Home > Artificial Reproductive Technology, Babies, Book Suggestions, Demography, ethics, family, fathers, feminism, Marriage, Parenting, popular culture, sex differences > Two ‘Brave New Worlds’: One For Women, One For Men (And Never The Twain Shall Meet?)

Two ‘Brave New Worlds’: One For Women, One For Men (And Never The Twain Shall Meet?)

February 19th, 2011

Occasionally on this blog, same-sex ‘marriage’ proponents have challenged those of us who would seek to protect the institution of marriage to explain why, if we truly believe that (part of) the public purpose of marriage is to attach parents to their children, we nevertheless maintain that even a man and woman who are (for whatever reason) incapable of procreating together, or who simply have no desire or intention of doing so, should still be allowed – and even encouraged – to enjoy the benefits of married life.

Well, of course that challenge attempts to ignore the first of the public purposes of marriage we enumerate: to attach men and women to each other. Marriage integrates the two halves of humanity – male and female – and same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ would tend to segregate our species by gender.

Two articles I found today illustrate why that is the last thing we – or any society – should consider doing to our culture because, as it turns out, humanity is already on a dangerous course toward bifurcation on the basis gender – and on a world-wide scale, no less.

The first article, Where Have The Good Men Gone?, is adapted from a soon to be published book (Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys) that describes how the men and women (both) of this new generation are, more and more, beginning to see males as irrelevant to procreation and family.

This is largely a result of a new sociological phenomenon (something being called “pre-adulthood”) that is having a much more deleterious effect on young males than on their female peers:

But for all its familiarity, pre-adulthood represents a momentous sociological development. It’s no exaggeration to say that having large numbers of single young men and women living independently, while also having enough disposable income to avoid ever messing up their kitchens, is something entirely new in human experience. Yes, at other points in Western history young people have waited well into their 20s to marry, and yes, office girls and bachelor lawyers have been working and finding amusement in cities for more than a century. But their numbers and their money supply were always relatively small. Today’s pre-adults are a different matter. They are a major demographic event.

What also makes pre-adulthood something new is its radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor’s degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.

That is going to result in (possibly global) social upheavals that are serious enough. But according the second article, Renting a Womb, now even those men (even heterosexual men) who are in a position to start a family (and who care to bother) are often opting to contract with a surrogate to produce a child to order.

Does anyone besides me remember when women seethed in resentment about being treated like “a sex symbol and a baby factory”? Well, of course this new paradigm for procreation only works for men if they can find a woman who can be persuaded (for enough money, of course) to settle for only the ‘baby factory’ part – however it makes her feel about herself:

“It was really sad to hear that he was not able to have a baby of his own because of relationship problems and with the financial gain that came with it, I said why not?” she admits.

She says the process was fairly simple even though she was apprehensive at first.

After going through a routine blood analysis and HIV tests, she conceived and was paid half the amount and immediately placed on a medical cover for three years.

“During the pregnancy, he catered for all my needs and two weeks after the birth of his son he wired the other half into my account, and I gave up the baby. It was traumatic but the allure for the money and the heart to help him out made me do it,” she explains.

“I feel guilty and not proud of what I did but I always tell myself that I made a sacrifice for another person’s happiness through my good heart. I am happy that I helped him achieve his goals of becoming a parent even though I don’t plan to be a surrogate again in the future,” she offers.

So, do I remember some folks on this blog disputing the suggestion that surrogacy has evolved into an industry that manufactures babies to be marketed like commodities?

You know, if you find yourself in a hole that is already so deep that you’ll have a hard time climbing out of it, the first order of business is to stop digging!! (especially if you figure out that the hole you’re in is a grave) We need to role back the legal ‘innovations’ (such as ‘no-fault’ divorce) that have put marriage on the list of endangered institutions. But most of all, we must refrain from driving the last nail in marriage’s coffin. Why would we even want to find out if same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ will be that “last nail”?

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Sean
    February 21st, 2011 at 05:33 | #1

    Same-sex marriage is a good thing, not a bad thing. That’s why all of the country’s major medical organizations support equal access to marriage for gay couples and their children. Married couples are better off financial and health-wise, according to marriage expert Maggie Gallagher. Our medical organizations seem to support that notion.

    Instead of smearing same-sex marriage with other kinds of perceived social maladies, why not offer some examples of the bad things that you think will occur when same-sex marriage is widely legal?

  2. Sean
    February 21st, 2011 at 06:07 | #2

    If the public purpose of marriage is to bind parents to their children, why sanction childless unions? It makes no sense. Letting childless, but straight, couples marry simply makes the public purpose of marriage to sanction straight relationships. Is that what you really want?

  3. February 21st, 2011 at 10:08 | #3

    “same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ would tend to segregate our species by gender.”

    Really? So what would you have my same-sex partner and me do? Should we break up and marry women? Do you really want your daughter or sister to marry a gay man?

    Or should we stop being a couple and just be celibate singles? But if so, how would that lessen “segregation”?

  4. Leland
    February 21st, 2011 at 10:40 | #4

    Sean :
    If the public purpose of marriage is to bind parents to their children, why sanction childless unions? It makes no sense. Letting childless, but straight, couples marry simply makes the public purpose of marriage to sanction straight relationships. Is that what you really want?

    Sean, did you not even read the first two paragraphs of the OP?

  5. February 21st, 2011 at 11:39 | #5

    @Sean Here are the demonstrated harms from the state sanctioning of same-sex unions:
    http://www.frc.org/testimony/peter-sprigg-testifies-before-rhode-island-house-judiciary-committee

    By your logic, what marriage is NOT okay? polygamy, polyandry, multiple couples together, incest? You cannot logically deny any of these if you say same-sex marriage is okay.

    If you want to know what marriage really is, and why childless couples in a real marriage are just as valid, then go here and download the entire file to read – if you’re capable of reading cohesive arguments. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

  6. John
    February 21st, 2011 at 14:08 | #6

    Opposite-sex marriages are allowed even when no children are planned, or possible in some cases, because it sets a good example for society. It’s a handy reminder to kids that being gay is bad and gay couples deserve punishment.

    Here’s just one example of the desire to punish, from the American Family Institute’s talk show, regarding the policy requiring same-sex couples not be denied visitation rights at hospitals:

    Forced to go gay

    Transcript of the part relevant to this comment:

    This is [this is] a policy without a problem, and [and uh] I think where it is headed, is . . . they want to recognize domestic partners as the same as marriage. So, eventually, what I think [uh] Health and Human Services is going to do, is gonna ramp this policy up a little bit, and go beyond merely visiting in a hospital room . . . to who’s allowed to make decisions with regards to treatments, if [if] a [uh] person is in the hospital unconcious, those kinds of things. I think where this will eventually head is a domestic partner is the same as a spouse, and they will have equal rights in determining [uh] what those decisions should be.

