back to lesbianism, then, you can respond by assuming that the mom and grandmom are both lesbians but the sisters are not.

The bilinear factor in marriage is found in the integration of the sexes and the provision for responsible procreation (uniting motherhood, as a social institution, with fatherhood, as a social institution, to create a foundational social institution based on this TYPE of man-woman relationship). But that is not what your comments embrace. You have been rather mysteriously skipping over it as if there was something glaringly obvious to you but beyond your desire, or ability, to articulate clearly.

LWW: When a gay man tells me he cannot possibly love a woman — because she’s a woman, or when a lesbian tells me she cannot possibly love a man — they’re demonstrating simple sexist bigotry.

The ONLY thing preventing gays and lesbians from marrying, anywhere in the USA, is their bias against the opposite sex.

@Marty: Hmmm, then I’m really confused now, Marty. It seems then that bisexuals would be the only ones not guilty of gender bias. They would simply settle on the most compatible mate w/o regard to concave or convex. Avowed heterosexuals and homosexuals both have already winnowed the field by half based on an arbitrary gender criteria before they start.

@Chaim: I find your tone towards me throughout the various blogs here aggressive, derisive, and most of all disrespectful. I have engaged in bilateral civil and respectful conversation with Marty, Karen Grube, and Arlemagne. I hope you can consider your words and engage me more constructively.

Fatherlessness due to single parenting means there is no backup. No one to turn to when you’ve had it “up to here” with a child who has smeared feces all over her room. A child who has hidden his homework for three weeks running. Two children who need to be at activities on separate ends of town at the same time. Fatherlessness due to a dedicated lesbian couple means none of those things. Likewise, the same exact thing can be said of motherlessness due to single parenting or due to a dedicated gay male couple.

As far as your other questions to me, yes, I believe two dedicated and loving individuals of either sex , both committed to the task for life, could provide an effective home to children. This is one of the many reasons why domestic partnership laws allow for recognizing non-sexualized couples. Marriage takes this a step further in that two people dedicate their lives to each other for both the purpose of childrearing AND as support for each other for as long as they live. A relationship on a level that excludes of all others- forever. A relationship that, while not requiring sexual relationships, excludes such with all others, again forever. I don’t see the examples you describe entering into such a relationship. That said, while I hadn’t thought about it before this, I’d say it would certainly extend from my logic. I will say, however, that laws against progeny by first-degree relatives are in existence for a very scientific reason, and affect this discussion entirely differently from the equal protection arguments for the rights of relationships. I will also add for completeness that the relationship needs to be consenting between adults.

Again, my point ultimately boils down that two people who commit themselves to each other, exclusively, for life, regardless of gender, should be allowed the benefits of marriage when they undertake the responsibilities. When kids are involved, those kids should benefit from the same social constructs, whether their parents are same-sex or opposite sex. If you want to create a separate institution that affords all the rights and responsibilities, but avoids the term marriage, I’m open as long as it really is equal in all but name. Federal benefits- joint filing, Social Security and Medicare, etc. should benefit same-sex and opposite sex unions equally when the commitment is the same.

This is a vigorous discussion of a serious subject, LWW, and my focus is on the content of comments. Your comments have come under severe scrutiny because of respect, not disrespect, and the expectation that you will at least attempt to make substantive comments that at least touch on the given topics.

Your personal details are not good content for this discussion, in my view, because that easily and quickly (and perhaps inadvertently) leads to the sort of hyper-personalization in which you have indulged and of which now you would accuse me.

Focus on content and you won’t feel so bad about the scrutiny in a public discussion, I think.

LWW, if you are talking about an extra pair of hands rather than lesbianism, why do you emphasize lesbianism in your previous comments?

Your response did not make the seperation clear. Instead you compared single parenting with parenting by twosomes. Extra hands are also available in the other nonsexualized scenarios. And also in sexualized polygamous and polyandrist scenarios. As is commitment and love and attention to the well-being of the adults and the children.

Indeed, those scenarios I explictly gave as illustrative examples are lifetime relationships — mom and grandmom, two sisters. And two non-related and non-lesbian mothers could band together with the same longterm commitment you idealized.

LWW said: “I will say, however, that laws against progeny by first-degree relatives are in existence for a very scientific reason, and affect this discussion entirely differently from the equal protection arguments for the rights of relationships.”

That “very scientific reason” is what, precisely? Please raise it to the surface. Thanks.

Not all types of relationships are marriage. You’d agree, I assume, but please confirm. You are speaking of a very vague type of relationship and calling it marriage while denying the core meaning of the marital type of relationship. You offer an alternative set of criteria which naturally extends beyond the limits of a lesbian-centric ideal.

In-sum you have not yet provide the distinction had previously claimed to be of such great importance to outcomes for children.

As for marriage, it has a structure that you seek to abolish from the law and from social policy and, indeed, that the SSM campaign seeks to abolish from the culture.

LWW, yes bisexuals would appear to be the most honest about their sexuality than anyone else. Can a straight man love another man? Conventional wisdom tells us no, but, the historical record is littered with counter-examples: men can and do love each other regularly, in prisons, aboard ship, just about anywhere that women are in short supply. Likewise ostensibly “straight” women are equally flexible, so forgive me if i call BS on any claims of “I just can’t love someone of the other gender, because they’re of the other gender.”

I know simple bigotry when I see it. Funny how gender isn’t supposed to matter when two women create a fatherless child (as if that were anything but a legal fiction!), yet suggest that either one of them actually love a man, and feel the wrath and scorn! Either gender matters to “family”, or it doesn’t. Which is it?

@Chairm:

Your personal details are not good content for this discussion, in my view, because that easily and quickly (and perhaps inadvertently) leads to the sort of hyper-personalization in which you have indulged and of which now you would accuse me.

They are the basis of my entrance into this discussion, and I freely admit they then become game for the discussion when I share them as a basis for discussion. Still, this discussion, even without personal details, is much more real to me given it is the very existence of my marriage we’re talking about here, with very practical effects on my wife and kids that have been discussed. My situation also provides useful anecdote to suggest the worth of further study with a much larger N, also something we’re discussing elsewhere.

LWW, if you are talking about an extra pair of hands rather than lesbianism, why do you emphasize lesbianism in your previous comments?

The original blogpost emphasized fatherlessness,which would be an element general to lesbian pairings and not gay male pairings. We could have been discussing motherlessness and gay male pairings just as easily.

Your response did not make the seperation clear. Instead you compared single parenting with parenting by twosomes. Extra hands are also available in the other nonsexualized scenarios. And also in sexualized polygamous and polyandrist scenarios. As is commitment and love and attention to the well-being of the adults and the children.

Non-sexualized couplings that make the same commitment to each other and the kids as I describe above would qualify to my mind. I exclude polyamory/polygamy based on a clear legal distinction- the fiscal impact would be objectively different than couplings. A gay male pairing and a lesbian pairing, or the equivalent non-sexualized same sex pairings, would have no net difference from two opposite sex pairings, sexualized or not. Poly circumstances would potentially confer benefits to multiple people from one “payor”, and therefore have a very different and objectively measurable impact than couplings. This would be a measurable “harm”, at least as perceived by many, that places such circumstances in a different class.

That “very scientific reason” is what, precisely? Please raise it to the surface. Thanks.

Genetics. More likely combinations of hazardous recessive traits.

Indeed, those scenarios I explictly gave as illustrative examples are lifetime relationships — mom and grandmom, two sisters. And two non-related and non-lesbian mothers could band together with the same longterm commitment you idealized.

Yes they could. If they were done in an exclusive, life-long arrangement then it should be possible, just as it is already perfectly legal with a non-related and non-sexual mother and father both with children from previous relationships. Asexual marriages of convenience are already possible between a man and a women, why not between two men or two women? The first-degree relative limitation is a rational restriction against risky progeny. Would it make sense to reconsider if there was some insurance against progeny? Perhaps. That again isn’t same-sex specific, as we could be talking a father and an adult daughter or opposite sex adult siblings.

