Home > Abortion, Jennifer Roback Morse, Newsletter articles, Pro-life Movement > Marching on the Right Side of History

Marching on the Right Side of History

April 11th, 2011

by Jennifer Roback Morse

January 24, 2011
Defenders of marriage should draw hope and courage from the pro-life movement’s success.

As an advocate of conjugal marriage, I am often told that I am on the “wrong side of History.” The justice of “marriage equality” is overwhelming; the younger generation favors it; same sex marriage is inevitable. But this analysis is false. Indeed, there is ample reason to think that the March of History storyline will be proven incorrect. The reason? We were told all these same things about abortion.

“You need to accept Roe v. Wade. The unlimited abortion license is nothing but simple justice for women. Besides, the next generation will completely accept abortion. They will grow up knowing nothing else. They will not have all your hang-ups about sex and your squeamishness about scraping a bit of tissue out of a woman’s body. Reproductive freedom is the wave of the future. You are on the Wrong Side of History.”

A funny thing happened on the way to History: the people did not perform as promised. Last year, I took a group of Ruth Institute students up to the West Coast Walk for Life in San Francisco. Official estimates place the attendance at over 35,000. But I wasn’t counting. I was looking at the faces. I saw what anyone can see, if they care to look: the pro-life movement is a youth movement.

The average age of the walkers at the West Coast Walk for Life was probably around late twenties, and even lower if you count babies in strollers. Toward the front of the parade were the Berkeley Students for Life (yes, there is such a thing) and the Stanford pro-life club, (yes, they exist as well), their long-standing cross-Bay rivalry set aside for the day. Busloads of high school students, college students road-tripping in from all over the West Coast, whole church youth groups, families with small children, babies in arms, backpacks and strollers. The next generation is not going along quietly with the Inexorable March of History.

And why should they?

The pro-abortion forces did not correctly predict how the young would react to the Abortion Regime. Simple demographics favor a pro-life next generation: advocates of life have more children on average than their opponents. But beyond that, every person under the age of 38 is in some sense a survivor of the abortion regime. Any of them could have been killed. And some of them realize that.

Many of them have seen friends have abortions to save relationships with boyfriends, only to have the boyfriend end the relationship anyway. Some of them have learned from experience that recreational sex is not as fun as they imagined. The coarsening of sexual relationships, the pressure on women to perform sexually, the easy escape for men from responsibility for their unborn children: some of the Millennials have put two and two together and figured out that the abortion regime enables all this.

Katelyn Sills, President of Berkeley Students for Life, attended the 2011 Walk on Saturday. She reports that the pro-life initiative comes from the young people themselves, not from their parents or other authority figures. When high school students form a pro-life club, it isn’t to pad their resumes: that particular extra-curricular activity won’t impress most college admissions offices. Students form pro-life clubs because they see the injustice of abortion: they identify with the child.

It is the interests of children that the Abortion Regime set aside in order to accommodate the desires of adults. And it is the interests of children that the redefinition of marriage is in the process of setting aside as well. Remember the old pro-abortion slogan, “every child a wanted child?” Who can take that seriously today? “Kids just need two adults who love them” will come to sound every bit as hollow.

Same-sex civil marriage tacitly but surely asserts that kids don’t really need mothers and fathers, and that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. The next generation will grow up with the consequences of institutionalizing this belief throughout society. Same-sex civil marriage is turning the drift toward artificial reproductive technology for infertile married couples into a tidal wave of entitlement for anyone married or single, straight or gay, of any age, to manufacture children for any reason. Redefining marriage will come to mean that there is no particular reason to insist on two parents. Some in the next generation will have three or four parents.

Advocates of redefining marriage assure us that all will be well. Children will do fine, whatever the loving adults in their lives decide to do. IVF children will be so wanted by their legal parents that the lifetime separation from their natural parents will not trouble them. And children of unconventional family structures will have more adults to love them. Divorce, separation, complex custody quarrels, kids shuttling between four households with their sleeping bags and backpacks: that’s just anti-equality hysteria and will never happen.

As time goes on, it will become more obvious that “marriage equality” requires us, men, women and children alike, to ignore biology. Some women who have children with female partners will find that sharing the care of her child with another woman, is not the same as sharing the care of her child with the child’s father. Some men who agree to be sperm donors as “friends” will find that they want more of a relationship with their own children than they had anticipated. And some children are going to have feelings about their absent parents, uncomfortable questions about their origins, and complex emotions about being partially purchased.

Advocates of same sex marriage typically respond, “That’s just biology,” as if biology were nothing. These advocates are asking people to set aside the natural attachment of parents to their own children, the natural difficulties of treating another person’s child as if they were your own, the natural desires of children to know who they are and where they came from. And these advocates are asking the whole of society to ignore sexual differentiation in parenthood: no mothers, no fathers, just generic parents. These enemies of the human body seem to forget that there are no generic people, just men and women.

As acceptance of gender-neutral marriage spreads throughout society, some same sex couples will not be “gay:” they will be forming same sex unions of convenience. And even among the gays and lesbians who marry, not all of them will be the most committed ideologues. Some will just want to live the ordinary lives that advocates of same sex marriage have been promising them. But biology will assert itself.

Children with father-hunger will start to speak up. Young people will start to notice that some of the differences between men and women actually matter. Mothers in same sex unions will start to notice that raising sons without fathers is harder than they had been led to believe. Suppressing all these feelings in all these people will simply not be possible indefinitely. Not everyone will remain silent. Abortion advocates never anticipated the Silent No More campaign, wherein women suffering the after-effects of their abortions began to speak up.  As time marches on, the brutality of the marriage “equality” regime will become just as obvious as the brutality of the abortion regime is today.

The children themselves will eventually have something to say about all this. Today, the energy and enthusiasm of the young is on the side of life. And in spite of everything we hear today, the same will be true of natural marriage. Conjugal marriage is the Right Side of History.

First published at PublicDiscourse.com.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Paul H
    January 24th, 2011 at 16:20 | #1

    I’m not a big fan of Mark Shea, but as he says, there are two phases of history on issues like this: (1) “What could it hurt?” and (2) “How were we supposed to know?” (I may have misquoted those slightly, but the basic idea is the same.) It’s sad that we have to spend so much time on phase (1) before we get to phase (2).

  2. Fr. Nicholas Zientarski
    January 24th, 2011 at 17:09 | #2

    One cannot argue with the truth, once it is known, whether it be the biological truth of the existence of human life from the first moment of conception or the biological truth of the unique, irreplaceable, and natural human bond between a woman and a man. As information becomes more and more available thanks to the web and the media and as our youth continue to crave the truth more and more in a relativistic age, there may indeed be incredible changes in our American society in the not-so-distant future. One thing is for certain– America cannot continue to the current track it is on where our youth are concerned!!!

  3. Heidi
    January 24th, 2011 at 17:30 | #3

    Wow, comparing the natural desire of people to marry those they love with abortion. TRI has hit a new low. Oh, and for the record, my kids are just fine. Why don’t you worry about your own and leave ours alone? I’ve raised a child with a man and now I’m raising one with a woman. There is no difference. A woman who is a lesbian is not going to suddenly yearn for her child’s sperm donor. How weird.

  4. Heidi
    January 24th, 2011 at 17:32 | #4

    But I suppose the larger point is that with or without the right to marry, LGBT people are still raising children and will continue to do so. For those of us who can’t marry, our children are simply less protected. Thanks a bunch! Guess you really care so much about our children.

  5. Heidi
    January 24th, 2011 at 17:36 | #5

    Oh and one more thing: You speak of “the natural difficulties of treating another person’s child as if they were your own.” My second child is not my biological offspring. But you’d better believe she is my OWN child. You of all people ought to know that, considering that you have an adopted child. Do you honestly admit that you think of or treat them differently? I can’t even imagine that. The real parents are the ones who raise the children. It’s really that simple.

  6. Sean
    January 24th, 2011 at 19:32 | #6

    Still stuck on stupid:

    “Same-sex civil marriage tacitly but surely asserts that kids don’t really need mothers and fathers, and that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.”