    How callous can someone be to demand same-sex couples not be allowed to make medical decisions for one another?

  7. John
    February 21st, 2011 at 14:32 | #7

    Glenn E. Chatfield :

    @Sean
    Here are the demonstrated harms from the state sanctioning of same-sex unions:
    http://www.frc.org/testimony/peter-sprigg-testifies-before-rhode-island-house-judiciary-committee

    Sprigg’s testimony is fear-mongering, pure-and-simple. It’s full of distortions, outright lies, and insane speculation. If he were to have to defend what he said in a court of law, on the witness stand, he’d be torn to shreds.

    Glenn E. Chatfield :

    If you want to know what marriage really is, and why childless couples in a real marriage are just as valid, then go here and download the entire file to read – if you’re capable of reading cohesive arguments. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

    Funny you should mention that. Rob Tisinai is currently doing an excellent deconstruction and refutation of that very paper on his blog: Reply to George.

  8. Sean
    February 21st, 2011 at 16:12 | #8

    Leland, yes, I did read the various paragraphs. I responded to the ongoing silliness about marriage’s “public purpose,” that is, to join biological parents with their children.

    If marriage is also to bind males to females, children or not, why not also bind males to males? Females to females? Did a bedrock value of marriage is personal choice, why not let grownups choose their life partners, and create stable relationships? Why not be a grownup and accept that other people might make personal choices that differ from yours???

  9. February 21st, 2011 at 16:48 | #9

    Thanks John! I won’t be getting to George’s argument about infertile couples for several more days, but it’s going to be fun.

  10. Anna
    February 21st, 2011 at 17:06 | #10

    Sherif Girgis
    Princeton University Department of Philosophy
    Robert George
    Princeton University – Department of Politics
    Ryan T. Anderson
    University of Notre Dame Department of Political Science
    vs-
    Rob
    A blogger

  11. Leland
    February 21st, 2011 at 17:19 | #11

    @Rob Tisinai
    Rob, what do you want the rest of us to do? Should we pretend that a same-sex relationship is equal to marriage when it so obviously is not? Whatever you and your partner decide to do, what is the justification for using the force of law to compel all of society to sanction, privilege, and encourage same-sex relationships the same as a genuine marriage when the two kinds of relationships don’t even begin to effect society in equal ways?

    Your challenge doesn’t address the validity of the statement that “Marriage integrates the two halves of humanity – male and female – and same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ would tend to segregate our species by gender.”

  12. February 21st, 2011 at 18:32 | #12

    Anna, what’s your point exactly? Do you just automatically agree with the person with the best resume, or do you pay attention to the things people say and the arguments they make?

  13. February 21st, 2011 at 18:33 | #13

    Leland, how about you answer my question before asking one of your own?

  14. February 21st, 2011 at 18:45 | #14

    Actually, Leland, I can rephrase that last message more productively: In order to address your argument, I need you to clarify it. So please tell me, what would you have my same-sex partner and me do? Should we break up and marry women? Do you really want your daughter or sister to marry a gay man?

    Or should we stop being a couple and just be celibate singles? But if so, how would that lessen “segregation”?

    I’m using this example of my partner and me in my effort to understand how the existence of same-sex marriage increases the segregation of the sexes beyond its current state. Please clarify.

  15. February 22nd, 2011 at 06:14 | #15

    @Rob Tisinai You can have your perverse relationship, just don’t force the rest of us to accept it as normal by shoving same-sex marriage down our throats.

  16. Anna
    February 22nd, 2011 at 06:42 | #16

    Rob, fair point. I apologize for the snark.

  17. February 22nd, 2011 at 11:06 | #17

    @Anna, no worries. :)

  18. February 22nd, 2011 at 11:10 | #18

    @Glenn: You’re assuming facts not in evidence, and they’re all wrong.

    1. I do not have a perverse relationship.
    2. I have no wish to force you to accept it as normal — just legal (two different things — I know legally married opposite-sexers whose relationships I wouldn’t call “normal”).
    3. I have no desire to shove same-sex marriage down your throat. If I have done anything to make you think I will force you to marry a man, please explain.

  19. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 14:26 | #19

    Rob Tisinai, you tried to reframe the discussion when you attempted deconstruction of R. George’s paper on marriage. But even at that, you ended-up deconstructing the pro-SSM complaint and the pro-SSM remedy.

    I’ll blog about your argumentation at Opine Editorials.

  20. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 14:29 | #20

    John said, maliciously:

    “It’s a handy reminder to kids that being gay is bad and gay couples deserve punishment.”

    The core meaning of the social institution of marriage pre-exists the emergence of gay identity politics. It arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, not from your strawman argument.

  21. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 14:36 | #21

    John, what you described as a transcript is actually your notes, right?

    Well, even at that, you misrepresented what the bit you quoted in your comment.

    Using hospital visitation rights as a political ploy to equate, falsely, one-sexed scenarios with marriage is an established tactic used by the SSM campaign and is very often used by SSMers who show-up to make their case for the SSM idea here in the comment sections of this blogsite — and at other venues.

    Your own comment above is just the latest example of that very thing.

  22. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 14:39 | #22

    Rob, SSM argumentation does argue in favor of the 3 points you denied.

    In fact your reply on point 1 is contradicted by your replies to points 2 and 3. Perhaps you might restate so as to make yourself more clear on all three points and explain how your summary is in direct response to what was said by your fellow commenter.

  23. Chairm
    February 22nd, 2011 at 14:47 | #23

    Rob, how about responding to the part from Leland’s blogpost that you quoted but did not address; you asked questions that do not respond to what you chose to highlight from the blogpost.

    * * *

    You quoted Leland: “same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ would tend to segregate our species by gender.”

    Your responded with questions.

    “Really? So what would you have my same-sex partner and me do? Should we break up and marry women? Do you really want your daughter or sister to marry a gay man? Or should we stop being a couple and just be celibate singles? But if so, how would that lessen “segregation”?”

    It is safe to assume that that the first your five sentences in that bit were punctuated with question marks to designate rhetorical quesitions.

    The fifth sentence might qualify as a question asked in earnest.

    Each instance of a one-sexed arrangement excludes the other sex. Entrenching special treatment on the basis of sex-segregation would tend to incentivize that type of arrangement. You might view this through your gaycentric lense, but try to think more inclusively.

    Treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives, as per the demanded pro-SSM remedy, would deny the societal significance of sex integration in the first place.

    I expect that you have started not from Leland’s blogpost but from your predrawn conclusion, Rob, that there is no societal significance to sex integration and that marriage has zilch to do with it anyway. Right?

  24. February 22nd, 2011 at 17:21 | #24

    @Rob Tisinai What forces down our throats is the legal sanction of perversity, and the punishment of those who don’t want to give it sanction.