Thank you for making clear we’re talking adults here. I appreciate your recognition of my “consenting adults” criteria and not ascribing other agendas to me that are clearly not mine given what I’ve shared of my background.

Not all types of relationships are marriage. You’d agree, I assume, but please confirm. You are speaking of a very vague type of relationship and calling it marriage while denying the core meaning of the marital type of relationship. You offer an alternative set of criteria which naturally extends beyond the limits of a lesbian-centric ideal. In-sum you have not yet provide the distinction had previously claimed to be of such great importance to outcomes for children.

As stated, asexual marriages of convenience are legal between consenting adults of opposite sex that aren’t already in a recognised union. I see no reason to view otherwise identical same-sex circumstances with any more prejudice.

As for marriage, it has a structure that you seek to abolish from the law and from social policy and, indeed, that the SSM campaign seeks to abolish from the culture.

Perhaps some do, but I don’t. I’m even willing to up the ante. Divorce should be freely allowed to all, but unless serious cause is provided (felony conviction, repeated infidelity, documented abuse (yes, that’s a big out, but it has to be allowed), etc), the instigator of it should be denied remarriage ever again, whether same sex or opposite sex. This would make EVERYONE think hard before entering the union, and prevent the frivolous from abusing the privilege. It would deal with people like Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and others who I hold far more accountable for the sorry state of marriage today than I.

@Marty: Sorry my response to you had to fall below and tangle of words above.

As far as loving another sex, perhaps. But why should they? If they find their soul-mate and they have similar plumbing, why should they not dedicate themselves to that person? I just don’t see why sex has to be this absolute winnowing criteria. I’ve been honest, I actually prefer men. The only woman I know now that I can imagine rolling in the hay in is my wife. Not because of her sex, but because of who she IS.

I know some bisexuals who have a great quote, “I love people, not genitals.”

And yes, some prefer only the same sex. But then, some prefer just the opposite sex, and there are people, usually men, who will kill when clear sexual opposites become blurry. Gender bias as you describe it is a human condition, not a gay or straight condition. Again, at least to my mind.

LWW your personal details are unverifiable and I don’t think folks would really be interested in taking the steps necessary to verify your account. It is human nature for people to embellish. They do so with resumes. They do so with eye witness accounts of auto accidents and the like. They do so with their family stories. So, no, your anecdotes provide nothing that adds substantially to the discussion of the disagreement about which you claimed to have come here to learn more. You are not really listening if you still think that hyper-personalization is the “real” way to wrestle with the societal significance of this foundational social institution. Or, for that matter, the hypothetical societal significance you might assign to your vague and impracticable SSM idea.

LWW said: “We could have been discussing motherlessness and gay male pairings just as easily.”

My points still stand. You are emphasizing the sexualized context for an adult relationship for the purposes of raising children. All-male or all-female, the lack of the other sex pertains. Since the original blogpost is about fatherlessness, you emphasized lesbianism. I await your reasons for doing so when discussing outcomes for children — when their are millions of non-lesbian (and non-gay) arrangements that are same-sexed that raise children. Do you truly believe that lesbianism makes mothering more effective than these other nonsexualized contexts?

LWW said: “I exclude polyamory/polygamy based on a clear legal distinction- the fiscal impact would be objectively different than couplings.”

We have been discussing parenting and extra hands. You still have not made the substantive seperation you said was of importance to outcomes for children.

LWW said:

1. Re raising children: “Non-sexualized couplings that make the same commitment to each other and the kids as I describe above would qualify to my mind.”

2. Re prohibition on related people: “Genetics. More likely combinations of hazardous recessive traits.”

You said this was a “very scientific reason”. Yet you know that two women who are related cannot be prohibited on that basis.

Some related people can marry; some cannot. What is the scientific basis for drawing the line of an absolute ban on opposite-sexed related people? If you are going to emphasize responsible procreation, then, you cannot take the standard pro-SSM line that procreation has zilch to do with the meaning of marriage and the boundaries around it. Please reconcile your remarks.

I should also point out that related people can adopt or use third party procreation; since these means of attaining children features prominently in your comments, it now appears that your emphasis on lesbianism is pro-gay bigotry — at least in substance if not in intent. Intent is unclear in your comments but you could clairfy.

Also you are acknowledging that lines can be drawn on eligibility based on procreation and the opposite-sexed sexual basis for consummation and presumption of paternity and adultery — and that basis does not fit the one-sexed arrangement nor the nonsexualized type of relationship. That arrangement and that type of relationship are what you have said is a-okay, in your view, for eligibility based solely on commitment. Yet related opposite-sexed people are certainly capable of such commitment. As are polygamous and polyandrous people.

The line drawining you have described, LWW, is arbitrary and not as scientific nor as reasonable as you imagined. Your own stated standards eraise those lines.

LWW said: “asexual marriages of convenience are legal between consenting adults of opposite sex that aren’t already in a recognised union. I see no reason to view otherwise identical same-sex circumstances with any more prejudice.”

That does not add-up the way you imagined. Besides my previous points, you are missing the fact that ‘same-sex circumstances’ are fundamentally different from the core meaning of the social institution and, indeed, different from the sexual ecology of the opposite-sexed sexual and social context.

But your comments reveal that the nonmarriage category is much wider and more diverse than the homosexualized subset that you have emphasized and that the SSM campaign pretends is the only people denied eligiblity to marry. This is not the civil rights issue that you and the SSM campaign have portrayed it to be — in fact. If all that you’ve said was in earnest, then, you would be for the deconstruction of marriage and the demotion of it from its special status in society.

And right on cue you added:

LWW said: “This would make EVERYONE think hard before entering the union, and prevent the frivolous from abusing the privilege. It would deal with people like Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and others who I hold far more accountable for the sorry state of marriage today than I.”

You are accountable for your own comments here and for your desire to abolish the core meaning of the social institution. Your comments rely upon the SSM idea which is vague and if it replaced the marriage idea it would render marriage far less meaningful than even the no-fault divorce changes did during the past decades.

I doubt you will be prepared to be held accountable for the results a couple of generations from now and I doubt it would even be possible to undo the harm done by then, so your posturing does not impress me one iota.

Be accountable today for your viewpoint. That’s enough.

As for your harping on divorcees, please note that most of the children residing in same-sex households are from the previously procreative relaitionships of their mom-dad duos (typically marriages); and yet you have been going on about how great children are doing in such arrangements today — with bare preliminary and scant evidence and without a plausible hypothesis that would make lesbianism (or same-sex sexual attraction/behavior) the secret ingredient that would make what you called same-sex parenting as good as the intact low-conflict marriage of mom and dad.

The contradictions are growing in your comments and I think your viewpoint depends far more on the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics than on a concern for the social institutuion of marriage and for children. I think that. You might say otherwise. I look to the content of your comments to make my assessment and bare assertions to the contrary don’t carry the weight you might assume.

Or, for that matter, the hypothetical societal significance you might assign to your vague and impracticable SSM idea.

Your opinion.

You are emphasizing the sexualized context for an adult relationship for the purposes of raising children. All-male or all-female, the lack of the other sex pertains. Since the original blogpost is about fatherlessness, you emphasized lesbianism. I await your reasons for doing so when discussing outcomes for children — when their are millions of non-lesbian (and non-gay) arrangements that are same-sexed that raise children. Do you truly believe that lesbianism makes mothering more effective than these other nonsexualized contexts?

Nope, not at all. Never said that. A non-sexual relationship between male and female divorcees, two sisters, two brothers…just as capable and as valid- assuming as mentioned no first-degree progeny. From my perspective it’s the level of exclusive dedication and life-long devotion that matters. Any union that would parallel marriage would have to maintain those features. Gender of parents is completely irrelevant as long as both genders are deeply involved in the growing experience of the children.

Let me be absolutely clear as I have been so many times before, women are no better parents than men or vice versa. Lesbians are no better mothers than straight women. Gay males are no better fathers than straight men. Sexual orientation, biological sex, or sexual identity make no difference regarding success as a parent.