    Same-sex marriage makes no such claim. Whether same-sex marriage is legal or not, parenting, and who does it, is a separate issue. Outlawing same-sex marriage doesn’t give a child a mommy and a daddy. There are still single parents out there and yes, plenty of children being raised by same-sex couples. Of course, thanks to NOM, those kids are being raised outside of wedlock, but, hey, what’s a little collateral damage when you are a Straight Supremacist?

    Honestly, does the intellectual honesty and integrity mode ever kick in?

  7. Sean
    January 24th, 2011 at 19:37 | #7

    “Redefining marriage will come to mean that there is no particular reason to insist on two parents.”

    There is already no particular reason to insist on two parents: that’s why it’s perfectly legal in all 50 states for a single person to be a parent. All human beings have the right to reproduce, with few limitations. That must be a tough pill for the Ruth Institute to swallow, but it is a fact, reality and the law. You may not like it when people in a same-sex relationship reproduce but there’s little you can do about it. But it does hurt the children in such families when the adults raising them are not in a secure married relationship.

    Hurting kids may be acceptable for NOM and TRI but decent folks find it deplorable. Maybe some day you’ll find your way back onto a righteous path.

  8. Sean
    January 24th, 2011 at 19:40 | #8

    This is an unusually deceitful and harsh missive from Mrs. Morse. Perhaps she was having a bad day, or there was a higher fee being paid for something of this nature. This is more like a Maggie Gallagher piece. All the fear-mongering and offensive observations. I pray that the children of same-sex couples never read this trash.

  9. Leland
    January 24th, 2011 at 20:04 | #9

    @Heidi
    The real parents are the ones who raise the children.

    Heidi, if that were always the case then Ann Pettwaywould beCarlina White‘s ‘real’ mother.

    Good for you for stepping up when your second child needed a parent. As has been said on this blog so often, the purpose of adoption is to provide children with the parents they need

    … but not to provide adults with the children they want. Dismissing biology as the starting point for establishing the parenthood of children has already led to children being manufactured and soldlike commodities.

  10. Marty
    January 25th, 2011 at 06:33 | #10

    Heidi: “I’ve raised a child with a man and now I’m raising one with a woman. There is no difference.

    For those of us who can’t marry, our children are simply less protected. Thanks a bunch!

    Don’t thank me, or NOM or TRI or anyone else. This was entirely your choice.

  11. Mark
    January 25th, 2011 at 06:51 | #11

    @Leland
    “Dismissing biology as the starting point for establishing the parenthood of children has already led to children being manufactured and soldlike commodities.”

    Please provide some reference to this outlandish claim.

  12. Heidi
    January 25th, 2011 at 08:17 | #12

    Leland, I cannot believe that you would compare a kidnapping to real parenting. Wow. But in any event, as has been said time and time again, same-sex marriage has nothing to do with producing or raising children. LGBT people have been raising kids for decades without the protections of marriage. That will not stop even if we can never marry. But your side IS on the wrong side of history, whether JRM agrees or not. How do I know this? Because I just have to ask my teenaged daughter and her friends how they feel about same-sex marriage. They are passionate about equality! Lest you think that it is just my daughter who feels this way, you should have seen the protest that she managed to assemble just outside of her school. Kids were busting down the doors to join it, the school went on lock-down just to keep the kids inside, and the cops were called. She had more than 50 kids there for most of the day. I am a very proud mother of a real freedom fighter.

  13. Heidi
    January 25th, 2011 at 08:18 | #13

    Oh, and we live in a very rural state and the kids STILL get it.

  14. Stephanie
    January 25th, 2011 at 11:59 | #14

    This isn’t supposed to be about the adults. It’s about the children. Children deserve a mother and a father who are married to each other. Marriage for stability, and mothers and fathers provide different things. A woman makes a second-class father; a man makes a second-class mother. This is the age of selfishness, so what do you expect? Adults will throw their little temper tantrums until they get their way, and then in about 25 or 30 years there will be a backlash from the children who are being raised like this. We have backlashes from abortion and no-fault divorce (people complain that the divorce rate is so high, and many young people are afraid of marriage and commitment), so gay “marriage” and adoption will be next.

    Also, people are not “born” gay. The human genome has been mapped out, studied again and again, and there is no gay gene! It’s NOT the same as skin color! Shocked? It’s environmental! Studies (from secular universities!) have shown that gay men did not identify well with their male peers when growing up, and they ended up with almost all female friends, usually because they weren’t good at sports or had poor hand/eye coordination. A large portion of gay men did not have good relationships with their fathers. They act out sexually as adolescents because they are looking for male approval and companionship. Oral cancer, anal cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other STIs are all over in the gay community. The gay lifespan is shorter than that of the average smoker. Gay relationships, on average, do not last more than 7-10 years. Lesbian women had bad relationships with their fathers or with men they have dated; they have been hurt in the past and are looking for companionship as well. But these things can be fixed (it is not easy, though). There are many former gays and lesbians out there (especially those who become Christians and leave their homosexual acts behind them), but no former African Americans. I really wish people would stop making sexual behavior the same as skin color. Just because you have the urge to do a sex act doesn’t make it okay to act on those thoughts/urges. Otherwise “marriages” of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality would all be legal.

  15. January 25th, 2011 at 12:03 | #15

    @Heidi
    You admit then, that abortion is not a good thing.

  16. January 25th, 2011 at 12:06 | #16

    Heidi :

    Wow, comparing the natural desire of people to marry those they love with abortion. TRI has hit a new low. Oh, and for the record, my kids are just fine. Why don’t you worry about your own and leave ours alone? I’ve raised a child with a man and now I’m raising one with a woman. There is no difference. A woman who is a lesbian is not going to suddenly yearn for her child’s sperm donor. How weird.

    Heidi
    I don’t know how self-referential you can be. This isn’t about you, and how you feel. It is also about how children feel about their absent parent. Please see the numerous posts on this blog from these people. here is a recent one, for instance. http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/25/sperm-donor-kids-speak-out-our-biological-dads-matter-to-us/

    What would it take to convince you that you are asking a lot to assume that all children are going to be just fine?

  17. January 25th, 2011 at 12:08 | #17

    @Sean
    “higher fee?” Sean, this is the offensive trash. I’m saying nothing different from what i have said many times. what are you thinking?

  18. January 25th, 2011 at 13:21 | #18

    @Heidi
    I do indeed have an adopted child. I do indeed love him like my own. However, it would have been far better for him if his parents could have raised him. I know that, my husband knows that, my son knows that. Adoption is a humane response to an unavoidable tragedy.
    The proper analogy is not to adoption, but to stepparenting. There is no doubt that many step families function very well. But there is also no doubt, as shown in large scale statistical studies, that step parents do in fact behave differently toward their spouses’ children than toward their own biological children.

  19. Mark
    January 25th, 2011 at 16:51 | #19

    @Stephanie
    Sexual orientation is most certainly inborn – like skin color and handedness. The studies strongly support a genetic bases, the studies which look at environmental factors just do not hold up.

    “Gay relationships, on average, do not last more than 7-10 years. ”

    Considering there is no legal, religious, civic or familiar support for same sex relationships, 7-10 years is not bad. Remember, 40% of first marriages do not last longer than 8 years (AMAZING! about the same as gay relationships)

    “There are many former gays and lesbians out there (especially those who become Christians and leave their homosexual acts behind them), but no former African Americans. ”

    Actually, even with their own non-randomized studies, the “ex-gays” only number a small percentage and most of them are merely no longer acting on their same sex attraction – VERY different than changing their inborn sexual orientation.

    “Otherwise “marriages” of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality would all be legal.”

    Only a truly ignorant individual would equate a loving relationship between two consenting adults with incest, pedophilia and bestiality.

  20. Courtney
    January 25th, 2011 at 18:19 | #20

    @Mark
    Even if same-sex attraction were entirely a product of genetics (a hypothesis which has no scientific support), you cannot therefore say that such an attraction is good. Plenty of things which occur in nature are by no means good or desirable. Cancer, for instance, is “natural,” and certain cancers have proven genetic links. Does that mean it’s good? Does that mean we should pretend it’s normal?

  21. Courtney
    January 25th, 2011 at 18:26 | #21

    @Mark
    “Otherwise “marriages” of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality would all be legal.”
    Only a truly ignorant individual would equate a loving relationship between two consenting adults with incest, pedophilia and bestiality.