  25. February 22nd, 2011 at 18:35 | #25

    Chairm, you still need to explain how same-sex marriage will increase “segregation” beyond the state it’s in now. By what mechanism will this happen? Will more people be gay? If not, how will “segregation” increase?

    Without answers to these questions, I can’t address the claim that Leland made.

  26. February 22nd, 2011 at 18:36 | #26

    “I’ll blog about your argumentation at Opine Editorials”

    You’d best send me a reminder or a link.

  27. February 22nd, 2011 at 18:37 | #27

    “In fact your reply on point 1 is contradicted by your replies to points 2 and 3.”

    If you’re going to make such a claim, you ought to provide reason for someone to believe it. Otherwise, what’s the point?

  28. Leland
    February 22nd, 2011 at 20:29 | #28

    @Rob Tisinai

    Rob Tisinai :
    Leland, how about you answer my question before asking one of your own?

    What, you’re the only one who is allowed to engage in rhetoric? (That question itself was rhetorical, by the way.)

    @Rob Tisinai

    Rob Tisinai:
    …what would you have my same-sex partner and me do? Should we break up and marry women? … Or should we stop being a couple and just be celibate singles?

    What you and your partner want to do about your relationship should be your business – and you should definitely stop trying to use the force of law to make it everyone else’s business.

  29. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 01:48 | #29

    Rob, what is the point of your comment on those three items. Please clarify.

  30. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 03:29 | #30

    Rob asked: “Will more people be gay?”

    Will more people see the world through the filter of gay identity politics? Yes. This queering of society, as one prominent SSM advocate described it, means convincing more and more of the general population to act (personally and publicly) on the gay centered view of the world that SSM argumentation promotes. That wouldn’t stop if the SSM idea were to be entrenched in the law.

    But you meant to ask a different type of query, right?

    Perhaps you meant to ask if more people would feel same-sex attracted. How that question made it into your comment is a mystery that you might clear up. It does display your gaycentric viewpoint. The issue here is marriage, not gay identity, but SSMers superimpose gayness over just about everything they talk about.

  31. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 03:50 | #31

    Prior to your gay question you asked a question on what is probably your actual focus here: “[E]xplain how same-sex marriage will increase ‘segregation’ beyond the state it’s in now. By what mechanism will this happen?”

    Here your query is about some social-scientific theory about the influence of marriage on society, right? Perhaps you are even narrowly asking for a statistical model of some sort whereby we might measure human actions and then work to nail down cause and effect?

    If so, proceed carefully if your purpose is to deconstruct the viewpoint you oppose without, at the same time, deconstructing your own viewpoint.

    The principled basis for marriage exists independantly of empirical evidence; but the available evidence supports the principled basis quite well.

    * * *

    You asked about the mechanism.

    The SSM idea is an outright rejection of the core meaning of the social institution. The SSM campaign seeks to abolish the marriage idea as an unjust construct that society, via its governing authorities, can no longer support nor promote.

    The replacement of the marriage idea with the SSM idea would mean demoting the core meaning of marriage to a barely tolerative status in the law and, by reach and influence of the law, demoting it as barely tolerable in the culture as well.

    The SSM idea is supposed to influence governing authorities and the culture, as per the SSM campaign’s self-serving predictions.

    Now, I had asked if you believe that there is no societal significance to sex integration and that marriage has zilch to do with it anyway. What say you?

    The core meaning of marriage: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these two (at least) combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as a social institution foundational to civil society).

    * * *

    The divorce revolution and the sex revolution have undermined societal regard for the core meaning of marriage. Much suffering has ensued. Both of these recent revolutions — expressed in the law and then in the culture and then compounded in the law again — have led to less sex integration and less responsible procreation and less of both in combination as per the social institution of marriage. Nonmarital trends have gone up, not down, as the core meaning of marriage was undermined.

    Until a saturation point is reached (in some countries that seems to have been reached but not here in the USA) the trends manifest as both cause and effect. As divorce is normalized more divorce occurs; as unwed childbearing is normalized more of it occurs; as more people populate the nonmarriage category, the distinction between marriage and nonmarriage becomes blurred both in practice and in the popular imagination; and so forth. The SSM idea is erected on the heap of incoherent bits and pieces that have accumulated outside the social institution of marriage.

    The issue for society is the future of societal response to the core meaning of marriage. Shall we abandon it as unjust? Or shall we promote it and encourage people to aspire to it and to act on it both in terms of our legal system and our culture?

    Replacing the marriage idea with the SSM idea would, at the very least, tie one hand behind society’s back when it comes to promoting the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation. But, given the SSM campaign’s goal of smearing the core of marriage as intolerable, well, we can reasonably expect that the entrenchment of the SSM idea would purposefully work against any societal preference for marriage’s core meaning.

    So the social institution is already battered and its influence already undermined. But it is foundational and as such it is difficult not to regard it for what it actually is. Setting Government against this institution, a foundation of civil society, is to set Government against the People. It takes a much coercive effort to impose this anti-marriage construct. That, too, has become evident during the escalation of the SSM campaign.

    The SSM idea can do little, if anything, to promote sex integration. As the incoherent replacement of the coherent marriage idea, SSM would do nothing to pause, much less to reverse, nonmarital trends. It would rather exacerbate those trends. And there is a built-in incentive for that to occur: if nonmarital trends continue to rise, then, the SSM idea is supposedly more palatable.

    On the other hand, reconfirming the societal significance of the core meaning of marriage and working to support what marriage makes normative in the culture would be the obvious route to promoting integration of the sexes. Improvements might be hard won; society’s nonmarital trends did not happen overnight and it will take time and energy to pause and reverse those trends. But this cannot mean going back to the way it was fifty years ago — not entirely — because the sexual revolution occurred and has lasting effects, some positive and some neutral even if much was negative.

    Marriage deals with stuff that the SSM idea marginalizes. Society can respond to the core meaning of marriage in various ways. The SSm idea is a proposal to reject that core outright. That cannot help address the rise in sex segregation.

  32. February 23rd, 2011 at 07:14 | #32

    So Leland, if you’re fine with me staying with my partner, then how would my marrying him increase sexual “segregation”? I’m still trying to understand this point from your original post.

  33. John
    February 23rd, 2011 at 10:18 | #33

    Chairm :

    John said, maliciously:

    “It’s a handy reminder to kids that being gay is bad and gay couples deserve punishment.”

    The core meaning of the social institution of marriage pre-exists the emergence of gay identity politics. It arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, not from your strawman argument.

    Same-sex couples are denied the right to marry. This results in same-sex couples being financially punished in way that married OS couples are not. That is a good example of punishment, imo. In addition, your own words belie your claim that my statement was malicious. You yourself have said that same-sex couples cannot be morally or ethically the equal of OS married couples.

  34. John
    February 23rd, 2011 at 10:35 | #34

    Chairm :

    John, what you described as a transcript is actually your notes, right?