In reference to polyamory/polygamy, We have been discussing parenting and extra hands. You still have not made the substantive seperation you said was of importance to outcomes for children.

Insofar specifically for the outcome of children, then perhaps. I could see a group union arrangement could perhaps work. Still, there are clear and immediate issues related to society which would have to be addressed. Again, specifically, tax implications and mandates on employers entirely different from couples. Extending Social Security to one exclusive partner of same sex is no different numerically from the opposite sex. It’s a different matter entirely if a career woman claims four benefited partners. It gets even messier with child benefits. The financial implications of polygamy are clearly different from couples, which allows group unions to be examined as a separate issue entirely without equal protection issues.

Some related people can marry; some cannot. What is the scientific basis for drawing the line of an absolute ban on opposite-sexed related people? If you are going to emphasize responsible procreation, then, you cannot take the standard pro-SSM line that procreation has zilch to do with the meaning of marriage and the boundaries around it. Please reconcile your remarks.

I’m not sure we’d need to ban related people if we’re being consistent, we just need to ban first degree progeny. I suppose I’m not your “standard SSM line”. Procreation has lots to do with marriage, but as long as adoption or procreation via technological means is allowed within marriage, and married couples who can only have children via alternate means or have no kids at all are still considered just as married, you cannot hold procreation as a criteria for any union. It can be an ideal, but we cannot restrict based on an ideal unless everyone is held to it. That’s what equal protection is all about.

Make marriage only effective when a child conceived via sexual intercourse by the married pair is produced, and then you would be consistent.

I should also point out that related people can adopt or use third party procreation; since these means of attaining children features prominently in your comments, it now appears that your emphasis on lesbianism is pro-gay bigotry — at least in substance if not in intent. Intent is unclear in your comments but you could clairfy.

My emphasis on lesbianism, where there is one, is simply based on the original topic of the blog.

The line drawining you have described, LWW, is arbitrary and not as scientific nor as reasonable as you imagined. Your own stated standards eraise those lines.

I don’t believe I drew such lines, but if I did I have tried to clarify them here and in the next post.

You are accountable for your own comments here and for your desire to abolish the core meaning of the social institution.

I wish to do nothing that would impact in any way those already able to enter into marriage. Nothing I have proposed would take away. And you still haven’t exactly defined this nebulous “core meaning”. I think that’s pretty subjective to every human being.

Your comments rely upon the SSM idea which is vague and if it replaced the marriage idea it would render marriage far less meaningful than even the no-fault divorce changes did during the past decades.

I doubt you will be prepared to be held accountable for the results a couple of generations from now and I doubt it would even be possible to undo the harm done by then, so your posturing does not impress me one iota.

You make a lot of vague predictions here with no details. I’m not impressed either.

The first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as part of a man-woman combination, is responsible for the children we’ve created (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). This is not just about conception and perhaps it would surprise you to learn that responsible procreation begins even before conception. The marriage idea unites fatherhood and motherhood and, as I said, it is the plan and it is the norm that the mom-dad duo are prospective social parents of their own progeny. Society expects this. The marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced even today after the social institution has been battered by radical changes imposed on it. In our society we even extend the presumption’s basic criteria to unwed procreation. It is not a sex-neutral presumption; it is not one-sexed. From a societal perspective, parents beget future parents who beget future parents and on and on; this fact of human existence is profound and inescapable except in the fictive world of SSM arguments. The social institution is the humane response to the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation; to the two-sexed nature of humankind; to the both-sexed nature of human community.

As long as in vitro fertilization using anonymous or known donor gametes is allowed, it doesn’t appear this requires any opposite-sex pairing. In fact, it requires no pairing at all, just a gestational female. Science and social development seems to have outpaced most of the above. Genetic association with a gestated fetus already is optional as we see in surrogacy, and both genetic maternity and genetic paternity of a child born can no longer be assumed by an outside observer to a birth. These developments occurred to help provide children to opposite-sex couples, so those advocating recognised same-sex pairings cannot be held accountable for this “fact of human existence” that is no longer “inescapable”.

“Responsible procreation begins even before conception” is true, but it doesn’t require one man and one woman. Responsible decision making and planning is a human trait, not limited to one man and one woman together.

As far as this “plan” you speak of, that’s you’re own value judgment. As far as “norms”, we live with a lot of things outside “norms”. Right-handedness is the norm, but left-handers are just as capable and we place no restrictions on them for being “abnormal”. Norms can change. The horse and buggy was the norm at the turn of the last century, but we saw the logic in the horseless carriage- the car. We adjust norms all the time in medicine. We learn and try new things which teach us even more.

Your pro-SSM view is a rejection of that core meaning and that constitutes a rejection of the boundaries *on that basis*; so you need to (or someone — whose conscience you’d defer to — needs to) justify whatever boundaries you wish to impose *based on your SSM idea* — its essentials without which the type of relationship (or type of arrangement) you have in mind would not be SSM and those applying would not be eligible.

Let me attempt absolute clarity. My boundaries are that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into marriage, or a recognised union identical in every legal facet to it such that the government provides equal protection, assuming the two involved adults are not already in such a relationship and assuming they cannot procreate children with first-degree genetic relationship. This relationship does not need to be sexual, it does not need to be for the purpose of childrearing, but it must be exclusive. If the strength and commitment to these unions are truly valued by society, re-entry into another union after dissolution should be barred to one who initiated a previous dissolution unless it was established that there were specific factors involved by the other, such as felony conviction, repeated sexual infidelity, abuse, etc.

I provide above for two restrictions. The restriction on procreation is intended to prevent mixing of first-degree material, something well established to increase the likelihood of toxic recessive genes combining. The restriction to two people was established in my previous post.

Religious groups would be free to provide ceremonies to whomever they choose, and withhold from those they choose. Governmental recognition would have no effect on religion, who could discriminate on whatever basis they want as long as they don’t do it with government money. Just thought I’d add that because some assume religions would be forced to recognise any comers.

With respect, your SSM idea is offered as an alternative to the marriage idea. And, if that replacement is imposed on all of society, you will indeed take away quite a lot from others — not just those here and now but future generations to come. That idea may be considered a contagion of sorts, in proper context.

I don’t really see it as an “alternative”. I see it as existing within the same framework. I don’t want to replace anything, or take anything away from existing marriage. From my own perspective, the concept is vibrant enough to encompass any two dedicated human beings.

Social institutions have influence. Coercive influence. Marriage is relatively non-coercive but its normative power arises from its core meaning. The SSM replacement would not have such power and so it would rely utterly on government coercion via the police power in its various forms. That’s evident where the SSM merger has been imposed.

It is sad the coercion would be necessary for something that hurts no one, directly at least. That said, history has shown that it can be necessary on occasion. Just because coercion was necessary to effect the social changes of the 1940′s through 1960′s for civil rights doesn’t mean it was wrong. I do believe individual rights to disagree should be respected to the greatest extent possible. Again, religious groups should be free to discriminate as long as it isn’t with government money (i.e. funded social programs). Individuals and individually-held companies should be free to discriminate, again as long as no government money is involved. It is only governments, and corporations which are essentially government-chartered constructs, which need be directly affected.

At the risk of annoying you again, I will say that coercion has never been required in my own case. The legal fees I have paid have been to clarify concerns over recognising my unusual union and addressing fears of punishment through fines for recognising it. I also have a whole shaft of legal documents redundant to my marriage certificate to ensure no one tries to deny us our association were one of us to become hospitalized or incapacitated, to respect our parental arrangement if one of us dies, etc.

The SSM arguments you make in your comments fits very well the assertions made by the leading lights of the SSM campaign when it comes to deconstruction of the social institution. You offer nothing that would strengthen marriage but you do strongly suggest that the rough shape of the social institution in our society is precedent for the further change you seek to both the marriage law and the culture.

And that, LWW, is not live and let live.