    What about loving, consensual adult incest, or loving, consensual bigamy? If a “loving relationship” is all that’s necessary, why not these, too?

  22. Leland
    January 25th, 2011 at 19:39 | #22

    @Mark
    Click on the blue text in my comment that says “children being manufactured and sold”.

  23. Mark
    January 26th, 2011 at 05:27 | #23

    @Courtney
    “Even if same-sex attraction were entirely a product of genetics (a hypothesis which has no scientific support), you cannot therefore say that such an attraction is good. ”

    Well, there is quite a bit of scientific support for a genetic basis so you really should start reading more. Same sex attraction (like opposite sex attraction) is neither good nor bad, it just is. It IS normal.

    As I have said before, when people equate same-sex attraction with negative aspects of life (such as cancer) it just shows their hatred towards gays. Would you have told Michelangelo not to paint, or Mozart not compose? Those were both in born gifts that have elevated and improved our lives.

  24. Mark
    January 26th, 2011 at 05:29 | #24

    @Courtney
    “What about loving, consensual adult incest, or loving, consensual bigamy?”
    Since these can occur in opposite sex couples, it is an entirely different discussion. But, again, equating same-sex relationships to such relationships just shows your ignorance.

    “If a “loving relationship” is all that’s necessary, why not these, too?”

    SO, all that is necessary is children?

  25. Mark
    January 26th, 2011 at 05:34 | #25

    @Leland
    We’ve already discussed this guy and his business.

    If you want to continue this line, I would say that Catholic Charities is one of the biggest child sellers around. I mean, isn’t adoption (with all it’s costs) that EXACT SAME THING?

  26. DavidKCMO
    January 26th, 2011 at 07:44 | #26

    Jenny/stepf/court,

    None of the info you have provided on human sexuality, marriage equality or parenting is supported at all by the aap and the apa. Which means you’re idiots with ego issues directly related to homosexuality. Why else would you three spew bs about such a topic. If you spout bs about a topic the medical community supports then you have problems within yourselves regarding whatever it is you are lying about. It’s that simple. I dare you to do some real research about this and talk to a psychiatrist about this. What a psychiatrist will tell you is going to make you so ashamed to look at yourself in the mirror, unless you already feel that way about yourself-which wouldn’t surprise me considering what you’ve wrote in here.

  27. DavidKCMO
    January 26th, 2011 at 07:46 | #27

    I’d also bet you’d present with actively harmful obesity.

  28. Leland
    January 27th, 2011 at 00:03 | #28

    @Mark
    …I would say that Catholic Charities is one of the biggest child sellers around.

    Then you would probably say anything. Catholic Charities does not manufacture and market babies for profit.

    …isn’t adoption (with all it’s costs) that EXACT SAME THING?

    The purpose of adoption is to provide children with the parents they need, Mark, not to provide adults with the children they want.

  29. Jamie
    January 27th, 2011 at 13:25 | #29

    @Jennifer Roback Morse
    About stepparenting being exactly like gay marriage, and stepparents having higher rates of abuse: Its funny cause gays are as or less likely than heterosexuals to abuse their children.

  30. Mark
    January 27th, 2011 at 21:44 | #30

    @Leland
    “Catholic Charities does not manufacture and market babies for profit.”
    It may not manufacture them but it does market them.

    “The purpose of adoption is to provide children with the parents they need, Mark, not to provide adults with the children they want.”

    So the children get to choose their parents? I had always read it was the other way around. Amazing.

    Don’t you see, you try to make a distinction where one doesn’t exist.

  31. Betsy
    January 28th, 2011 at 08:55 | #31

    Just want to point out that adoption benefits both parties. I would also imagine that a child yearning to be adopted isn’t going to be too picky about his parents. That’s the job of the adoption agency–to vet potential parents.

  32. Leland
    January 28th, 2011 at 16:19 | #32

    Mark :
    “The purpose of adoption is to provide children with the parents they need, Mark, not to provide adults with the children they want.”
    So the children get to choose their parents? I had always read it was the other way around.

    Equivocation is intellectual cowardice, Mark.

  33. Mark
    January 29th, 2011 at 12:44 | #33

    @Leland
    “equivocation”

    And how is my response equivocation?

  34. Leland
    January 30th, 2011 at 22:03 | #34

    @Mark

    You know perfectly well that to “provide children with the parents they need” does not imply that children should decide on their own (or at all, in many – if not most – cases) who their adoptive parents shall be.

    Obviously it is the purpose of adults to provide the needed parental care for orphaned children (in the case of adoption) or to acquire for themselves the children they want (in the case of ART).

  35. Mark
    January 31st, 2011 at 15:35 | #35

    @Leland
    “Obviously it is the purpose of adults to provide the needed parental care for orphaned children (in the case of adoption) or to acquire for themselves the children they want (in the case of ART).”

    Sounds like splitting hairs to me. In both cases children get a family (for better or for worse) and adults get children (for better or for worse).

    However, how is ART any different than “natural” procreation? In each case, adults are getting the children they want. So, to follow your logic, natural procreation is a selfish act too.

  36. Chairm
    February 1st, 2011 at 20:11 | #36

    In adoption, the child exists and has needs. Not so with Artificial Reproductive Technologies. This is obvious, as Leland said. Adpotion is the means to help existing children in need. ART is not.

  37. Mark
    February 3rd, 2011 at 07:02 | #37

    @Chairm
    No matter if the children exist or not, doesn’t alter the earlier comments.

  38. Leland
    February 3rd, 2011 at 16:16 | #38

    @Mark

    The purpose of ART (certainly as it is practiced by medical tourism mills such as PlanetHospital and the like) manufactures a need that did not exist before to satisfy a selfish desire. The purpose of adoption is to remedy a need that already exists.

  39. Eileen
    February 3rd, 2011 at 17:01 | #39

    I love how none of the Pro-choice people have the guts to comment on this:

    She kept reminding herself of what she’d been taught: The fetus doesn’t feel pain.

    “The next movement was the sudden jerk of a tiny foot as the baby started kicking, as if trying to move away from the probing invader. As the cannula pressed in, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that the fetus could feel the cannula and did not like the feeling. And then the doctor’s voice broke through, startling me. ‘Beam me up, Scotty,’ he said lightheartedly to the nurse. He was telling her to turn on the suction — in an abortion the suction isn’t turned on until the doctor feels he has the cannula in exactly the right place….[N]ow I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment it looked as if the baby were being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then the little body crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then everything was gone.”

    from the Unplanned Awakening post. Can’t justify yourselves so easily now can you?

  40. Chairm
    February 3rd, 2011 at 20:10 | #40

    Mark, your earlier comment may stand, sure, but it is profoundly flawed.

    Adoption deals with the needy child. ARTs is used to create a child. The former is a direct response to the needs of children. The latter is not. There is no needy child prior to the decision and action in the ARTs process.

    We could take children, at random, from maternity wards and assign them, at random, to adults. And your earlier comment would still stand unchanged: “In both cases children get a family (for better or for worse) and adults get children (for better or for worse).”

  41. Eileen
    February 4th, 2011 at 11:44 | #41

    Mark, Heidi, no comments? Mark, is it still not a baby? (Crickets chirping)
    Mark, if you’re not affected by this, you most certainly can not have children of your own. But go ahead and close your mind to this, pretend it doesn’t exist, to keep justifying your attitude about “choice.”

  42. Mark
    February 7th, 2011 at 08:08 | #42

    @Eileen
    An emotional argument, Eileen. The fetus moving it’s foot is not confirmation that it feels pain, or is trying to protect itself or anything else you want to pretend that it means.

    It’s no different than me printing a story of a dying woman, slowly bleeding to death, such as Geraldine Santoro (June 4, 1964). Geraldine was left to die on a motel room floor by her married lover, who was performing an abortion using instruments and medical books he had borrowed from a doctor. He had started the abortion by inserting a catheter into Gerri’s uterus. However, Gerri began to hemorrhage and he abandoned her, leaving her to bleed to death. Her body was discovered by a maid the following morning.