    Wrong, Chairm. I listened to the clip well over a dozen times to make sure I got what he said exactly correct, including uhs and pauses.

    Chairm :

    Well, even at that, you misrepresented what the bit you quoted in your comment.

    I misrepresented nothing. I quoted him directly.

    Chairm :

    Using hospital visitation rights as a political ploy to equate, falsely, one-sexed scenarios with marriage is an established tactic used by the SSM campaign and is very often used by SSMers who show-up to make their case for the SSM idea here in the comment sections of this blogsite — and at other venues.

    So you agree with the speaker, then, that we should not be allowed to make medical decisions for our loved ones? If not, explain your repulsive assertion that hospital visitation rights are merely a political ploy.

  35. John
    February 23rd, 2011 at 10:39 | #35

    Chairm :Rob . . .

    Each instance of a one-sexed arrangement excludes the other sex. Entrenching special treatment on the basis of sex-segregation would tend to incentivize that type of arrangement. You might view this through your gaycentric lense, but try to think more inclusively.

    It sounds here like you are contending that making same-sex marriage legal would encourage straight people to turn gay. I hope I’ve misunderstood; otherwise, you clearly have no concept of homosexuality actually means.

  36. John
    February 23rd, 2011 at 10:41 | #36

    Typing too fast. “no concept of homosexuality actually means” should read “no concept of what homosexuality actually means.”

  37. Heidi
    February 23rd, 2011 at 13:56 | #37

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    “What forces down our throats is the legal sanction of perversity, and the punishment of those who don’t want to give it sanction.”

    How is anyone punished by the sanctioning of same-sex marriage? You are still able to think that gay people are perverse, even though I personally lead a very normal, vanilla, non-perverse life. My partner and I are pretty much like every other couple: we work, we pay taxes, we raise children, we have a dog, etc. What is so perverse about that? Or is it that you can’t get past the sex? Why are anti-equality folks so obsessed with the sex lives of gay people?

  38. February 23rd, 2011 at 15:03 | #38

    @Heidi I’ll tell you what, on my blog: http://sanityinanupsidedownworld.blogspot.com/ look at the labels, and under “Homosexual Agenda” look over the articles as I give example after example of people being fired, fined, jailed, and all sorts of punishment for the simple reason that they don’t want to lend their own sanction to SSM or even unions which aren’t legal yet.

    What is perverse is same-sex unions. Your buzz word “anti-equality” is a lie; homosexualists don’t want equal treatment – they want treatment based on their sexual proclivities to the point they want to change the definition of marriage. It isn’t us who are obsessed with “gay” sex – it is the sodomites & lesbians who want to make sure they are know by their sexual behavior. Everyone else just identifies themselves by their gender or by their employment, etc, but the identity of sodomites and lesbians is that they “gay” Why do we have to know your sexual preferences except that you want special rights based on them!

  39. February 23rd, 2011 at 21:49 | #39

    Good lord, Glenn, are you kidding me? Every heterosexual I know broadcasts their sexual orientation continually. They speak of husbands, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends…

    Just like gay people should be able to do. So stop pretending straight don’t advertise their sexual orientation. They’re much more vocal about it than gays.

  40. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:30 | #40

    John said:

    “Same-sex couples are denied the right to marry.”

    False. If you choose a one-sexed scenario, then, you do not choose marriage. But that choice is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.

    John said: “This results in same-sex couples being financially punished in way that married OS couples are not. That is a good example of punishment, imo.”

    Your opinion is based on a false equivalency. However the one-sexed scenario that is gaycentric, such as the type of arrangement you clearly emphasize, is similarily situated with the rest of nonmarriage.

    The proof of that is that no SSMer has managed to state the essentials of SSM such that it can be distinguished from the rest of nonmarriage — before you’d stick the label, marriage, on it. Your own terms of argumentation dictates that the lack of a legal requirement is decisive. This destroys your attempts to demand special treatment for the gay subset of nonmarriage over the rest of nonmarriage. Yet you demand preferential treatment, not equality, based on gay identity alone.

    John said: “In addition, your own words belie your claim that my statement was malicious. You yourself have said that same-sex couples cannot be morally or ethically the equal of OS married couples.”

    Retrace your steps and show how you attribute that to me. Thanks.

  41. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:31 | #41

    John said: “I listened to the clip well over a dozen times to make sure I got what he said exactly correct …”

    So, as I said, you made notes and used them in your comment.

  42. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:32 | #42

    John said: “I misrepresented nothing. I quoted him directly.”

    Your notemaking may be impeccable. And yet you misrepresented even what you quoted. You read into it what is not there. That may be convenient for you but it is inaccurate nonetheless.

  43. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:37 | #43

    John said: “So you agree with the speaker, then, that we should not be allowed to make medical decisions for our loved ones?”

    There you go again, misrepresenting willfully.

    Hospitals regulate hospital visitation. A hospital ought to honor the choice made by their patient when it comes to designating a decider. This has zilch to do with equating the one-sexed scenario — gaycentric or not — with the union of husband and wife. The issue is a red herring.

    If you are hinting that marital status is a special status and has legal incidents that flow from the special reason fro that special status, fine, but let’s not pretend that the SSM campaign is not playing politics with this red herring.

    You are, as well, and that, John, is repulsive in its own way.

  44. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:41 | #44

    John said, rather aimlessly:

    “It sounds here like you are contending that making same-sex marriage legal would encourage straight people to turn gay. I hope I’ve misunderstood; otherwise, you clearly have no concept of what homosexuality actually means.”

    I emphathize with your confusing feelings on the question that was asked of me; Rob might explain the mystery of how that question made it into his comment. It came from his imagination so he can own it.

  45. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:42 | #45

    Typo correction: I emphathize with your confusing feelings …

  46. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:42 | #46

    Heh, I empathize.

  47. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 23:44 | #47

    Heidi, in a comical remark with inadvertent irony, said:

    “Or is it that you can’t get past the sex? Why are anti-equality folks so obsessed with the sex lives of gay people?”

    Why the gay emphasis in your comments regarding SSM? You appear to be obsessed with it even as you scoff at it. Very odd indeed.

  48. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 00:05 | #48

    Rob said: “So stop pretending straight don’t advertise their sexual orientation. They’re much more vocal about it than gays.”

    You did not address Glen’s main point.

    He said: “Why do we have to know your sexual preferences except that you want special rights based on them.”

    The gay identity group demands special treatment based on gay identity. The narrative is about same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex sexual romance, and gay identity. None of these things are made compulsory for those who’d SSM wherever it has been imposed or enacted; yet SSMers insist that the lack of a legal requirement is decisive.

    Meanwhile, self-identifying oneself as gay is not a disqualifier to form a lawful marriage.