I don’t want to deconstruct anything. I don’t want to take away anything that married couples currently have. I just want to extend it, in function if not in name. I disagree vociferously with #2. Mom-dad duos can go on all they want, without any restriction save the consenting adult, exclusive, with no first-degree genetic kids. And since I am not basing my argument for inclusion on gayness per se, I disagree with #1 as well. I think the effect would have no effect on marriage, but a great effect on families. Kids would have a greater opportunity to benefit from stay-at-home parents and couples would have firmer relationships for the protections married people take for granted. Society would benefit with yet more couples and their children brought within the framework intended to foster children and relationships.

To reiterate from a slightly different angle, it is not about quantity of SSMs, should it come to that, LWW. You are proposing a change to society that entails gutting a foundational social institution of its core meaning. That means less societally. Whether or not you agree, please acknowledge that this is what you understand me to have actually said. Thanks

That SSMs, or more accurately broadening the governmental protections and benefits currently accorded marriage, would entail “gutting a foundational social institution of its core meaning” seems a value judgment to me. I don’t see marriage as being premised on sex or sexuality, something I think we’re actually agreeing on. I see any two humans as being just as capable given the same circumstances. As I’ve stated, there are some data and numerous anecdotes to suggest it wouldn’t hurt anything. I certainly don’t see affording these rights and responsibilities more broadly as having it to mean any less societally. Civil unions with all the state rights of marriage do not seem to have resulted in harm to society or marriage where they occur. That said, the lack of Federal recognition prevents them from being fully comparable. Despite that, the evidence is suggestive of no harm, not of harm.

Please do me a favor: restate what I just said in those last three paragraphs in your own words so that we can learn if we are on the same page and that you do understand what I have actually said here. You don’t have to be exact — just get to the gist of what you believe I actually intended to say. You might disagree, but please, let’s first establish what it is that you might disagree with, okay?

You are suggesting that I am proposing changing the institution of marriage. The assumption is that by broadening the privileges and responsibilities of marriage to a wider audience, it would change marriage. You then follow that such change would “gut” marriage of its core meaning, and that it would then mean less societally. You go on to say that few same-sex couples may avail themselves of these rights or privileges, but that just by extending them more broadly, it will have “long-term influencing on behavior across society.”

My response is to ask you to elaborate what harm you envision? Details, please? The 50% divorce rate existed before Massachusetts. In vitro fertilization happened before the development of civil unions. Divorce running rough-shod over fathers happened before domestic partnerships. What more do you really think that perhaps a few hundred thousand newly admitted people really could do?

If SSMers agree that there is no objective difference, in terms of needs, between the gaycentric subset and the rest of the wide range of nonmarriage arrangements, then, we can agree on equal protections.

Hmmm, this is hopeful. I’m going paragraph-by-paragraph giving each the attention it deserves. It may be some of the above isn’t necessary.

The trouble with the SSM campaign and its arguments is that it does not stop with extending protections. They want to do two contradictory things (which are reflections of my previous 2 points):

First, demote marital status from its special status to a merely protective status. This is accomplished by abolishing from social policy the special reason fro special status. The current distinction between marriage, and relationship types eligible for marriage, and those outside the bounds will be undermined severely. If the essence, the core meaning, of the social institution is to be abandoned by government — and if the SSM campaign has its way also abandoned by the culture — then special status becomes unsustainable.

Help me understand the difference between special and protected status in your mind. I still don’t quite get it. It sounds like semantics. If the word marriage is the hang up, I’ll give it to you. My focus is on the practical rights and responsibilities that come with marriage at a Federal level- specifically joint filing, shared Social Security benefits, shared Medicare points, etc. if we can provide every single social benefit to “nontraditional” couples within a civil union, I at least would shake hands. I realize many see that as ‘separate and unequal’, but I see it as rational compromise. That said, I’d certainly want a lot of guarantees before I’d trade in my marriage certificate for something else.

Second, further demote the core meaning of marriage and its man-woman criterion — demote it from special status to protective status and then, further, down to a barely tolerative status. It would be deemed bigoted, unconstitutional, and a relic of our traditions, customs, and cultural understanding of the nature of humankind. Worse, those whose devotion to that core meaning is open and unsurrendered will be ostracized through government coercion. The precedent for this sort of thing in American history is the assertion of supremacy of racialist identity politics that produced the bans on inter-racial marriage. The abuse of government power to impose upon marriage law an anti-marriage change — and to use this foundational social institution for a nonmarriage purpose — would be unjust both in principle and in execution. Gay identity politics is not a superior form of identity politics and although it has been presented as more benign than the racialist predessor its promoters are the (witting and unwitting — but mostly unwitting) descendants of the anti-miscegenists of the past.

It took more coercion to get rid of inter-racial marriage than to impose it. It took “judicial activism” to remove it, but the people, in the form of state legislatures, imposed it. I have to view your perspective on the events as revisionist.

I think we disagree on the “core meaning” of marriage. That said, if we can work around it such that the disagreement has no practical effect, I think we can work around that. I believe there are many who would not quibble over the word and would accept Federally-permitted and supported civil unions in permitting states as I’ve described above. Many wouldn’t- but many would.

That happened even to the racialists who supported anti-miscegenation and other forms of asserting the supremacy of their brand of identity politics on all of their society.

Anti-miscegenation laws were passed by state legislatures with pretty broad support at the time by white voters. There wasn’t much coercion going on, other than of the politically powerful (often majority) whites over minorities. It was only the “activist” courts that finally killed these beasts.

As far as your arguments about anecdotes and weak data, flip it around. What harm has been shown specific to non-traditional couples parenting? Again, not single parents, but couples in consistent, exclusive relationships. I’ve not heard of anything bad coming out of those states with broader marriage allowance (MA, IA) or civil unions. So far, it seems to be working. I don’t see what harm allowing Federal benefits would be when states are already allowing the unions. I do see the help it would be for these families in these states.

Do you just have to accept what others feel — especially when it contradicts your opinion on these matters — such as the children of divorce or the children of third party procreation? Do their feelings weight as heavily as your own subjective assessments of your internal experiences?

Yes, they do. They have equal validity. That said, we’re not denying 3rd party procreation to opposite-sex couples, and I’m on record as being pretty skeptical of divorce. As such, I’m not sure what either have to do with our discussion.

One can readily accept what someone says she feels, on face value, while again pointing out that the man-woman criterion of marriage law does not use such criteria. Neither self-perceived nor externally-perceived sexual orientation constitutes a test for eligibility.

Nor should it. I’m proposing a neutral system, either broadening marriage or perhaps paralleling it, that gets orientation and sex out of the mix, treating everyone as equal human beings.

I’m not sure what this means, “while again pointing out that the man-woman criterion of marriage law does not use such criteria.” What criteria exactly?

Both are one-sexed scenarios. On that basis the lack of father presence is a valid factor for comparisons.

I would beg to differ. The limitations of one human being override any other factors.

Meanwhile we have loads of social scientific evidence and analysis on fatherless children, children of divorced fathers, children of absent unwed fathers, and so forth. There is no gaping lack of data on fatherlessness. And we are accumulating evidence on children of third party procreation procedures. Taken together, these cover the scenarios of all same-sex parenting arrangements, do they not?

No, they do not, except perhaps the last. Single-parent families are not comparable to two-parent families. There is too much to be said for parents tag-teaming. Another parent to take over when frustration sets in, another parent to handle the kids so the other can get some social time AWAY, another parent to carry kids to opposite ends of town for events, etc. Another parent to just bounce ideas off at the end of the day. Broken families have their own issues, even when the pieces come back together separately. Same sex families involving such circumstances can only be compared to opposite sex marriages that have the same background. I’d be curious what you have on third-party procreation where the family is solidly behind the process. That could be considered comparable.

These are A = A. But if you think lesbianism makes all the difference, then, you need to state the hypothesis such that the previously noted scenarios are excluded entirely.

No, they are not A=A. And no, lesbianism doesn’t make all the difference. Two parents make all the difference. Two parents in a dedicated, exclusive, life-long union.

