Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk


Arguments for same-sex marriage

posted by Mark Silk

My pro-family argument for accelerating same-sex marriage has run into some flak from Touchstone‘s Jordan Ballor, who thinks I’ve committed a non sequitur. The burden of his argument:

It’s true that we need to connect the natural telos of marriage
to child-rearing rather than some ephemeral or hormonal understanding
of pseudo-romantic love. But that would seem to lead us toward the
normativity of the institution of heterosexual marriage, wherein the same couple that join to beget the children stay together to raise them.

I get that it should lead us to support the institution of heterosexual marriage, but why as normative? It should lead us to support the institution of marriage wherever children are involved.

It seems incontestable that being gay or lesbian does not entail being
deprived of the natural parental instinct. Why else should gays and
lesbians want to adopt and/or procreate? Society should, therefore, take
pains to make it possible for them to be married.

Here’s the justification given in court yesterday by Proposition 8 defense lawyer Charles Cooper:

The key reason that marriage has existed at all in any society and at
any time is that sexual relationships between men and women naturally
produce children. Society has no particular interest in a platonic
relationship between a man and a woman no matter how close, no matter
how committed it may be, or emotional relationships between other people
as well. But, when a relationship between a man and woman becomes a
sexual one society immediately has a vital interest in that for two
reasons – one, society needs the creation of new life for the next
generation. But secondly, [society's vital] interests are actually
threatened by the possibility that unintentional and unwanted pregnancy
will mean that the child is born out of wedlock and raised by, in all
likelihood, its mother alone and that directly implicates society’s
vital interests.

So far as I can see, this too amounts to an argument for SSM.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(31)
post a comment
Grumpy Old Person

posted December 7, 2010 at 11:46 pm


I agree with your conclusion because …
“[society's vital] interests are actually threatened by the possibility that unintentional and unwanted pregnancy will mean that the child is born out of wedlock and raised by, in all likelihood, its mother alone and that directly implicates society’s vital interests”
That sure isn’t going to happen in MY marriage. Nope. No “unintentional and unwanted pregnancy”. Hence no child born out of wedlock, hence no impact whatsoever. The anti-same-gender marriage folk are just scare-mongering again. It’s what they do best.
Meanwhile, back at the Constitutional Ranch …



report abuse
 

gerry

posted December 8, 2010 at 9:20 am


SSM leads to socially approved gender segregated homes (male/male/child or female/female/child) in contrast to Traditional marriage which leads to socially approved gender integrated homes (male/female/child).
Socially approved Gender segregated homes are burdensome/harmful to children in that they deprive a child through deliberate social policy of either a mother or a father. It is child development 101 that the mother/child father/child relationship plays a vital role.
Of course when you put the interests of the adults ahead of the needs of the child you get such skewed thinking.
Society does encourage gays who desire children to get married, to the mother/father of the child. For thousands of years gays that had such desires did exactly that often creating happy and loving homes.



report abuse
 

Frank

posted December 8, 2010 at 9:52 am


“Socially approved Gender segregated homes are burdensome/harmful to children in that they deprive a child through deliberate social policy of either a mother or a father. It is child development 101 that the mother/child father/child relationship plays a vital role.”
The gaping logical hole in this argument is that the AVAILABLE alternatives to adoption by a same sex couple don’t deprive the child of opposite sex parents, too. Life in an orphanage deprives children of both parents, in fact.
As for your suggestion that gays marry members of the opposite sex, that is ludicrous. Children see romantic relationships modeled by their parents. If they see their parents in a loveless marriage, they will not believe that they have any reason to marry.
Finally, by banning same-sex marriage, Gerry, you send the message to gay children that they have no futures. You are, in effect, handing them a gun and saying “You know what you have to do.”
So don’t give me the “What about the chiiiiilldren?” bullshit. You’re motivated by nothing but hate.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 8, 2010 at 10:43 am


gerry,
Too bad your example is faulty. In my same-gender marriage, no child whatsoever has been “deprived” of any parent.
You seem to have confused the institution of marriage with the institution of parenthood.
No interest of either my husband or myself have been put ahead of the needs of ANY child.
And, I could say the exact same thing about my youngest sister – a heterosexual who has been married twice.
An interesting side-note, my middle sister has an adult child with Down Syndrome, and she chose my husband and me to care for her should she and her husband die at the same time – OVER my other two heterosexually married sisters. She did this because she knows we would NOT put our needs first if it comes to that. She knows that we have plenty of women friends as female role models – most of whom are from our Church community, others are neighbours and acquaintances. Sheesh, from what you type, you’d think that we live in a vacuum.
You may also want to check out the various studies that say children in same-gender households do as well, if not BETTER than in opposite-gender homes.
Re: “Society does encourage gays who desire children to get married, to the mother/father of the child. For thousands of years gays that had such desires did exactly that often creating happy and loving homes.”
Many children produced by gay people come from marriages wherein the gay person didn’t have the internal fortitutde to admit they were gay, so they indeed DID get married to someone of the opposite gender to ‘fit in’. I assure you, your “happy homes” scenario is a fiction. The gay person was miserable. And I’m pretty sure most of the spouses weren’t too thrilled either.
You. Are. Full. Of. It. Stop lying.



report abuse
 

gerry

posted December 8, 2010 at 3:53 pm


Frank,
Ah yes the “What about the children” rebuke. Very similar to the rebuke racial segregationists gave when advocates for racial integration spoke of the burden/harm segregation did to blacks. “This isn’t about the well-being of blacks this is about my equal rights!”
Your anger doesn’t negate the truth of the mother/child father/child relationship or that SSM produces gender segregated homes. You want the 21st century equivalent of gender based Jim Crow laws. Your indifference to the welfare of children is lamentable



report abuse
 

gerry

posted December 8, 2010 at 3:56 pm


GOP,
I didn’t say parent I said “Mother or Father” Child development 101 indicates the importance of the mother/child father/child relationship. In your relationship who is the “Mother” & who is the “Father”?