    It is unreasonable to read into the marriage law something that is not there — a gay criterion for ineligiblity or a straight criterion for eligibility — and then complain that the law must be changed to remedy that misreading.

    So, first insist that the lack of a legal requirment is decisive but then make up a requirement that does not exist and complain about it. Second, emphasize gay identity but don’t propose to make it a requirement for SSM law. Third, conflate gay identity with heterosexuality and insist that it is immutable even though no socio-political construct is immutable nor inborn. Fourth, falsely equate the one-sexed scenario with the union of husband and wife but abandon that when the gay emphasis is challenged head-on and deny that marriage, at law, is a sexual type of relationship afterall.

    This is the convoluted thinking that puts sexual orientation front and center for SSMers. It is unreasonable and foolishly self-defeating.

    Just start with the essential(s) of the type of relationship you have in mind. If the one-sexed scenario is not defined by gay identity, okay, but you need something that would distinguish this type of relationship from the rest of nonmarriage — before you slap a label on it such as “marriage” or even “same-sex union”. if it is defined by gay identity, then, you ought to have no problem when Gelnn or anyone else challenges you on that very basis.

  49. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 03:31 | #49

    Typo correkshun: Third, conflate gay identity with homosexuality …

  50. February 24th, 2011 at 09:12 | #50

    @Rob Tisinai Normal people don’t want to be identified by their sexual behavior. Talking about spouses and girlfriends/boyfriends is normal conversation. They don’t say, “OH, I’m heterosexual” Talking about “mates” when one is a sodomite/lesbian is immediately saying that one is such, however that in my experience has been a very rare thing. It is always, “I’m gay” or “I’m a lesbian” etc, and all you see is “Gays and Lesbians” want this or that. The point is that they want to be identified by their sexual behavior and demand special rights because of it.

  51. John
    February 24th, 2011 at 09:29 | #51

    Glenn E. Chatfield :

    @Heidi I’ll tell you what, on my blog: http://sanityinanupsidedownworld.blogspot.com/ look at the labels, and under “Homosexual Agenda” look over the articles as I give example after example of people being fired, fined, jailed, and all sorts of punishment for the simple reason that they don’t want to lend their own sanction to SSM or even unions which aren’t legal yet.

    Glenn, you sure love to lie, dontcha? I just looked through all your posts flagged “Homosexual Agenda” and saw no reports of anyone jailed for opposing SSM or rights for LGBT citizens.

    As for firings, sure, there was the marriage commissioner in Canada who refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Anyone who refuses to fulfill the duties required by his employment should expect to be fired. A public employee does not have the right to choose which members of the public he will serve based on his personal convictions.

    If that’s what you really want, don’t complain if you’re denied a driver’s license renewal by someone who doesn’t approve of Christianity. Don’t complain if the police refuse to come to your aid because you happen to be wearing your kilt, and they don’t approve of cross-dressers. Don’t complain if a black paramedic refuses to help you because he doesn’t like white poeple. Don’t complain if your mail carrier declines to deliver your mail because she considers the playing of musical instruments to be immoral.

  52. February 24th, 2011 at 10:50 | #52

    Chairm, to be honest, I rarely understand your posts. That’s a defeat for one of us, but I imagine we’d disagree on whose defeat that is.

  53. February 24th, 2011 at 11:39 | #53

    I am finished dialoging with people who have no common sense and can’t read and comprehend. On my blog there are incidents after incidents of people being punished for not wanting to sanction SSM. The point is that laws are being made which punish people for not wanting to sanction aberrant sexual behavior. That is not the same as denying rights based on skin color or philosophical beliefs. If you think otherwise then you have no reasoning skills. To liken playing music with sexual behavior is about as bizarre logic as it gets. Romans 1:18-32 describes exactly what is happening here.

  54. John
    February 24th, 2011 at 13:07 | #54

    Chairm :

    John said: “I listened to the clip well over a dozen times to make sure I got what he said exactly correct …”

    So, as I said, you made notes and used them in your comment.

    There’s a difference between taking notes and transcribing exactly what was said.

    Chairm :

    John said: “So you agree with the speaker, then, that we should not be allowed to make medical decisions for our loved ones?”

    There you go again, misrepresenting willfully.

    Hospitals regulate hospital visitation. A hospital ought to honor the choice made by their patient when it comes to designating a decider. This has zilch to do with equating the one-sexed scenario — gaycentric or not — with the union of husband and wife. The issue is a red herring.

    The speaker was expressing his opinion that same-sex couples being allowed to make medical decisions for each other, like legally married spouses, is a negative. He objects to it. Again, I did not misrepresent him.

    Furthermore, it has everything to do with “the one-sexed scenario.” Since same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in the vast majority of states in this country, they do not have the same visitation or medical decision making rights as married couples. It would appear from your statement that you don’t want to admit that your answer is yes, you do think we don’t deserve visitation or medical decision making rights. If you felt otherwise, you wouldn’t just repeat again that said rights are contingent upon marriage.

    Chairm :

    If you are hinting that marital status is a special status and has legal incidents that flow from the special reason fro that special status, fine, but let’s not pretend that the SSM campaign is not playing politics with this red herring.

    You are, as well, and that, John, is repulsive in its own way.
    No, I’m not hinting at it. The whole point of this discussion is that marriage has legal incidents that flow from it, and these are denied same-sex couples. The whole point of NOM, and the major point of Ruth, is making sure marriage is kept out of reach of same-sex couples.

    I’m talking about our lives, not politics. You have made it clear that you have no concern whatsoever for our lives, other than making sure we’re kept second-class citizens.

  55. John
    February 24th, 2011 at 13:12 | #55

    Glenn E. Chatfield :

    I am finished dialoging with people who have no common sense and can’t read and comprehend. On my blog there are incidents after incidents of people being punished for not wanting to sanction SSM. The point is that laws are being made which punish people for not wanting to sanction aberrant sexual behavior. That is not the same as denying rights based on skin color or philosophical beliefs. If you think otherwise then you have no reasoning skills. To liken playing music with sexual behavior is about as bizarre logic as it gets. Romans 1:18-32 describes exactly what is happening here.

    You claim people have been jailed, yet give no references to this actually happening.

    I didn’t liken playing music with sexual behavior; I gave examples of public employees refusing to serve people based upon their personal feelings towards that group of people.

  56. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 14:21 | #56

    John said: “you do think we don’t deserve visitation or medical decision making rights”

    False. I said so in my earlier comment. Also, you misrepresented what was said the bit you quoted from your notes. He did not say what you seem to deeply need him to have said.

  57. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 14:25 | #57

    John you might as well admit, like Rob, that you cannot comprehend what is plainly stated.

    You said: “The whole point of this discussion is that marriage has legal incidents that flow from it, and these are denied same-sex couples.”

    What do you mean by ‘same-sex couples’? Perhaps you are simply invoking your gay emphasis again. Nonmarriage is not defined by gay identity, John.