Tell me this, LWW, in all seriousness. Are you prepared to let researchers study Canada and Scandinavia for, say, a couple of generations, for the purpose of accumulating the data you say is needed? If not, then, what do you really mean by what you said?

No I am not. Canada and Scandinavia cannot be directly compared to the US- we have different laws. Let the states do what they will.

No one-sexed arrangement, sexualized or not, can deliver the benefits of sex integration and responsible procreation. It is not a question of how heroically romantic you might paint personal motivations. The conjugal relationship is not one-sexed; and whatever the merits, and demerits, of other types of relationship or arrangements, they lack the special reason for the special status that is accorded the social institution of marriage.

These are all value judgments from your own perspective.

These are all value judgments from your own perspective.

Perhaps. But at least his ideas are based on diversity and integration and nature, whereas yours is founded in bias and segregation and technology.

My definition is more diverse and inclusive. More people are open to marriage, or an equivalent institution, by my world view. That strikes me as more diverse.

My perspective has as the only bias that no first-degree progeny be produced, and for tax equality reasons the unions be limited to two people. No other restrictions. Seems pretty unbiased and desegregated.

Married people depend on these technologies, too. As long as these technologies are in use by married couples already, they cease to provide a parameter by which to segregate. Discriminating against one class (same sex) and not another class (opposite sex) for the same technology is not equal protection under the law

LWW said: “A non-sexual relationship between male and female divorcees, two sisters, two brothers…just as capable and as valid- assuming as mentioned no first-degree progeny. From my perspective it’s the level of exclusive dedication and life-long devotion that matters.”

Readers will see the contradiction in your statement.

You have maintained that parenting quality is what matters, except when the parenting involves first-degree progeny. Do you have social scientific evidence that consensual first-degree sexual relationships do not provide the level of quality that matters?

Also readers will note that you are pointing to procreation as important but only as a negative influence on the quality of parenting.

Any union that would parallel marriage would have to maintain those features. Gender of parents is completely irrelevant as long as both genders are deeply involved in the growing experience of the children.

Oops, the last paragraph in my previous comment is a quote from LWW.

My response is that dedication and devotion are not foreign to closely-related incestuous parents; nor to most polygamous people; nor to most polyandrous people. Parents of all kinds are likely to have hold the best of intentions — which is what LWW’s dedication and devotion sounds like.

And LWW’s opinion is bare assertion which runs against the wide social scientific consensus on the standard mom-dad duo structure as per my previous remarks.

LWW, I referred to “the hypothetical societal significance you might assign to your vague and impracticable SSM idea” because

1) whatever the societal signficance you’d ascribe to it (and lease do so, by the way), it remains hypothetical — as you’ve acknowledged;

2) and your SSM idea is vague that does not distinguish from the wide range of the nonmarriage category — as revealed in nyour own comments — and as such is impracticable as a replacement for the marriage idea.

LWW said: “The financial implications of polygamy are clearly different from couples, which allows group unions to be examined as a separate issue entirely without equal protection issues.”

The implications might be that three or four adults bring income to raising their group’s children. These are consenting adults and you said earlier the government should not get involved with their parenting structure. But now you say otherwise for nonparenting reasons.

LWW, you have now said that the sexualized relationship — as context for outcomes for children — is irrelevant to your view of parenting structure. Therefore the mom-grandmom and the two sister scenarios, as noted earlier, are the stuctural equivalent of the all-female sexualized duo. And these are the structual equivalent of the married mom-dad duo.

The “structure” is the number two. The reasoning is … you have not really given your scocial scientific reasoning. Please do.

And please provide the social scientific evidence that has led to your certitude on this very significant claim.

LWW said: “Make marriage only effective when a child conceived via sexual intercourse by the married pair is produced, and then you would be consistent.”

You appear to mean the following:

1. Marriage is consummated with the production of a child.
2. That child must be created through conception.
3. That conception must be accomplished through coitus.

And, you say, this would be consistent with an ideal.

My basic question is: To what ideal are you referring?

Readers will note that you have insisted upon a rule of absolute consistency — i.e. no exceptions. This rule, by your own invokation, must then be applied vigorously to test your own SSM idea.

This is the prybar of marriage deconstructionists. Something you denied you were not so many comments earlier.

LWW said: “My emphasis on lesbianism, where there is one, is simply based on the original topic of the blog.”

Fair enough, for you when the original blogpost emphasized fatherlessness that became the basis for you to emphasize lesbianism. The first mention of lesbians was by Heidi and you followed suite.

But you have since equated nonsexual and sexual same-sex parenting structures based on nothing more, really, that the best intentions of the adults. Even the number two is a tenuous basis for your emphasis on the sexualized all-female version, as your subsequent comments revealed.

The sexual context of the adult relationship is thus not your emphasis when it comes to the issue of fatherlessness, correct?

LWW said: “And you still haven’t exactly defined this nebulous “core meaning”. I think that’s pretty subjective to every human being.”

Sure I have. Before I repeat it, please let me know if you believe that marriage is a social institution. If yes, please state its essentials. It is from that basis that a core meaning can be discerned. Without that, there is no social institution.

In other words, it is necessary to distinguish between what makes marriage, marriage, and all the rest of the types of relationships and kinds of arrangements that a human being might form.

Afterall, if subjectivity rules, then, a lone individual may deemed herself “married”; as might a man and several women; or a related man-woman duo; or a parade of persons of the same sex.

Note that the rule of absolute consistency is, well, inconsistent with your remark that the core meaning of marriage is “pretty subjective to every human being” and so that strongly suggests that your SSM idea holds that there is no such thing as a core meaning of SSM.

That is, it would not be possible to distinguish SSM from other types of arrangements and relationships. Nor would it be possible to equate SSM with other stuff, like the social instiution of marriage, where a core meaning is identifiable.

Typo correction:

In other words, it is necessary to identify what makes marriage, marriage, and thus distinguish it from all other types of relationships and kinds of arrangements that a human being might form.

LWW, what predictions have I made? Thanks.

LWW said: “These developments occurred to help provide children to opposite-sex couples, so those advocating recognised same-sex pairings cannot be held accountable for this “fact of human existence” that is no longer “inescapable”.

Actually, the techniques for IVF and ARTs were developed for husband-wife duos who experience infertility.

No one-sexed arrangement is ever fertile without the other sex; and each all-female scenario that procures a man’s “donation” has made this concession. The lack of the other sex is not infertility. That lack signifies nonfertility and, as such, is not a medical disability.

Science has not abolished to opposite-sexed nature of human procreation. That you would propose that “pairing” has supereseded this unabolished fact of human existence, one which is readily conceded by the very lesbian duos you keep invoking, is an astonishing admission of political bias leading your supposedly scientific reasoning.

Plus, when it comes to IVF/ARTs, more than 90% of the husband-wife duos do NOT use third party procreation. They use their own gametes. That said, this practice is extramarital procreation even when married people engage in it.

The context is quite different from what you imagine. Of all married couples, perhaps 10% experience infertility of one sort or another. The vast majority resolve this without resort to the more novel treatments and procedures; they change their behavior in some way. And, of that 10%, about half already have children; they experience subfertility or secondary infertility. The remaining 5% might go on to use various techniques including microsurgery and IVF/ARTs — but of that 5% almost all — as I said more than 90% — use their own gametes. A rough back-of-envelope estimate: less than one-half of 1% of all married couples who experience some sort of infertility will resort to “donations”.

What is the context for the use of third party procreation by one-sexed arrangements? 100% use “donations”. And, as your own comments revealed, where the one-sexed scenario is all-female the entry of other parties is quite different from that of the all-male scenario which depends on surrogacy.

The number two that applies to the nature of human procreation is the basis for responsible procreation. There is no real numerical limitation based on the one-sexed scenario whereby several individuals would become entangled. So you need to create an artificial means by which to disentangle or to prevent the sort of integration that is central to marriage.

Well, you might say, that also applies to some two-sexed scenarios that use third party procreation. Sure, and that means that the marital presumption of paternity must be dealt with when the people are married; so government intervenes, again artificially so, to shield the “donor” from the child(ren) his gametes create.