  43. Eileen
    February 7th, 2011 at 12:04 | #43

    And your little paragraph isn’t an emotional argument, Mark? I think you simply do not want to admit that a child in utero also feels pain. Why wouldn’t he or she? You don’t want to admit that abortion means killing a child because you continue to put women above children, as though children don’t matter or count less. Just because women may have unauthorized abortions and possibly die doesn’t justify the certain killing of one life with every abortion. Women know the risk when trying to have an illicit abortion. They have a choice to take that risk. Babies aren’t given a choice. I also love how you only mention a “fetus moving it’s foot.” There was far more than that to the story, but you choose to minimize what was described as occurring in the abortion in order to justify yourself. You continue to downplay to justify your beliefs, and you refuse to acknowledge what is right in front of you. When will you finally let the scales fall from your eyes? If that story didn’t affect you, you most certainly cannot have children of your own.

  44. Mark
    February 7th, 2011 at 18:24 | #44

    @Eileen
    LOL, of COURSE I know it’s an emotional argument, did you even bother to read my post?

    And while you speak of love and feelings for the fetus, I notice your callous tone towards women.

    “I also love how you only mention a “fetus moving it’s foot.” There was far more than that to the story, but you choose to minimize what was described as occurring in the abortion in order to justify yourself. ”

    No, I believe in what science can show and tell us. Such as in this article:
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.short
    and this one:
    http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

    A fetus moving it’s foot is no more an indication of it feeling pain then if I sneeze and the tree across the street drops some leaves.

    “If that story didn’t affect you, you most certainly cannot have children of your own.”

    And how is it suppose to affect me? I should now go out and kill an abortion doctor or bar a woman from obtaining a legal medical procedure? I should never support a medical procedure because of some pain it may cause? Or because it’s too yucky to be seen on TV?

    I do not believe that the abortion debate is an easy one at all. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. But when one starts playing the emotional game, they lose all credibility with me.

  45. Ruth
    February 10th, 2011 at 07:46 | #45

    If our emotions cannot be marshaled to protect innocent babies, what are emotions for?
    Why do we look at babies and little animals and say, “Awwwww”?

  46. Mark
    February 12th, 2011 at 07:46 | #46

    @Ruth
    “If our emotions cannot be marshaled to protect innocent babies, what are emotions for?”

    And what about the women, Ruth. Are they to be thrown on the compost pile?

    “Why do we look at babies and little animals and say, “Awwwww”?”

    It’s thought to be an evolutionary advantage. A baby that is cute is more likely to receive care.

  47. Sean
    February 19th, 2011 at 13:34 | #47

    Marriage equality is inevitable. Eventually, the US returns to its promise to its citizens to treat all of them equally, without special favored groups, such as straight people. Marriage is good for families, including gay families. Children are more secure with married parents, including the children of same-sex couples. The same kind of people who thought black Americans were second-class citizens evidently think that gay Americans are second-class citizens.

    There is no public purpose in restricting marriage to straight people. That’s why marriage equality will triumph.

  48. Chairm
    February 21st, 2011 at 06:22 | #48

    If you are against “special favored groups” then you would oppose treating the gay subset of nonmarriage as superior to the rest of nonmarriage. Yet you support such special treatment even though the families are similarly situated.

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. The attempt of SSMers to smear the core meaning of marriage as the equivalent of racisim does not withstand scrutiny.

    There are two-sexed scenarios that are ineligible because of the lines drawn around the core meaning of marriage; ineligilbity to marry does not stamp “second-class” on such scenarios. Indeed, two heterosexual men would be ineligible as well and that does not stamp them with “second-class” status.

    Only through the lense of pro-gay bigotry can equal treatment be deemed “second-class” treatment.

    Marriage, under the man-woman basis, is not restricted by identity politics; but SSM is promoted entirely on that basis.

    When an SSMer pounds his shoe on the table and essentially predicts that the gay identity group will bury marriage, society would well take that as a threat, as a forewarning, and heed the rhetoric as a deeply bigoted promise against all opposition and open dissent.

  49. Mark
    February 22nd, 2011 at 16:10 | #49

    @Chairm
    “There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. ”

    And it’s many raced but I don;t see you insisting that each race be represented in all marriages.

    And, again, approval of SSM does NOTHING (zilch, zip, nada) to OSM.

  50. Chairm
    February 23rd, 2011 at 05:04 | #50

    That is because there is one human race, Mark, and its nature is two-sexed. Marraige includes both sexes of the same human race.

    You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race. If you use the same criteria as that system, then, you reinforce the problem that makes gay identity politics the racialist analogue.

  51. Mark
    February 23rd, 2011 at 20:52 | #51

    @Chairm
    “You object. You assert, as per the anti-miscegenation system, that there is more than one human race.”

    You are so CUTE when you try to turn discrimination around and blame people who are promoting equality. My guess is you probably can’t define “anti-miscegenation”.

    Again, to follow the example you are trying to portray, you would need a member of each race and a member of each sex (which would include male, female and hermaphrodite) to make it a marriage. Otherwise, you are excluding SOMEONE and, per your twisted logic, that is not marriage.

  52. Chairm
    February 24th, 2011 at 01:16 | #52

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage.

    The SSM idea, as argued by SSMers far and wide, is about segregating on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation and on the basis of identity politics. Yes, the SSMer is the racialist analogue.

  53. Mark
    February 25th, 2011 at 11:26 | #53

    @Chairm
    “There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed; marriage is comprised of a man and a woman; they are both members of the same race — the human race — and so their union meets even your own terms, Mark, that you would impose on marriage.”

    But, Chairm, I am not trying to impose anything on marriage. It is you and your ilk who impose need for procreation, “integration of the sexes” and other dribble that really has nothing to do with marriage. So, why do you keep bringing it up?

  54. Mark
    February 25th, 2011 at 11:28 | #54

    @Chairm

    Oh, and by the way, you obviously have no understanding what the word “racialist” even means, do you.

  55. Chairm
    March 3rd, 2011 at 22:47 | #55

    Sure, I do. But you might explain your understanding of the word, racialist, if you believe you know better than I. If you can’t explain your understanding, that’s okay.

  56. Fitz
    March 5th, 2011 at 08:41 | #56

    Mark
    Concerning the racial analogy as you have employed it. I would draw your attention to the
    argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it’s recent decision

    Hernadez v Robles.

    “Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves.”

    Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382

    Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex “marriage” are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex “marriage” supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay “rights” and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.

    Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex “marriage” would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex “marriage” enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.

  57. Mark
    March 5th, 2011 at 12:18 | #57

    @Fitz
    Wow, you DO take a LOT of liberties with this decision. And your bias (shall I call it hatred?) is clearly seen in this line “same-sex “marriage” supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional (sic)right to marriage to advance gay identity politics.” You are right, it’s not necessary so much hate, as it is paranoia. Sad that two loving adults getting married fills you with such dread.

  58. Chairm
    March 5th, 2011 at 19:11 | #58

    That comment you just made, Mark, did not deal with the substance of what Fitz quoted from the New York high court.

    The pro-SSM “Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy”.

  59. R.K.
    March 6th, 2011 at 06:20 | #59

    1. When a change is proposed that has no historical precedent (or when what precedent there is is insufficient for determination) we have nothing to go on thus to determine whether its effect will be good or bad. We can theorize, we cannot know. It may be good, it may be bad. Disagree?

    2. If a proposed change has historical precedent which shows apparent positive effect, it makes the case for its positive effect in the present time and situation more likely, though even with this it does not absolutely prove that the effect will be positive because there may be different factors in the present situation which may affect the success of the change differently from the factors which were present in the past situations.

    3. Similarly, if a proposed change has historical precedent which shows apparent negative effect, it makes the case for its negative effect in the present time and situation more likely, though again, it does not absolutely prove that the effect will be negative because, again, of the possible different factors which may affect the change differently.

    4. But when a proposed change has NO long-term historical precedent, while this tells us nothing about what effects the change may have, the question of why there is no historical precedent is a legitimate one to ask, and the answer—-if it is even possible for us to determine—is relevant.

    5. If we can, with reasonable certainty, answer such a question, and determine that the reason for the lack of historical precedent is one that definitely does notapply in the present, then we have a better case for the change, though not a conclusive one, as the change can be vulnerable to other factors which we do not know about.

    6. If we cannot answer the question of why a change has no historical precedent, we are taking more of a gamble with adopting the change.