    The legal incidents of marriage flow from the special reason for the special status of marriage. The SSM idea is an open rejection of that special reason — a rejection of the core meaning of the social institution. Gay identity is not a special reason for special status, surely. Your own SSM argumentation denies that it is a legitimate basis for lawmaking.

    And, as I said earlier, hospital visitation and designating a decider are not denied people who are unmarried. You are trying to claim for gay identity a special status that is not justified.

    I’m talking about our lives, not politics. You have made it clear that you have no concern whatsoever for our lives, other than making sure we’re kept second-class citizens.

  58. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 14:29 | #58

    The last paragraph in my previous comment is actually a quote from John’s commentary.

    He misrepresented again.

    I have pointed out that the gay subset of nonmarriage — the gay type of relationship you have in mind — is similarily situated with the most of the rest of the types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the broad nonmarriage category. Yet you demand disparate treatment based on gay identity alone.

    You demand a special status (marital staus is special status) without justification and in the process you reject the core meaning that justifies the preferential status of marriage in our laws and culture.

    Is it the same-sex sexual behavior that you think jusifies special status? Or perhaps the sexual attraction? Or something else that would distinguish your favored identity group form the rest of nonmarriage?

  59. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 14:33 | #59

    Rob, your dismissive approach only hampers you from engaging the actual disagreement. I noticed that, too, in your ongoing series of blogposts on Robert George’s paper regarding marriage. If you seek to be understood, first seek to understand what others are saying. If you can’t be bothered, then, don’t pretend otherwise.

  60. February 24th, 2011 at 15:46 | #60

    “John you might as well admit, like Rob, that you cannot comprehend what is plainly stated.”

    Chairm, if you’re presenting that as an accurate characterization of what I “admitted,” I’m afraid you have your own problems with comprehension and/or misrepresentation.

  61. John
    February 24th, 2011 at 17:01 | #61

    C

    Chairm :

    I have pointed out that the gay subset of nonmarriage — the gay type of relationship you have in mind — is similarily situated with the most of the rest of the types of relationships and types of living arrangements that populate the broad nonmarriage category. Yet you demand disparate treatment based on gay identity alone.

    Yes, you’ve said it ad nauseum, even though it makes little sense. I do not demand disparate treatment based on gay identity alone. I demand equal treatment base on my status as a citizen of this country and as a human being.

    C

    Chairm :

    You demand a special status (marital staus is special status) without justification and in the process you reject the core meaning that justifies the preferential status of marriage in our laws and culture.

    I reject the notion that only penis+vagina makes a marriage. Bearing children are not a requirement of marriage. Sexual contact is not a requirement of marriage. Yet you insist that marriage be granted couples OS couples who neither want nor can conceive children, and insist it be denied SS couples, who might well want to raise children.

    C

    Chairm :

    Is it the same-sex sexual behavior that you think jusifies special status? Or perhaps the sexual attraction? Or something else that would distinguish your favored identity group form the rest of nonmarriage?

    Get off your identity group nonsense. SS couples want to marry for the same reasons OS couples want to marry. It has nothing to do with “gay identity” and everything to do with human nature and the built in need for romantic and sexual pair bonding.

  62. John
    February 24th, 2011 at 17:12 | #62

    Chairm :

    I’m talking about our lives, not politics. You have made it clear that you have no concern whatsoever for our lives, other than making sure we’re kept second-class citizens.

    Are you quoting me without responding, or are you claiming that you are made a second-class citizen because same-sex couples want the right to legally marry?

  63. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 19:48 | #63

    You admitted that you rarely understand and you said this by way of dismissing a previous comment which was plainly stated. Or did you mean to deal with the substance of that comment?

  64. February 25th, 2011 at 07:01 | #64

    Chairm, there’s quite a difference between:

    “Rob admits he cannot comprehend what is plainly stated.”

    “Rob has said he rarely comprehends my posts, which I believe are plainly stated.”

    The second statement is a true description of what I said. Unfortunately, you pretended I said the first. This sort of distortion does your side no credit.

  65. February 25th, 2011 at 19:51 | #65

    Rob, you misread. I clarified.

    The comment was plainly stated; rather than deal with the plainly stated comment’s content, you admitted you did not comprehend what was plainly stated.

    When next an SSMer pretends that someone said something that they did not, especially after clarification, no doubt you will note that misrepresentation in your commentary. Yes? And you will clarify if someone has misread your comment — or if asked to clarify. Yes?

  66. February 25th, 2011 at 20:28 | #66

    (February 23rd, 2011 at 03) I quoted rob’s question: “Will more people be gay?”

    I answered that it would encourage more people to view the world through gay identity politics.

    Pause a moment and consider that the only way to view SSM as a form of marriage is to view SSM as a sexual type of relationship that is identitical to the union of husband and wife; but that would mean treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.

    It does not mean treating SSM as marriage but rather the other way around. It means abolishing from our legal system and culture the core meaning of the social institution of marriage and replacing it with the SSM idea.

    Now if SSMers have trouble understanding this, they could ask for further clarification. Or they could pretend that I said something I had not said.

    In my earlier comment I did say that Rob might have meant to ask (with the quoted question above), not about sex segregation, but about something else.

    I did say:

    “Perhaps you meant to ask if more people would feel same-sex attracted.”

    I then said to Rob,

    “How that question made it into your comment [about sex segregation] is a mystery that you might clear up. It does display your gaycentric viewpoint. The issue here is marriage, not gay identity, but SSMers superimpose gayness over just about everything they talk about.”

    Rob’s response was evasive. Did he mean to ask if more people would feel same-sex attracted or did he mean to ask if more people would see marriage through the lense of gay identity politics? Likely he assumed the latter (even if he would not put it that way) whle asking the former.

    Maybe he assumes that the socio-political identity, gay, is one and the same as same-sex sexual attraction; that is a very common error of SSMers.

    Maybe he put that gaycentric question in the middle of his other questions about sex segregation because he hoped to bate and switch; that is the main strategoy of SSM argumentation throughout the SSM campaign.

    Maybe he really did think that societal concerns about sex-segregation begin with concerns about same-sex sexual attraction; a very unlikely starting point for comprehending the societal significance of sex integration.

    But if he thought that Leland and I had meant that the imposition of the SSM idea, in place of the marriage idea, would mean that more people will become same-sex attracted, then, it is up to Rob, not Leland nor myself, to explain how Rob’s idea sneaked into his reading of the topic.

    Rob did ask for a mechanism whereby sex segregation would increase. He got a plainly stated answer. He did not comprehend it.

    John, also did not comprehend it but chose to see through his gaycentric lense and fall for the bait and switch that Rob had left in his comment.

    John said:

    “It sounds here like you are contending that making same-sex marriage legal would encourage straight people to turn gay. I hope I’ve misunderstood; otherwise, you clearly have no concept of homosexuality actually means.”