Please don’t tell me that you think this is a straight forward and as logical as the link between the husband-wife duo and responsible procreation. In the case of marriage, the government recognizes what exists; in the case of these third party procreation scenarios — one-sexed or two-sexed — the government must suspend reality and create a legal fiction. And that has multi-layered unintended consquences — few of which can reasonably be claimed to strengthen marriage.

LWW said: “Responsible decision making and planning is a human trait, not limited to one man and one woman together.”

Sure, but the principles of responsible procreation are limited to husband and wife. Please do not play the game of swapping out the meaning of what I said and injecting your own in its place. I take it that you used rhetorical excess right there so no harm, no foul. Please acknowledge.

LWW, your remark about norms has missed the target.

Social institutions have normative power. What could the SSM idea make normative all on its own — without government interventions?

Marriage makes normative the integration of the sexes combined with responsible procreation. It makes normative that the man and woman who create children will stick around to be responsible for their progeny.

This is a social institution apart from government. Government neither owns nor created it. It arises from stuff that just does not fit the SSM idea. So merging the SSM idea with marriage would mean tossing out whatever does not fit the SSM idea.

What SSM would make normative is the marginalization of the core meaning of marriage, including the principles of responsible procreation. Your comments strongly suggest that you think that is not merely a fait accomplis but that it is an improvement based on lessons learned from transgressing those principles.

I guess we are not studying the same lessons.

LWW said: “The restriction on procreation is intended to prevent mixing of first-degree material, something well established to increase the likelihood of toxic recessive genes combining. The restriction to two people was established in my previous post.”

The restriction to two was contradicted in your previous comments.

Besides, you have not justified the restriction such that it could survive your rule of absolute consistency.

Likewise when you talk of a procreation restriction which, if consistently applied, would restrict two-sexed couples while leaving eligible the all-male and the all-female scenarios.

The SSM idea, as you outlined, insists that all unions of husband and wife be treated as if they were one-sexed. That throws out the marital presumption of paternity; and it throws out the procreation restriction.

Also, your procreation restriction is based on risks to the prospective children; and that basis also applies very clearly to many, many techniques used by the “fertility industry”. It also applies to people whose genetic inheritence increases the risks of known illnesses and malformations. Relatedness is not the basis for your proposed restriction; rather it is the forecast of odds of some sort of harm to the children.

That means that your restriction must cast a quite different net than you imagined, if your rule of absolute consistency is to be faithfully followed.

Please note that your idea would empower the government to screen, and to make public, the private medical profiles of all who’d show up for a license to marriage.

But all one-sexed arrangements would not be intruded upon in that way because the restriction does not apply to such nonfertile scenarios. However, the Government would use its big hairy arm to intrude upon those who’d use “fertility” procedures to place children at elevated risk. And, as noted earlier, 100% of one-sexed third-party scenarios fall into that category. Well, perhaps you could scratch out a few exceptions based on deeper intrusions into the lives of participants.

Readers might well note that LWW’s procreation restriction would be a nightmare to enforce given the “equal protection” abuse that the SSM merger would have embedded in the law governing the SSM idea.

Related people generally do not face a much higher risk than unrelated people. The rise in risk comes after generations of intrabreeding within clans or tribe-like extended family structures. Have we not heard the SSM idea promoted by those who say that the here and now cannot be held back just because harm might, or might not, occur even just one or two generations down the road? Without certainty, the SSMers deny the risk is real.

Also, whatever the risk, until the child is born we just don’t know for certain. So what does that mean for the rule of absolute consistency? That we have conditional marriages that can be unilaterally dissolved should the couple have children with this or that difficulty?

Clearly, the reprecussions of LWW’s procreation restriction demonstrate the absurdity of the absolute consistency rule; but also demonstrate that the SSM idea is contrary to the marriage idea itself.

Procreation is the basis for eligibility, according to LWW, even as she knows it cannot logically apply to the one-sexed scenario. And even when she admits that the SSM idea is sex-neutral — there is no norm that the relationship even be sexualized. So here we have LWW restricting some people — who may not even be in a sexualized relationship — based on their being man-woman duos and potentially procreative.

Or, given the rule of absolute consistency, creating a class of tenuous conditional marriages that are dissolved if children with special problems are created.

This leads to two possible resolutions of these flaws in the SSM idea. Either recognize that SSM is not marriage and thus the basis for eligilbity is quite different; or anticipate a totalitarian government that intrudes in ways that destroy the social institution — and destroys civil society in the process.

Well, another possible resolution is to abandon this absurd rule of absolute consistency. We should just return to justice instead.

LWW said: “The 50% divorce rate existed before Massachusetts. In vitro fertilization happened before the development of civil unions. Divorce running rough-shod over fathers happened before domestic partnerships. What more do you really think that perhaps a few hundred thousand newly admitted people really could do?”

You acknowledge that the social institution is suffering. Good. You acknowledge that high divorce rates point to real harms. Good. You recognize that fatherlessness is a harm. Good.

In a previous remark you acknowledged that I said the quantity of SSMs is not the real issue. But now you revive it as if you had not read and understood what I said.

The point I made about participation rates in SSM is that the low rates mean that the good you imagine will be very light when weighed against any harm done. If you want to reach this particular segment of the population, then, SSM is just not the vehicle to do it. Also, there are indications already that dissolution rates for SSM are as high or higher than divorce rates. So harm will be done that will outweigh whatever good even on that basis. The SSM merger is clearly not all good with no costs.

More out-wedlock childbearing. More divorce. More marriage aversion. More segregation of the sexes across society. Far less responsible procreation. The de-norming of the mom-dad duo as the default for raising future generations.

We can judge by what the SSMers have argued all along. They say that the battered state of the social institution is the basis upon which the SSM idea has become plausible. So the merger would lock that in. It would aggravate it further.

Already we see SSMers idealizing third party procreation. We have all-female arrangements going to courts to establish tripartite co-equal parental status between two women and the male “donor”. We have gay men procuring babies through the use of purchased ova, rented wombs, and commissioning of embryos — one created by each man — to be implanted as gestational twins. The abuses will continue at a faster pace as the fertility industry’s lack of regulation becomes entrenched via the absurdities of the “equal protection” arguments flaunted in the SSM debate.

And, ontop of these social harms that are largely cultural, there are the harms to our form of self-governance. Your own arguments, here, LWW, set up rules that destroy far more than create in terms of principled basis for lawmaking. This is very obvious inn terms of the basis for the special status of marriage in our society. You clearly see Government as the agent through which to coerce the culture to comply with your proposed values.

Civil society will be victimized in ways that perhaps you will regret when it touches your own life.

If, however, your SSM idea is as sex-neutral as you claim, then, the merger need not be imposed. Provisions for designated beneficiaries already exist and can be adapted without legislating a blanket twinning with marital status. Nothing you have said thusfar has justified attaching such provisions to the hip of the social institution of marriage.

Marriage can be strengthened but not through the SSM idea which is antithetical to its core meaning.

LWW said: “It took more coercion to get rid of inter-racial marriage than to impose it. It took “judicial activism” to remove it, but the people, in the form of state legislatures, imposed it. I have to view your perspective on the events as revisionist.”

Please explain how that is in any way a response to what I had actually written regarding the impositon of identity politics and the demotion of the core of marriage to a barely tolerative status. If you haven’t understood, you are welcome to ask for clarifications.

Thanks.

Regarding the racialist analogy, Leland discussed it here:

http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/12/perspectives-gay-men-only/#comments

LWW said: “As far as your arguments about anecdotes and weak data, flip it around. What harm has been shown specific to non-traditional couples parenting? Again, not single parents, but couples in consistent, exclusive relationships. I’ve not heard of anything bad coming out of those states with broader marriage allowance (MA, IA) or civil unions.”

Boy are you missing the point.

Take your examples — MA and IA — and you tell me how old children would be if they were being raised from birth since the imposition of SSM and civil union a short time ago.