    7. Another question we may then ask, though, is if the lack of historical precedent, all else being equal, should be expected based on the amount of past information available to us, or if it goes against probability and hence needs an explanation. If the latter is true, are we not by adopting the change without the explanation for its absence taking a greater gamble than we would be if the historical absence were merely what we’d expect, let alone if we had an explanation for the absence which accounted for it?

    This is where arguments based on tradition come in. Tradition may not always be helpful in telling us why a custom exists. Frequently those who hold to the custom no longer can tell us exactly why it exists, especially not in long-term cause-and-effect terms. To vastly generalize, however, the answer to why traditions exist are likely to be either 1) experience, or 2) some other factor irrelevant to experience.

    Now 2) is usually not anything which if changed would affect survival (or, perhaps, a society’s progress).

    As for 1), this may be due to a false association of a custom with a survival/progress value. Or the association may be true.

    But if many cultures have the same custom, is this custom more likely to be of Type 1, or of Type 2? And if Type 1, is it more likely to be of the type which really affects survival or progress, or of the type which does not?

    If most cultures have the same custom? If all known cultures have the same custom?

    Usually, those opposed to ever using an appeal to tradition, even as an argument for skepticism or caution, base this belief on the assumption that the traditions of past cultures are always due to factors irrelevant to experience, or to a false association of a custom with survival, or progress.

    In other words, they assume past cultures to be either irrational in their traditions, or to be drawing an erroneous association of a custom with survival or progress.

    Because—or so the thinking goes—unlike today’s enlightened, who can figure out the truth with intellect alone, even over hundreds or thousands of years people of the past could not even learn anything from experience.

    So anything they think they learned from experience can be readily dismissed.

    Because they were backward, and unenlightened, and hence just plain stupid.

    What is this starting to sound like?

    Again, this is why I argue that while appeals to tradition may not be proof, they are relevant as arguments for skepticism or caution in regard to proposed changes.

    Please, if you want to refute this, refute it point by point, not by quoting some line of platitude, or with a “Well what about this other tradition” diversion.

    And, no, in regard to a cultural change ten years does not a historical precedent make.

  60. Frank
    April 12th, 2011 at 06:10 | #60

    Sean, Heidi, and Mark are fighting the good fight and doing it well, but I want to address a side issue that Stephanie raised when she said:

    “There are many former gays and lesbians out there (especially those who become Christians and leave their homosexual acts behind them), but no former African Americans.”

    Actually, there are lots of former African Americans. When states instituted one-drop rules in the early 20th century, a bunch of people who had been legally and socially considered white suddenly became black. When Jim Crow laws were repealed, the opposite happened.

    Skin color is inherited, but race (the classification of people based on skin color) is an arbitrary social construct. How that relates to gay marriage, I don’t know, but I’m sure you all can hash it out.

    (Also, I agree with whoever said before me that those “former gays and lesbians” are probably still gay–just behaving as if they weren’t.)

  61. April 12th, 2011 at 09:43 | #61

    @Stephanie: “Also, people are not “born” gay. The human genome has been mapped out, studied again and again, and there is no gay gene!”

    You’re making a common mistake. Mapping the genome simply means they’ve figured out the chemical composition of human DNA. But we still don’t know how that breaks down in to genes, or how many genes there are, or what they all do. Scientists didn’t even isolate the gene for near-sightedness until last year, long after the genome had been mapped!

    If you’re interested, you may find this useful:
    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/they-mapped-the-human-genome-theres-no-gay-gene

  62. April 12th, 2011 at 10:59 | #62

    @Stephanie

    So just to be clear, Stephanie, your argument is that gay men turn out gay because they have bad hand/eye coordination and too many female friends, and this somehow shows that no one is born gay?

  63. Ruth
    April 12th, 2011 at 13:35 | #63

    @Frank
    “(Also, I agree with whoever said before me that those “former gays and lesbians” are probably still gay–just behaving as if they weren’t.)”

    Would you also say that someone who has a life-long deeply held sense of inferiority, but goes on to be successful in their life and relationships, is probably still a loser?

  64. April 12th, 2011 at 16:02 | #64

    @Ruth: “Would you also say that someone who has a life-long deeply held sense of inferiority, but goes on to be successful in their life and relationships, is probably still a loser?”

    No, Ruth, I wouldn’t. But I don’t see what your post has to do with “ex-gays.”

  65. Sean
    April 12th, 2011 at 19:22 | #65

    Ruth, I think you confuse the desire to do something, and actually doing it. There are certainly ex-smokers, ex-drinkers, and ex-gays, if you define “ex-gay” as someone who is so messed up he or she thinks that refraining from same-sex sexual activity achieves some positive outcome. That doesn’t mean he or she isn’t still gay.

    Are there also ex-straights? They don’t get much press.

  66. Ruth
    April 12th, 2011 at 22:19 | #66

    @Sean
    Why, as a matter of fact, I think “that refraining from same-sex sexual activity achieves some positive outcome.”
    And, I am in the very best of company.

  67. Ruth
    April 12th, 2011 at 22:31 | #67

    @Rob Tisinai
    My question is related to your statement thus:
    Suppose someone has a life-long deeply held sense of attraction to others of their same sex. Suppose they are convinced by Scripture, observation of human relationships, and their own conscience that same-sex sexual activity is against God’s will.
    Suppose that through prayer, confession of sin, counseling, reading, support from others in the Church, and all the hard work of change they go from feelings of ineligibility for a normal life into a normal marriage and family, along with healthy same-sex relationships.
    Does not their experience mirror the experience of all other Christians – the trek from death to life; from the lies of Satan to the Truth of God; from the kingdom of self to the Kingdom of God?

  68. April 13th, 2011 at 05:33 | #68

    @Ruth: That’s interesting. You wrote that as a description of someone becoming “ex-gay,” while to me it’s a great description of someone who has been raised to believe (incorrectly) that being gay is wrong, but has heroically overcome that to lead a good and honorable life with a partner of the same sex.

    It all depends on your perspective, I guess.

  69. April 13th, 2011 at 05:35 | #69

    To the moderator: I’m a bit surprised that Ruth’s comments about homosexuality being rooted in “the lies of Satan” managed to pass the FTBA test.

    Out of curiosity, if someone here wrote that OPPOSITION to homosexuality is rooted in the lies of Satan, would that pass the FTBA test, too?

  70. Sean
    April 13th, 2011 at 15:14 | #70

    “Why, as a matter of fact, I think “that refraining from same-sex sexual activity achieves some positive outcome.”
    And, I am in the very best of company.”

    Of course you do, because you’re not gay! But for the gay person, what’s the advantage to refraining from sex? I assume the reason would be the same a straight person.

  71. Sean
    April 13th, 2011 at 16:39 | #71

    “Same-sex civil marriage tacitly but surely asserts that kids don’t really need mothers and fathers, and that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.”

    Completely false. Same-sex marriage asserts that adult relations, whether straight or gay, are equally important. Same-sex marriage, whether legal or illegal, does nothing to give children different-sex parents.

    “Redefining marriage will come to mean that there is no particular reason to insist on two parents. Some in the next generation will have three or four parents.”

    I think the child with three or four parents is awfully lucky. It takes a village, you know.

    “Advocates of redefining marriage assure us that all will be well. Children will do fine, whatever the loving adults in their lives decide to do.”

    Well, lacking any reason to believe otherwise, what else are advocates of marriage equality supposed to say? Should we lie and predict utter chaos and mayhem?

    “Divorce, separation, complex custody quarrels, kids shuttling between four households with their sleeping bags and backpacks: that’s just anti-equality hysteria and will never happen.”

    But enough about straight people and their relationship troubles! Why do straight people get to choose whatever life relationships work for them, but gay people aren’t?

    “As time goes on, it will become more obvious that “marriage equality” requires us, men, women and children alike, to ignore biology.”

    Well, single parenting and straight divorce certainly does. Again, why the double standard? If you object to messy or non-biological relationships, why not aim at couples who divorce and remarry, adoptive parents and single parents? Why all the vitriol for gay couples?

    “And some children are going to have feelings about their absent parents, uncomfortable questions about their origins, and complex emotions about being partially purchased.”

    But enough about single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and foster parents!

    “These advocates are asking people to set aside the natural attachment of parents to their own children”

    So are single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and foster parents. They appear to go unmentioned in the litany of parental injustice aimed at children. Why?