    He said that after quoting me as follows:

    “Entrenching special treatment on the basis of sex-segregation would tend to incentivize that type of arrangement. You might view this through your gaycentric lense, but try to think more inclusively.”

    I clearly recommended that John try to think more inclusively and that means looking beyond his gay only frame of reference.

    The real issue here is the SSM idea’s rejection of the core meaning of marriage. Early on I said to Rob:

    Treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives, as per the demanded pro-SSM remedy, would deny the societal significance of sex integration in the first place.

    “I expect that you have started not from Leland’s blogpost [regarding sex segregation] but from your predrawn conclusion, Rob, that there is no societal significance to sex integration and that marriage has zilch to do with it anyway. Right?”

    Rob did not respond to that query.

    But, with that expectation in mind, I also had said:

    “Treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives, as per the demanded pro-SSM remedy, would deny the societal significance of sex integration in the first place.”

    And:

    “The issue for society is the future of societal response to the core meaning of marriage. Shall we abandon it as unjust? Or shall we promote it and encourage people to aspire to it and to act on it both in terms of our legal system and our culture?”

    Rob had asked for the mechanism whereby SSM would increase sex segregation and I replied that there already has been a diminishment of sex integration (see my remarks about nonmarital trends); the status quo needs improvement and that does not mean entrenching the nonmarital trends as they are nor as they are projected.

    “The SSM idea is an outright rejection of the core meaning of the social institution. The SSM campaign seeks to abolish the marriage idea as an unjust construct that society, via its governing authorities, can no longer support nor promote. The replacement of the marriage idea with the SSM idea would mean demoting the core meaning of marriage to a barely tolerative status in the law and, by reach and influence of the law, demoting it as barely tolerable in the culture as well.”

    * * *

    So, Rob and John, please clear up the mystery. Why did you ask about more people becoming gay? Why did you read into what I said something about more people becoming gay? Did you mean same-sex sexual attraction or did you mean gay identity?

    I can certainly meet you where you are currently standing and then walk with you to a full comprehension of the societal concern regarding sex segregation. We could even use your own question (whether or not it was a deliberate bait and switch) to shed light on the mechanism, as Rob had put it, whereby people tend to do more of what is incentivized and tend to do more of what is normalized.

    If you seek to be understood, first seek to understand. The SSM idea is in conflict with the marriage idea. The SSM idea is accurately represented in your own remarks, surely, and yet you have failed, utterly, to comprehend and accurately represent the marriage idea. Well, let’s start from where you start — your gay emphasis.

  67. February 25th, 2011 at 22:46 | #67

    Yeah, I get to something like this:

    “Pause a moment and consider that the only way to view SSM as a form of marriage is to view SSM as a sexual type of relationship that is identitical to the union of husband and wife; but that would mean treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.”

    …and I just want to stop. I’m so inundated with misplaced assumptions and nonsensical logical leaps that it’s hard to see the point of continuing.

    But I’ll try:

    “So, Rob and John, please clear up the mystery. Why did you ask about more people becoming gay? Why did you read into what I said something about more people becoming gay.”

    John and I are trying to figure out how SSM will increase sexual segregation. If SSM does NOT make more people gay, then it will not increase “segregation.” Since the contrapositive of a true statement is necessarily true, then if SSM increases “segregation” then SSM must make more people gay.

    That’s it, Chairm. Now, if you want to explain how SSM will increase “segregation” WITHOUT making more people gay, then you need to explain the mechanism by which SSm will increase “segregation.”

    But I have little hope. When I read something like this: “Rob had asked for the mechanism whereby SSM would increase sex segregation and I replied that there already has been a diminishment of sex integration” I see that you’re just setting up tautologies and playing wordgames.

  68. Mark
    February 26th, 2011 at 08:07 | #68

    @Chairm
    “Now if SSMers have trouble understanding this, they could ask for further clarification. ”

    frankly, I think EVERYONE would have trouble understanding this, idea of yours. Please clarify (and, please, less than 1000 words).

  69. February 26th, 2011 at 20:02 | #69

    Rob said:

    “If SSM does NOT make more people gay, then it will not increase ‘[sex'segregation.' Since the contrapositive of a true statement is necessarily true, then if SSM increases '[sex] segregation’ then SSM must make more people gay.”

    Your proposed contrapostiive of your false statement is irrelevant.

    Except that that your remark has reconfirmed your gay emphasis.

  70. February 26th, 2011 at 20:34 | #70

    Rob, you would do well by working harder to avoid your creating and using “misplaced assumptions and nonsensical logical leaps”.

    Why did you think to ask about more people being gay?

    I understand the limited purpose you offered in your previous comment. A remark that did not go to the explanation I had requested.

    Why did that question come to the fore in your thinking about segregation of the sexes?

    * * *

    John, you readily took Rob’s the bait, but why? Was it to make a false assumption for the purpsoe of making your attempted insult? If not, then, why the comment you made on this?

    Is same-sex attraaction in accord with your meaning of homosexuality? I expect it is. Your reaction to John’s question, and your “it sounds like” misrepresentation of my comment, strongly suggests to me, at least, that you do not have a different understanding of homosexuality.

    * * *

    Nonmarital trends have the unfortunate effect of increasing segregation of the sexes. The SSM idea does nothing to ease societal efforts to pause, much less to reverse, such socila ills.

    If it becomes entrenched as the replacement of the marriage idea, the SSM idea would hamper the needed societal response by setting government in opposition to that needed response. How could marriage be vigorously promoted for the sake of sex integration when the SSM campaign would make the Government treat it as the moral and legal equivalent of racism?

    The primacy of gay identity politics would not serve marriage very well; and thus would not serve integration of the sexes very well, if at all.

    Is it the purpose of the SSM idea to do anything about those nonmarital trends?

    I expect not, but those trends make the SSM idea more plausible, SSMers tell us over and over again. The SSM idea is not a positive response to the societal significance of sex integration; rather it would marginalize something that is at the core of the meaning of marriage. That can’t be useful in terms of promoting sex integration.

    Indeed, each one-sexed scenario is, by its very nature, a sex-segregative type of relationship or arrangement. It is promoted also as segregative in terms of sexual orientation. No instance of SSM would serve the purpose of sex integration. And, if the SSM idea is imposed as the countermeasure to the supposedly intolerable marriage idea, then, sex integration would be hampered greatly.

    Meanwhile, the more people who increase the nonmarital trends, the more those nonmarital behaviors are normalized. The SSM campaign and its SSM argumentation counts on it.

  71. February 26th, 2011 at 20:37 | #71

    Mark, your taunts are irrelevant to this discussion.

  72. Chairm
    February 28th, 2011 at 12:46 | #72

    Rob claimed that the following contained misplaced assumptions; that it contained leaps of logic.