You are in a hurry for declaring your conclusions before even preliminary studies have been done on the subgroup that you keep saying is so important to study. This pattern in your comments tells me that you are not following the evidence but rather hoping to race far ahead of it.

In the meanwhile, the comparable scenarios have been studied for a couple of generations. The negative trends have emerged. Expect more of the same should the SSM idea become normative in a given society.

If you prefer not to go on that evidence, and you admit there is insufficient evidence to make the comparisions you say are more on-target, then, stop playing games trying to flip things around. That’s very poor form. It places in doubt your sincerity regarding the value of evidence to this discussion.

As it stands, you seem to be asking me to engage in the same sort of unverifiable trade in anecdotes about lesbian parenting that I have already explained is not worth so much. You want to hear the negative stories that you supposedly have never come across amongst your circle of acquaintaneces? I am shaking my head and wondering if you have followed our exchange beyond a glance at my comments.

Our comments have been extensive and so I can forgive some errors — no doubt I’ve made my share as well in misunderstanding you. But come. That sort of game is out of order.

LWW said of the subjective accounts of children of divorce and third party procreation:

“we’re not denying 3rd party procreation to opposite-sex couples, and I’m on record as being pretty skeptical of divorce. As such, I’m not sure what either have to do with our discussion.”

What has that got to do with what I wrote?

First, I pointed out there is growing evidence from third party procreation — because it is being studied. And since you have been insisting that this is the scenario to match across the opposite-sexed and same-sexed parenting scenarios, I asked if the subjective accounts being studied are accepted by you.

You say, yes, this is valid evidence. And so it follows, LWW, that the negative evidence weighs against your attempt to paint a bright sunny picture just for the subgroup for whom you advocate.

Whatever your opinion of divorce, there is evidence accumulated there as well. And, as I’ve explained, the vast majority of the children raised in same-sex households are children of divorced or estranged parents. Again structurally similar scenarios that you wave away as not being appropriate for comparison.

You keep using euphemisms, but you clearly have in mind the homosexual subset of parents of divorced children and children of third party procreation. If not, then, you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the available evidence. Or to discount it so deeply. You seem to think there is some special positive influence from same-sex sexual context for parenting. You have dodged this and I wonder if you understand the point.

LWW said: “I’m proposing a neutral system [...] that gets orientation and sex out of the mix, treating everyone as equal human beings.”

Sexual orientation is not in the mix, today, under the man-woman basis of marriage law. The conjugal relationship is a type of sexual relationship. It is not sex-neutral.

What you propose already exists in the form of provisions for designated beneficiaries. You don’t need to touch the marriage law for people to be treated as equal human beings.

LWW said: “Single-parent families are not comparable to two-parent families.”

Step-families (i.e. husband-wife duos) produce similair outcomes for children as single-parent families on average. Mom-dad adoptive duos, likewise. The optimum structure is the married mom-dad raising their offspring.

LWW said: “Broken families have their own issues, even when the pieces come back together separately. Same sex families involving such circumstances can only be compared to opposite sex marriages that have the same background.”

A family that lacks either a mom or a dad is not intact. How do you imagine a same-sex parenting scenario might attain children if not by parental loss or relinquishment? Remember, third party procreation often entails pre-emptive relinquishment by the so-called donor.

And where the donor is know, as in the prototypical lesbians using this practice, we are told by advocates that lesbians are more likely than other women to know and include the donor in the family. In fact, there are court cases in which judges have awarded tripartite co-parental status to the mom, her lesbian partner, and the father — at the behest of the women who on the record insisted that the father was indispensable to the well-being of the children.

The number two just does not seem to be a realistic limitation that you can impose on the very type of scenarios you keep using in discussion of the available evidence.

LWW said: “Canada and Scandinavia cannot be directly compared to the US- we have different laws. Let the states do what they will.”

You missed the point again.

Within Canada the merger has been imposed so the population can be studied. Likewise in the countries of Scandinavia. The very circumstances that you think matter exist in those locales.

They are the guinea pigs today. We don’t need for even one state here to undergo the same sort of radical experiementation just to study what you claimed needed to be studied.

I think your objection bespeaks a political agenda rather than a desire to let social scientific evidence lead to sound conclusions. It will take at least two generations, if the no-fault divorce revolution is a guide. Yet you are in a hurry for other reasons.

Earlier I had said:

No one-sexed arrangement, sexualized or not, can deliver the benefits of sex integration and responsible procreation. It is not a question of how heroically romantic you might paint personal motivations. The conjugal relationship is not one-sexed; and whatever the merits, and demerits, of other types of relationship or arrangements, they lack the special reason for the special status that is accorded the social institution of marriage.

LWW responded: “These are all value judgments from your own perspective.”

You tell me, LWW, the benefits of sex integration that the sex-segregative arrangement delivers to society. And the benefits of responsible procreation (unity of fatherhood and motherhood)? List them.

There are none because the lack of the other sex forestalls it. Maybe there are other benefits, but you have insisted that the sexualized context is irrelevant to your SSM idea.

Tell us the special reason for special status. Maybe you deny that marital status is a special status? If not, please explain how personal motivations provide the societal significance for which special status is merited.

I do not think you can do that without distinguishing marriage (or in your case, the SSM idea) from the rest of the full range of other types of arrangements and types of relationships which do not merit the very same status. A status, by the way, which you described as a privilege.

See, I am talking about the social institution of marriage. I think that you are confusing personal values with the social scientifically neutral description of this institution. Indeed, your comments have gone a very long way to deinstitutionalizing and to privatizing the conjugal type of relationship. So it would not surprise me if you reduced everything to endleslly redefinable values on a personalized level. This way (I bet you imagine) everyone can be right and no one can be wrong about marriage.

That is not diverse. It is not inclusive. It is actually uniform in its meaninglessness and exclusivity. Exclude the core of marriage and uniformly all unions of husband and wife become as non-special as all of nonmarriage.

Nor is that neutral, as you claimed. Frankly, it is an anti-marriage proposition.

LWW said: “Married people depend on these technologies, too.”

That is an obtuse response.

Married people do not depend on these technologies. You mean that a tiny fraction of one percent of married people use third party procreation techniques that depend on these technologies; while all one-sexed scenarios depend on third party procreation with or without these technologies.

It is not a small point but you keep making the same error. You would like to equate married people to nonmarried people when it comes to third party procreation. Fine, please do so without the exagerations.

LWW said: “As long as these technologies are in use by married couples already, they cease to provide a parameter by which to segregate. Discriminating against one class (same sex) and not another class (opposite sex) for the same technology is not equal protection under the law.”

Now you are just making stuff up and in the process you have just confirmed what Marty had said about your viewpoint being “is founded in bias and segregation and technology.”

Same sex is not a class. You are using another euphemism for your favored identity group. You have now asserted a constitutional right for an identity group to manufacture children for itself.

You cannot claim this is something done in the best interests of unconceived children. They do not exist before it is done. It is not their interests that take precedence but rather the assertion of the supremacy your favored class of people.

You must know that there are people in the so-called opposite-sex class who are neither married nor eligible to marry. Indeed, in your own comments you proposed a procreation restriction.

Your all-purpose absolute rule of consistency keeps undermining your viewpoint. I could not have predicted you would do so in this precise way, but thank you for that.

The restriction on first-degree parenting is only in regards to genetic material. I’m fine with first degree parents adopting or having kids not concieved with first-degree material. My bias against first-degree progeny isn’t the parental quality, it is the likelihood of toxic recessive genetic combinations. That’s not a value judgement, that’s simple Mendellian genetics.

Polyandrous/amorous groups can certainly do a fine job of raising kids. The Mormons proved that in the 19th Century, and other cultures do still today. My restriction there has entirely to do with tax law and financial impacts. There is no objective difference in the fiscal impact of any two people in a marriage or equivalent recognised exclusive union, regardless of sex, as long as all other factors stay stable. There is an objective difference between a couple and a group union. In the group union, one person’s social security, for example, could be extended to many people- very different from what we have now between two people. If society wishes to take this up, that would be fine. But the objective, clearly definable financial implications are different, and therefore equal protection arguments require different perspectives, if they’re even valid.