    “As acceptance of gender-neutral marriage spreads throughout society….”

    Well, at least you are willing to admit you ARE on the wrong side of history.

    “Children with father-hunger will start to speak up.”

    Now are these the children of single women or the children where their mother divorced their father, and remarried some guy they aren’t related to, but have to live with?

    “The children themselves will eventually have something to say about all this.”

    They already do: they say they love their same-sex parents.

  72. Ruth
    April 14th, 2011 at 07:13 | #72

    @Sean
    “But for the gay person, what’s the advantage to refraining from sex? I assume the reason would be the same a straight person.”

    In some ways, the advantages are the same for refraining from sexual activity between unmarried partners of opposite sex.
    Sexual activity binds people together. But outside of a legitimate marital foundation, that binding leads to spiritual death, instead of the life (and perhaps new human life and its support) resulting from the male and female, becoming one flesh – for life.
    Two people of the same sex are, further, involving themselves in the degradation of misusing even their biological design. It is, of course, of great personal benefit to turn away from such activity.
    “If it feels good, do it!” and “How can it be wrong if it feels so right?” may be catchy slogans or lyrics, but they are thoroughly inadequate as a basis for either one’s personal philosophy or a moral society.

  73. Ruth
    April 14th, 2011 at 07:32 | #73

    @Rob Tisinai
    “Out of curiosity, if someone here wrote that OPPOSITION to homosexuality is rooted in the lies of Satan…”

    That would be tricky, because we learn what we know about Satan from Scripture, from which we also derive our information defining sin and the source of sinful proclivities.

    ” As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

  74. April 14th, 2011 at 08:40 | #74

    Note Sean just validated 100% with his own views what he called “completely false”. But then Sean’s self-contradiction is the only consistency in his writing.

    Sean :
    “Same-sex civil marriage tacitly but surely asserts that kids don’t really need mothers and fathers, and that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.”
    [...] Same-sex marriage, whether legal or illegal, does nothing to give children different-sex parents.

    Then Sean doesn’t even bother to pretend to disagree…

    “Redefining marriage will come to mean that there is no particular reason to insist on two parents. Some in the next generation will have three or four parents.”
    I think the child with three or four parents is awfully lucky. It takes a village, you know.

    More confirmation from Sean that the person he is responding to is absolutely right…

    “Advocates of redefining marriage assure us that all will be well. Children will do fine, whatever the loving adults in their lives decide to do.”
    [W]hat else are advocates of marriage equality supposed to say? [...]

    Exactly…

    And as I noted before, Sean is about promoting gays at the expense of everyone else, as this next comment shows.

    “Divorce, separation, complex custody quarrels, kids shuttling between four households with their sleeping bags and backpacks: that’s just anti-equality hysteria and will never happen.”
    But enough about straight people and their relationship troubles! [...] But enough about single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and foster parents!

    The next series of comments shows Sean’s association of neutering marriage and single-parenting, divorce and other maladies that we already associate with the family issues.

    “As time goes on, it will become more obvious that “marriage equality” requires us, men, women and children alike, to ignore biology.”
    Well, single parenting and straight divorce certainly does. [...] If you object to messy or non-biological relationships, why not aim at couples who divorce and remarry, adoptive parents and single parents? Why all the vitriol for gay couples?

    [...]

    “These advocates are asking people to set aside the natural attachment of parents to their own children”
    So are single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and foster parents. They appear to go unmentioned in the litany of parental injustice aimed at children. Why?
    “As acceptance of gender-neutral marriage spreads throughout society, children with father-hunger will start to speak up. The children themselves will eventually have something to say about all this.”
    Now are these the children of single women or the children where their mother divorced their father, and remarried some guy they aren’t related to, but have to live with?

    Sounds like Sean’s attitude is that the comment he is replying to is absolutely correct, divorce and single parenting are as destructive as neutering marriage, neutering marriage encourages such actions, and neutering marriage is about promoting gays at the expense of others.

  75. Sean
    April 14th, 2011 at 17:05 | #75

    “And as I noted before, Sean is about promoting gays at the expense of everyone else, as this next comment shows.”

    Nope, Sean is about advocating for people being discriminated against, and/or denied equal rights. Since straight people lose exactly nothing when same-sex marriage is legal, so it’s hard to understand what the expense is to them. What is it? How do straight people lose if gay people have equal rights?

    “Sounds like Sean’s attitude is that the comment he is replying to is absolutely correct, divorce and single parenting are as destructive as neutering marriage”

    When marriage was neutered in the second half of the 20th century, it was a great advancement for women and for men, who were freed from the shackles of gender roles in marriage. The burden, of course, was much greater for women, who were essentially their husband’s property. Unlike the neutering of marriage, which strengthens marriage by equalizing and strengthening the relationships of married people, divorce destroys marriage. Single parenting isn’t destructive, though I think kids would be better off with two (same- or different-sex) parents rather than just one parent.

    “neutering marriage encourages such actions, and neutering marriage is about promoting gays at the expense of others.”

    I don’t think the state had the idea to “promote gays at the expense of others” when it neutered marriage. When same-sex marriage is legal, no one loses, but many people win: gay and lesbian couples, their children; those who care about gay and lesbian couples, including their parents, their siblings and friends; our nation’s guarantee of equal treatment; religious groups that wish to perform legal marriages on same-sex couples, and others.

  76. Leo
    April 14th, 2011 at 23:29 | #76

    What about singles and their children? And those who care about them, including their parents, their siblings, and friends, and our nation’s guarantee of equal treatment? Or polygamous families and those who care about them and their religious groups?

    SSM without PM (plural marriage) or without SM (single marriage, i.e. marriage-like government benefits for singles) is just more inequality. If the goal is absolute equality and if democratic votes, natural law and tradition are dismissed out of hand, then all adults should be considered “married.” Unless, of course, Sean is about promoting gay couples at the expense of singles and three or foursomes, and others.

    In any event, this thread started with the notion of historical trends and their inevitability. The Communists claimed that they represented the inevitable tide of history as well as progress, enlightenment, and equality. History didn’t work out that way. Not that the SSM movement is the same as Communism. Just sayin’ that history has a way of disappointing those who expected certain events, e.g. the tide of Communism, the defeat of Prop 8 in California, the defeat of Prop 1 in Maine, the the Inaugural Ball of Harold Stassen, and the triumphal entry of the Titanic into New York Harbor.

  77. April 15th, 2011 at 08:08 | #77

    Sean :
    “[...S]traight people lose exactly nothing when same-sex marriage is legal[...]

    That is what Sean wishes us to believe, but what does he really think about even if there were problems?

    But enough about straight people and their relationship troubles! [...] But enough about single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and foster parents!

    Yep, Sean simply doesn’t care or even outright admits to the harm being done. And he does nothing to assuage the concerns arisen other than dismiss them as straight people problems he doesn’t want or have to deal with.

  78. Sean
    April 15th, 2011 at 15:22 | #78

    “SSM without PM (plural marriage) or without SM (single marriage, i.e. marriage-like government benefits for singles) is just more inequality.”

    Same-sex marriage must be legalized because illegal same-sex marriage violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to equal treatment as straights. People who favor polygamy, and singles, are free to advocate for equal rights as married couples if they wish. But it is not unconstitutional to outlaw polygamy, since there is no biological basis for wanting to marry more than one person at a time, nor is “being single” an immutable, biological condition: singles can marry whenever they want, if they desire the benefits of marriage.

    “Sean is about promoting gay couples at the expense of singles and three or foursomes, and others.”

    This is tiresome but I guess it you guys can keep saying it, I can keep refuting it: Sean is about fighting against unconstitutional discrimination. When gays and lesbians have equal rights with straight people, there is no “expense” to anyone else. As Thomas Jefferson explained in a different context, “it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.” That means treating gays and lesbians with full citizenship rights as straights has no impact on straight people.

    “Just sayin’ that history has a way of disappointing those who expected certain events”

    The history of civil rights in America shows a strong tendency toward more, not fewer, rights, and equal, not unequal, rights. It is this pattern that points the way on this issue. Although religionists are politicized in ways that are unseemly and unprecedented, the accompanying loss of interest in religion among Americans also points to less influence of religious beliefs. In fact, my hypothesis is that the more religionists claim a biblical mandate regarding civil marriage, the more the courts will be forced to legalize same-sex marriage, to avoid the appearance of government-sanctioned religious beliefs.