    “Pause a moment and consider that the only way to view SSM as a form of marriage is to view SSM as a sexual type of relationship that is identitical to the union of husband and wife; but that would mean treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives.”

    No assumption appears in that quoted bit. So if Rob is assuming that there is an assumption or, as he proposed, multiple assumptions, then, he must be reading into what was actually said something that he assumed rather than read.

    As for leaps of logic, well, can Rob even point out what he perceived to be such a leap? Nope, he merely asserts and casts an exasperated air over his own leaping right over the content of the comment with which he claimed to disagree.

  73. Chairm
    February 28th, 2011 at 13:30 | #73

    Rob makes the mistake of assuming that his baited question follows from Leland’s remarks.

    Increased sex segregation does not depend on the participation rates of the gay identity group in SSM. Rather, it depends on the influence of government replacing the marriage idea with the SSM idea.

    Particpation rates in SSM (under whatever guise, even ‘same-sex householding’) are very, very low and declining. But SSMers do not argue from proportionality; they argue for the change in the law regardless of the actual user demand. They do that while arguing that the nonmarital trends make the SSM idea more plausible, anyway. This is a double-standard that SSMers rely upon far too much.

    Rob also confused categories.

    He assumed that SSM means gay participation in the favored status that SSM advocates demand for their favored subset of nonmarriage. But the issue is the SSM idea.

    The SSM idea is proposed as replacement for the marriage idea. The SSM idea provides no justification for treating the gay subset of nonmarriage as superior to the rest of nonmarriage. There is no justification, within the SSM idea, for the lines drawn against incestuous SSM nor against polygamous-like SSM nor group SSM. Those lines are drawn around the core meaning of marriage, the marriage idea, that SSM advocates reject.

    Also, there would be no gay requirement for those who’d SSM; and no straight criterion for ineligiblity to SSM. This is not an assumption: no place that has imposed SSM, under whatever guise, has such legal requirements; and the SSM campaign has carefully avoided proposing such requirements for SSM law.

    So it is a basic error of Rob’s to assume that those who’d SSM must be members of the gay identity group. Increased use of a favored status for nonmarriage would not be limited by gay identity.

    Further, SSM argumentation does not make SSM a sexual type of relationship, at law, as SSMers have argued in their own words; and, as SSMers have insisted, marriage is not a sexual type of relationship, at law, in their view. Sure, the pro-SSM rhetoric makes much of gay identity and much of a claim of equivalence between same-sex sexual behavior and opposite-sex sexual behavior, but that does not translate into legal requirements when it comes to SSM; it does translate into making marriage mean less than the sexual type of relationship that marriage law recognizes.

    So discount the sexual part out of the SSM rhetoric, as per SSM argumentation, and there is no good reason to propose that nonsexual relationships — such as that between siblings or close relatives — would be justly ineligible; nor that those involved in such nonsexual relationshiop would consider themselves “married” just because they took advantage of the favored status for SSM — which is itself a subset of nonmarriage anyway.

    SSMers often counter that the lines of eligiblity would remain the same because SSM will follow the lead of marriage; however, SSMers have demanded that the core meaning of marriage be discarded as intolerable and that the SSM idea be imposed as the superior alternative. Thus, the SSM idea would take the lead, not the other way around. However, if SSMers rely on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power to sustain lines that are justified by the very core meaning that they reject to impose SSM, then, their entire pro-SSM complaint becomes untenable; and their proposed pro-SSM remedy becomes an open fraud. And that is what SSMers illustrate over and over again.

    SSMers make many misplaced assumptions — against the marriage idea and in favor of the SSM idea — but are fond of accusing those with whom they disagree.

    Rob said:

    “John and I are trying to figure out how SSM will increase sexual segregation.”

    No, you are struggling with your own preconceptions. You think that SSM would be limited to the gay identity group; but that is a misplaced assumption. You think that SSM, as a type of relationship, is different from the rest of nonmarriage, at law, and yet that is a misplaced assumption that even SSM argumentation illustrates quite well. The gay subset of nonmarriage is simialrily situated with the rest of nonmarriage.

    Your rhetoric has misled you to make leaps that are unjustified.

    Now, perhaps you were not really concerned about participation rates in SSM. Perhaps for you the vagueness of the SSM idea is a positive even if it makes for a very poor basis for drawing lines of eligiblity and ineligiblity. Yet SSM argumentation demands that the basis for eligilbity be reconsidered on terms that render the SSM idea itself a much impoverished basis for special status (marital status is a special status).

    Rob made the following if-then statement:

    “If SSM does NOT make more people gay, then it will not increase “[sex] segregation.””

    Increased sex segregation can be attributed to the SSM idea whether or not more people would identify as sexually attracted to the same sex.

    Meanwhile, gay identity, is not one and the same thing as homosexual orientation, but you no doubt assumed otherwise. Perhaps you are too immersed with gay identity politics to recognize the difference.

    Rob said that “the contrapositive of a true statement is necessarily true”. Sure. But your original if-then statement is false. Your contrapositive is irrelevant.

    1. Participation in the favored SSM status is not dependant on becoming gay.

    2. The SSM idea, as replacement for the marriage idea, stands against the opposite-sex sexual basis for the lines of eligilbity/ ineligiblity that are justified by the marriage idea.

    That includes the societal concern regarding integration of the sexes and provision for responsible procreation.

    3. The SSM idea, if imposed by government, would set Government against the marriage idea and against the promotion of increased sex integration; the SSM idea depends on nonmarital trends to make it more plausible and palatable.

  74. Chairm
    March 3rd, 2011 at 00:32 | #74

    Has Rob fled his own query? Seems so.

  75. March 4th, 2011 at 11:36 | #75

    No, Chairm, I didn’t flee. I just didn’t see the point.

  76. Chairm
    March 4th, 2011 at 23:52 | #76

    You didn’t see the point of your own query.

    Why did you ask the question about more people becoming gay when the topic is segregation of the sexes? Because the common tactic of gay identity politics is to bait and switch. Being called out on that means that you suddenly do not see the point of your own query.

  77. March 6th, 2011 at 16:44 | #77

    “You didn’t see the point of your own query.”

    No, Chairm, I didn’t see the point of engaging with you anymore. And that quote above — your second misrepresentation of what I’ve said in this thread — shows why.

  78. Chairm
    March 7th, 2011 at 18:28 | #78

    It is an accurate representation, Rob. You claim otherwise. What is the point of your making the claim without backing it up?

    Right. Your gay emphasis is all you have but not one you are prepared to justify. Got it.

    It never occured to you that sex segregation can occur due to the SSM idea; instead you got off on your gay emphasis. Why is that do you think?

  79. Chairm
    March 7th, 2011 at 18:34 | #79

    The point of your query about more people becoming gay was … ? There was no point and so you now choose to blame me.

Comments are closed.