As far as the rest, we adopt new ways of doing things all the time in society. We didn’t wait for the data regarding the car to equal in volume that of the horse before we allowed the car into use- and boy did THAT change society. There were whole libraries of data on the battleship at the start of WWII for the US, and the aircraft carrier became the new capital ship even as the documentation scrambled to catch up. The past several administrations and Congresses of both parties of US government have been enthusiatically defending the right of Monsanto and others to introduce genetically-modified foods into the food stream, and there’s definitely no where near the data on that as with non-artifically-modified goods.

Now I realize these examples, save the last, involve something superceding the previous paradigm, and I most certainly do NOT suggest this is the case here. Opposite-sex marriage will always, and should always, be the “norm” insofar as the majority of humans are heterosexual and always will be. I’m just saying that just because we have a volume of data on the way “it’s always been done” doesn’t mean that we can’t embrace a new way that hasn’t caught up yet in number of pages…especially when that new way can coexist just fine with the old way. Same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage are complementary or parallel, not mutually exclusive, concepts.

I deal with the reasons for the parameters of marriage and/or marriage-paralleling unions above. I deal with technology and procreation <a href="http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/11/msnbc-kids-don%e2%80%99t-need-fathers/#comment-3013"here. As long as some are allowed, all must be allowed.

I am not exactly basing my arguments on same sex as a class. I am saying that laws must be applied equally. Again, somthing I go more into here. We can continue the conception discussion there.

After reading the wall of words Chairm lays forth above, I really don’t know where to start.

I’ll start first by saying that the first-degree progeny restriction I propose is simply importing an existing restriction of “traditional” marriage that actually makes scientific sense and can be objectively applied on any pair of human beings, equally. If, Chairm, you don’t see a need for such a restriction on progeny- not union which I never suggested should be restricted- then say so. In my own rather libertarian streak, I’m ambivalent about it. I just don’t want to be whacked for not recognising that society has reason for such a simple restriction on entirely genetic terms. If you want to marry your sister and have a baby by her, be my guest. I won’t stand in your way.

I’ll let me statements on group unions stand. I base that restriction entirely on fiscal reasons and the clear difference without any knowledge of the parties involved between a pair, regardless of sex or any other differentiator, and a group.

LWW, you are not addressing the basic problem of your proposed procreation restriction for SSM where persons of the same sex cannot be said present such a risk. So you are not really applying your version of equal protection.

It does not help your argument to say that the restriction is only on opposite-sexed scenarios.

If you mean to restrict procreation, rather than eligilbity under the SSM-merger, then, the other flaws discussed earlier also undermine your version of equal protection.

And now you have added another inconsistency. You most certainly are making a value judgement even as you try to hide behind the neutrality of science.

LWW, polygamy is a series of marriages; it is not a group union. Polyandry may or may not include a group union.

You conceded the general point regarding parenting. Good. But then you offered nonmarriage reasons and non-parenting reasons to discriminate against polygamists and polyandrists.

This contradicts your claim of treating human beings equally.

LWW, you are confusing the statistical norm with the core meaning that the social institution makes normative. I have repeatedly explained to you that I was not referring to quantity. Please acknowledge. Thanks.

LWW said: “I’m just saying that just because we have a volume of data on the way “it’s always been done” doesn’t mean that we can’t embrace a new way that hasn’t caught up yet in number of pages…especially when that new way can coexist just fine with the old way.”

You are running away from the volume of data that exists on family structures that fall short of the standard of married mom-dad raising their own progeny. We have more than data — we have realms of analysis and even a wide social scientific consensus.

These well-studied alternative structures have a great deal in common — key features in fact — with the one-sexed scenarios. You have not explained how those features are suddenly transformed into advantages when it comes to outcomes for children on average. You have not even tried to do so.

LWW said: “Same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage are complementary or parallel, not mutually exclusive, concepts.”

You whined that I am not listening to you. Yet I have asked you to explain specific items that feature prominently in your remarks. Here you show you have not been listening to me when it comes to what the SSM idea lacks but which is central to the marriage idea.

That said, I have noted that the SSM idea covers most of the nonmarriage category and you have conceded as much here. So your claim quoted above rings false even within the context of your own remarks.

And, sure, LWW, provisions for designated beneficiaries has long-existed concurrrently with the man-woman basis of marriage law. Two different things. Mutually exclusive things. You wish to eraise the boundaries around the core meaning of marriage by abolishing from the law that core meaning — and SSMers seek to abolish it from the culture as well and go so far as to outline how that core meaning would be demoted to a barely tolerative status.

From special status down to barely tolerative. That does not signify complementary or parallel or mutually respected co-existence.

LWW said: “As long as some are allowed, all must be allowed.”

You keep contradicting yourself. If we take on face value your prouncement above, then, you cannot sustain boundaries around the SSM-merger. Not without reliance on the exercise of arbitrary power. But that defeats your talk of equality.

I don’t think you have thought this through nearly as carefully as you imagined at the outset.

LWW said: “simply importing an existing restriction of “traditional” marriage that actually makes scientific sense and can be objectively applied on any pair of human beings, equally”

You abandoned the significance of procreation a long time ago in your comments, LWW, and of sexual relations, as well, when it comes to your SSM idea.

So it is intellectually dishonest of you to then turn back to procreation to restrict eligiblity. And in recent comments you have use the anti-tradition argument of SSMers (just because we’ve always done it that way) but revive tradition to try to make your gutting of marriage more palatable.

There is good reason for the boundaries regarding incestuous combinations.

That reason happens to be the special reason for the special status of marriage. See the core meaning of marriage.

But the underlying principled basis, such as it is, for your scientific argument also applies to people who’d have increased risk of creating children with certain problems. Risk assessments are forecasts not foregone conclusions, anyway, so your procreation restriction cannot withstand your own pro-SSM arguments.

LWW said: “If, Chairm, you don’t see a need for such a restriction on progeny- not union which I never suggested should be restricted- then say so.”

I recognize the core meaning of marriage which provides the justification for the ineligiblity of some related people.

You, in contrast, would seperate ineligiblity from what you imagine would be imported to your procreation restriction. That is, you are not importing but negating.

Is it truly your proposal that married people would be denied the right to attempt to procreate together and that this would serve justice and equality? Really.

Some married people — those closely related — would be eligible to marry but ineligible to procreate together?

And if they did have children (unintended pregnancies frequently occur, you know) you’d empower the government to force them to do what? Relinquish their children? Divorce? Abort the pregnancies?

You’ve over-estimated the authority of science when it comes to your supposedly value-neutral procreation restriction.

Readers will note that the SSM idea that LWW has described and defended would not only gut marriage of its core meaning — including responsible procreation; it would also remove from the societal significance of marriage the sexual aspect.

The SSM-merger would force society to treat marriage as a nonsexual type of relationship in law and social policy. And, save for the SSM campaign’s emphasis on sexual orientation, which LWW would skip over, there would only be a fiscal differentiator between those eligible and those ineligible.

Except where marriage as a sexual type of relationship and where responsible procreation are “imported” into the SSM-merger to make it more palatable with restrictions on procreation.

Readers will note how this procreation restriction is inconsistent with LWW’s wreckless idealization of the unrestricted use of technologies to enable third party procreation.

It is safe to conclude that the rule of absolute consistency is not really the decisive standard by which LWW has defended the SSM idea. It is merely a rhetorical device used to shield deconstructiion the marriage idea and to demote marriage from its special status in society.

Yes, I realize I seem to be moving all over the place. I’m closing out this blog as well, and will take whatever comments I can make out of the wall of words above to here. I leave my colleague Chairm to the last word here.

A wall of words that you have matched, LWW, and I think it is funny how, given your stated goal of learning, you have repeatedly disparaged the thoroughness (of various commenters here) with which your viewpoint as been met.