  79. Sean
    April 15th, 2011 at 15:24 | #79

    No harm is done to straight people, or to their relationships, when same-sex marriage is legalized. If there were harms, I’m sure the brilliant legal team defending Prop 8 would have pointed them out.

  80. April 16th, 2011 at 09:13 | #80

    The Prop 8 team noted the harm, Sean just doesn’t care about those non-gays…

    On Lawn :

    Sean :
    “[...S]traight people lose exactly nothing when same-sex marriage is legal[...]

    That is what Sean wishes us to believe, but what does he really think about even if there were problems?

    But enough about straight people and their relationship troubles! [...] But enough about single parents, divorced parents, adoptive parents and foster parents!

    Yep, Sean simply doesn’t care or even outright admits to the harm being done. And he does nothing to assuage the concerns arisen other than dismiss them as straight people problems he doesn’t want or have to deal with.

  81. Leo
    April 16th, 2011 at 17:49 | #81

    Being an adult is a biologically immutable characteristic. Why does Sean want to divide adults into classes based on their sexuality? Why does Sean not care about single parents and those who love them? Is his caring argument just a smoke screen for advocating for one class while ignoring another?

    Sean has not proven that rights should on be recognized based in immutable characteristics. Religion is not immutable, but is constitutionally protected. Certain handicaps are biologically immutable, but that does not mean that society cannot distinguish between the handicapped and those not handicapped, though society might want to make provision for the handicapped.

    “…singles can marry whenever they want, if they desire the benefits of marriage.” So can Sean. He just doesn’t want to. He wants to redefine marriage. Why can’t singles redefine marriage to include the single state, eliminating the division of adults and parents into two classes? If marriage is deconstructed into merely a vehicle for delivering government benefits, there is no reason to deny single people and their children the benefits of marriage. Why does Sean continue to advocate for such discrimination when he admits it neither breaks his leg nor picks his pocket? Why is he so deaf to their plight? Single parents are much more likely to be in poverty than gay couples. Why can’t Sean see that he is merely advocating another kind of unconstitutional discrimination? To discriminate against Catholics because they don’t want to become Protestants is surely unconstitutional. To discriminate against singles who are voluntarily single is likewise unconstitutional, if marriage is redefined as being merely a set of government benefits. If the march of history is one that recognizes more and more rights, why does Sean believe the march should stop in a manner than leaves singles with fewer rights?

    I agree that basing marriage solely on religious grounds may be problematic in the current context, unless, of course, the Reynolds decision is overturned, which it might be if the courts drift in that direction. But more than religion is involved. That marriage (as represented in, say, English Common Law, but also in virtually every civilization that has come down to us) has been consider a heterosexual institution by a long-standing consensus gentium suggests it provides a natalist advantage to those civilizations that allowed them to survive. It is obvious that pronatalists have an evolutionary edge in general, and if marriage as it has been understood for generations is redefined into something else by this generation, it may well be that future generations (the descendants of the surviving pronatalists) will re-invent something resembling traditional marriage. Immigration from pronatalist cultures will reinforce that trend. Finally, if there is a gay gene, that opens the way to a future gene therapy that could change what Sean believes is immutable.

  82. Sean
    April 17th, 2011 at 07:17 | #82

    “Why does Sean want to divide adults into classes based on their sexuality?”

    Sean is exactly against dividing adults into classes based on their sexuality! How on earth would you think otherwise? There’s no rational public purpose in using a person’s sexual orientation, or sexual practices, to determine what rights they do or do not have in civil society.

    “Is his caring argument just a smoke screen for advocating for one class while ignoring another?”

    Straight people already have all the rights available to US citizens. They don’t need to be advocated for, and therefore can be ignored. Gay and lesbian people, however, are denied the right to marry in 45 states, and are denied equal treatment by the federal government when they are married.

    “Sean has not proven that rights should on be recognized based in immutable characteristics.”

    The burden isn’t on Sean, but rather on the government, to explain why it is offering special rights and privileges to some citizens, but not to others. The government can certainly favor or disfavor some groups over others, but there has to be a rational public purpose in doing so. There is no rational public purpose in denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, nor in forcing their children to be raised outside of the socially preferred institution of marriage.

    “So can Sean. He just doesn’t want to. He wants to redefine marriage.”

    The right to marry includes marrying the consenting adult of one’s choice. Straight people have this right; gay people do not. There is no particular public purpose in preferring the straight model of marriage, that is, different-sex couples, over the gay model of marriage, that is, same-sex couples. The public does not benefit by preventing same-sex couples from marrying, and harm is done to same-sex couples and their children.

    “If marriage is deconstructed into merely a vehicle for delivering government benefits, there is no reason to deny single people and their children the benefits of marriage.”

    Marriage is not merely a vehicle to delivering government benefits but these benefits represent the tangible harm done to same-sex couples. Marriage is also about making a public commitment to a loved one.

    What rights and privileges of marriage do you see single people enjoying? For example, married people have an unfettered right to visit a spouse in the hospital. Exactly how would a single person take advantage of that right?

    “Why can’t Sean see that he is merely advocating another kind of unconstitutional discrimination?”

    Because he isn’t. Any adult who wants to experience the rights and privileges of marriage should be able to get married.

    “To discriminate against singles who are voluntarily single is likewise unconstitutional, if marriage is redefined as being merely a set of government benefits.”

    Again, how would singles benefit from government marriage benefits, without another person involved?

    “That marriage …. has been consider a heterosexual institution by a long-standing consensus…”

    Straight people will still be allowed to marry when same-sex marriage is legalized. Just as men were still allowed to vote once women got that right. Extending marriage rights to gay couples does nothing to impair straight peoples’ right to marry. Long-standing discrimination against gay people does not form a basis for legitimacy of that discrimination.

  83. Leo
    April 18th, 2011 at 07:38 | #83

    “Straight people already have all the rights available to US citizens. They don’t need to be advocated for, and therefore can be ignored. ”

    What about straight (or gay) singles and their children? If the object of marriage is to provide government benefits of an economic and legal nature, the equivalent benefits should be created for singles and their children. Hospital visitation rights? Singles should be visited by anyone they wish and anyone who cares about them. Social security benefits? Singles should be able to designate survivor benefits to anyone (including multiple persons) they wish. Inheritance rights, likewise. On and on through all the government benefits normally reserved for married people. A good many straight singles have significant others, sometimes multiple others. Just because these people are single, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about them. Their preference (and perhaps orientation) to being a singleton is surely worth Sean’s sympathy. Does Sean deny that single straight parents are more likely to be in poverty than gay couples? Just because that parent might be straight is no reason to ignore their plight. They need government economic benefits more than gays. Long-standing discrimination against singles carries legitimate weight in Sean’s eyes. He might have single-phobia.

    Does Sean have multipartner phobia as well? Twosomes who desire a consenting threesome are ignored by Sean’s legal analysis. Why is numberism (descrimination based on number) rational?

    Once all adults are considered married gays will still be married.

    Once tradition, democracy, and natural law are thrown out, and marriage is deconstructed to only a series of government benefits, only a totally leveling equality regardless of number is rationally non-discriminatory. Single people are considered not married in all 50 states. Calling them married by redefining marriage would eliminate that. No children would then have unmarried parents. This may sound strange and faintly ridiculous to Sean, but so does SSM to most of the world and virtually all of history.

  84. April 18th, 2011 at 09:03 | #84

    @Leo

    Yes Leo,

    I think it is evident that Sean is not only falsely accusing people of setting up different classes of people based on their longings and feelings, but he admits to doing the same over and over.

    Not too long ago we caught Sean in this, where he would call gays second class citizens (if they can’t re-define marriage to the same-sex model of marriage) but then happily religate others to second class citizenship without even batting an eye. If he is the one creating this judgment of discrimination, and he really believed in it, he wouldn’t be so openly advocating for such discrimination.

    I’ll continue the demonstration with his most recent comment…

    Sean :
    There’s no rational public purpose in using a person’s sexual orientation, or sexual practices, to determine what rights they do or do not have in civil society.

    Notice he said differences in “sexual practices” do not make a “rational public purpose” to “determine what rights they do or do not have in civil society”.

    Yet he himself has said about constitutional rights…

    Sean :
    “Or can you tell us why you feel incestuous people, or polygamists, aren’t covered by the your same constitution that covers homosexuals?”
    There is no such thing as an incestuous person or a polygamist. Incest and polygamy describe behaviors, not personal characteristics.

    Sean is clearly flailing to make his reasoning match the conclusion he wants, that homosexuals are promoted at the expense of everyone else.

  85. Sean
    April 18th, 2011 at 15:43 | #85

    “I think it is evident that Sean is not only falsely accusing people of setting up different classes of people based on their longings and feelings, but he admits to doing the same over and over.”

    It isn’t Sean who set up the classes, but Mother Nature. Sean merely recognizes the equal legitimacy of the various classes.

    “Not too long ago we caught Sean in this, where he would call gays second class citizens (if they can’t re-define marriage to the same-sex model of marriage) but then happily religate others to second class citizenship without even batting an eye.”

    Sean has relegated no one to second-class citizenship. Not being able to marry your sister, or marrying multiple wives, does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Society forbids many behaviors; that does not render a citizen a second-class citizen. The government DOES distinguish between behaviors and identities, and tries (not always successfully) to not discriminate against people for who they are.

    “If he is the one creating this judgment of discrimination, and he really believed in it, he wouldn’t be so openly advocating for such discrimination.”

    I neither advocate for or against incestuous marriage or polygamy. I don’t care if either is legal or illegal. But if the government wishes to make them illegal, it is violating no one’s civil or constitutional rights. That is not the case when straight people are allowed to marry, but gay people aren’t.

    “Notice he said differences in “sexual practices” do not make a “rational public purpose” to “determine what rights they do or do not have in civil society”.”

    Neither incest nor polygamy is a sexual practice. Neither is defined by sexual longing or behavior, but rather by either a close biological relationship with a person you’re romantically involved with, or being married to more than one person at a time.

    “Sean is clearly flailing to make his reasoning match the conclusion he wants, that homosexuals are promoted at the expense of everyone else.”

    When homosexuals are given equal rights as heterosexuals, they are not promoted at anyone’s expense. It costs no straight people anything when gay people are allowed to marry.

  86. April 19th, 2011 at 12:18 | #86

    Sean, prohibiting people from attempting to create offspring with someone of the same sex does not make anyone a second class citizen, any more than prohibiting human-animal hybrids or genetically modified designer babies does. There will be some people who want to do that, and they will object to a law that prohibits them from doing it, but they are not rendered “second class” by being prohibited from doing it. Indeed, such a law would ensure that all people are equal and no one is forced to use modified gametes or substitute gametes to reproduce, it would avoid a Gattaca-esque society of first class “citizens” and second class “naturals” with fewer rights. It wouldn’t have to get to that point for people to feel like their genes are second-class and they should voluntarily seek improved genes – that happens right now already.

    But it is true that the Civil Unions I’ve been promoting would be second class compared to a marriage. Any couple could opt for a CU defined as marriage minus conception rights, but it would not confer the same approval and affirmation of the conception of offspring that a marriage would continue to confer. Civil Unions would certainly be second class, reflecting the difference in rights that a same-sex couple would have compared to the rights they would have if they each chose someone of the other sex to partner with. Choosing someone of the same sex should mean giving up the claim to create offspring with that person.

    You could really help thousands of families and their children by giving up the claim for same-sex couples to have equal conception rights. Why do you insist on equal conception rights for same sex couples, when you could help so many families and their children get equal federal recognition and security and quickly get CU’s in all 50 states? Do you want to help those families and children, or are you another Transhumanist using gay people as pawns to further your own agenda, and you don’t actually care about those families and children at all? It sure seems that way, every day that goes by with you rejecting these CU’s you hurt families.

  87. Sean
    April 22nd, 2011 at 04:44 | #87

    “Sean, prohibiting people from attempting to create offspring with someone of the same sex does not make anyone a second class citizen”

    Sure it does. If your objection were to artificially conceived babies, an objection that would apply equally to straight and to gays, then you might be getting more traction on this issue than you are. But you’ve described the phenomenon in such as way that it affects gay, but not straight, people. Why? Why are straight people permitted to access reproductive technologies, but gay people?

    I’m all for Civil Unions. I just know that legally, they won’t last for very long. There’s no rational basis for having separate but equal relationship laws. Oh and same-sex couples have the right to reproduce, whether they are married or not. Your discussion is flawed from the get-go, but it’s still fun (on occasion) to respond to your posts.

  88. April 22nd, 2011 at 14:25 | #88

    Sean :
    “Sean, prohibiting people from attempting to create offspring with someone of the same sex does not make anyone a second class citizen”
    Sure it does. If your objection were to artificially conceived babies, an objection that would apply equally to straight and to gays, then you might be getting more traction on this issue than you are. But you’ve described the phenomenon in such as way that it affects gay, but not straight, people. Why? Why are straight people permitted to access reproductive technologies, but gay people?

    The objection IS to artificially conceived babies. It DOES apply equally to straight and gay people. It means that all people can only create offspring with someone of the other sex, because that is the only way to ethically create babies – using unmodified sperm of a man and unmodified egg of a woman. It does not make anyone a second class citizen to prohibit artificially conceived babies, even though it completely rules out creating offspring with someone of the same sex.

    I’m all for Civil Unions. I just know that legally, they won’t last for very long.

    But why refuse them right now, if you think they will be turned into marriages soon anyhow? Every day that goes by where a family is denied access to all the protections and benefits of marriage is harmful to their family. Some families might really need those benefits NOW, and yet you tell them (I’m paraphrasing here) “what’s a few more years? Just suffer without any recognition or security or protections, because it’s much more important that we don’t give up the right to create people from modified genes.” That’s reprehensible, it harms children and families.

    There’s no rational basis for having separate but equal relationship laws.

    Yes there is, because allowing people to conceive with people of the same sex would be unethical and expensive and really bad public policy. It would be much better public policy to rule out artificial genetic engineering technology and stick with natural conception to create people. It is the basis of equality, and sex isn’t a bad thing that should be overcome by technology, even though it is not perfect and biology disgusts and embarrasses nerds and transhumanists. And there is a rational basis to support and approve of couples who plan on possibly creating offspring together.

    Oh and same-sex couples have the right to reproduce, whether they are married or not.

    There is no law against it yet, that’s true. But there is no right to create people by any means other than joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes, and all other means of creating people need to be prohibited ASAP. It will be a hugely expensive and divisive and unsustainable undertaking, and be incredibly unethical for the people being created, and just leaving it legal and hinting that it is the future makes everyone depressed and useless-feeling. Things would improve so much once we affirm everyone’s equal right to procreate with their own genes, and stop transhumanism and eugenics.

    Your discussion is flawed from the get-go, but it’s still fun (on occasion) to respond to your posts.

    I guess it gives you a chance to take us back to square one, where you spread misinformation and pretend that you don’t understand my proposal. But it also gives me a chance to point out that you don’t care about gay people or their families, you only want to cling to the right to manufacture human beings. Give that up, and help gay people, Sean.

  89. April 22nd, 2011 at 15:07 | #89

    Oops, I didn’t mean to imply that “separate but equal” was rational, it certainly isn’t. I meant to say there is a rational basis for UNEQUAL laws for unequal relationships. Same-sex couples should not have the equal right to conceive offspring that married couples should have.

  90. Sean
    April 23rd, 2011 at 21:42 | #90

    “The objection IS to artificially conceived babies”

    How does banning same-sex marriage prevent the creation of artificially conceived babies, when no couple needs to be married to conceive babies, artificially or otherwise?

  91. April 24th, 2011 at 22:07 | #91

    It doesn’t, Sean. Preventing genetically modified babies requires a law against creating genetically modified babies. The law we have in mind is something like the Brownback-Landreau Cloning Ban that was never passed, but instead of just prohibiting cloning, it would prohibit all attempts at creating a human being by any means other than joining a man and a woman. Same-sex couples would be prohibited from conceiving offspring because they are not a man and a woman. Is that clear yet?

Comments are closed.