report abuse
 

saadaya

posted December 8, 2010 at 7:36 pm


I doubt that jerry would want one of his daughter to marry a closeted gay guy … by the way, I read somewhere that about 40 percent of new HIV cases are married women, presumably not all of their husbands are straight. I think this is a matter of common sense: gay marriage benefits all parties. I think monogamy is superior to poligamy and to celibacy for both gay and straight persons.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 8, 2010 at 8:41 pm


gerry: “SSM leads to socially approved gender segregated homes (male/male/child or female/female/child) in contrast to Traditional marriage which leads to socially approved gender integrated homes (male/female/child).”
Next you’re going to tell us the gay community wants to create separate drinking fountains for men and women…



report abuse
 

gerry

posted December 8, 2010 at 10:16 pm


Mordred08,
I think SSM advocates are content to create a social institution that approves and promotes gender segregated homes. That is the outcome of SSM isn’t it, male/male or female/female as opposed to male/female homes, yes?



report abuse
 

gerry

posted December 8, 2010 at 10:23 pm


saadaya,
You know that for thousands of years in Ancient societies like Greece & Rome men and women would engage in incidental homosexual activities but
marry someone of the opposite sex and raise a family. As Judge Walker pointed out our modern idea of homosexuality is of rather recent origin, a mere blip on the historical radar.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted December 8, 2010 at 10:57 pm


gerry: “I think SSM advocates are content to create a social institution that approves and promotes gender segregated homes. That is the outcome of SSM isn’t it, male/male or female/female as opposed to male/female homes, yes?”
You are deliberately missing the point of marriage equality in a desperate attempt to equate gays with the Ku Klux Klan. Which is really freaking pathetic, considering that in the real world, the Klan hates gay people as much as they hate any other minority.



report abuse
 

gerry

posted December 9, 2010 at 12:22 am


Mordred08,
The question was really very simple and refers to a set of facts that are true or not and rather than provide a straightforward answer you “spin” and manufacture a “strawman” answer with a point you made up and put in my mouth.
I commend you for a good piece of Propaganda however can you just answer the question asked?



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 9, 2010 at 11:54 am


@ gerry
Re: December 8, 2010 3:56 PM
“I didn’t say parent I said “Mother or Father” Child development 101 indicates the importance of the mother/child father/child relationship. In your relationship who is the “Mother” & who is the “Father”?”
Your reading skills seem to be lacking. In our relationship, neither is a “Mother” OR a “Father”. There are no children. At all. Just as in my youngest sister’s family. Even though they are an opposite-gender couple, they – like many heterosexual couples – don’t have any children, so there’s no “Mother” OR “Father”. Parenthood is a separate institution from marriage. Procreation is NOT a requirement of marriage. Please do us all a favor and stop confusing/conflating the two. Just like you tried to do with the segregation (non-)issue. It has no merit either.
DO BETTER!



report abuse
 

gerry

posted December 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm


GOP,
You are correct the State has no interest in your orientation, your motive for getting married, how you express yourself sexually, etc. The State is only interested the two gender forms (male/female) are present. This has been true across time and across culture, yes?
In biology function follows form so the State has correctly assumed nature will take it’s course and an institution (marriage) that channels procreative sex into a socially constructive expression will have a positive effect on parenthood.
Marriage is an institution entered into through a license. Parenthood is entered into through the act of procreative sex, an ability. Think of the two like driving. The ability to drive is separate from the possession of a license, yes?
I agree there is confusion but that is because you focus on intent not outcome. SSM creates gender segregated homes (male/male or female/female) as opposed to traditional marriage which creates a gender integrated home (male/female). That is the factual outcome which you ignore because it is created with the best of intentions. Do us all a favor, simply address the issues raised in a straight forward manner. Dismissing an argument isn’t the same as logically or factually refuting it which you haven’t done.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm


“Marriage is an institution entered into through a license.”
Not always. I, like my three (very) heterosexual sisters, got married under a Church institution called “The Publication of the Banns” in which the intention of a couple to marry is publicly proclaimed on three consecutive Sundays during worship service. Perhaps you are confusing civil marriage with Holy Matrimony. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. This confusion happens with the religious rightwing nutzoids too.
“Parenthood is entered into through the act of procreative sex, an ability.”
So??? As previously stated, neither the ability, nor the desire, nor the intent to procreate is a requirement of marriage. (FYI, gay people also have this “ability”, just not with each other.) Your “fact” is simply irrelevant.
P.S. There’s no comparison to driving apart from the fact that it is a secular thing that is also licensed by the state. Driving is hardly comparable, except in the minds of the delusional.
Feel free to try again, but you, like the rest of the looney ‘right’ will have to DO BETTER.



report abuse
 

Jane

posted December 23, 2010 at 6:28 pm


I think that gay/lesbian rights show that love isn’t just about procreation. It’s about putting someone else first in your life and loving them more than yourself. Right-wing people–no offense to them– fail to understand this.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who came in Grace and Truth!

posted December 24, 2010 at 2:37 pm


AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.

For those who claim to be homosexual to procreate, they must engage in heterosexuality which they say they cannot do. So, which is it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Son of God!

posted December 24, 2010 at 2:44 pm


HAPPY JESUS BIRTHDAY !

If the one who claims to be homosexual engages in one heterosexual act, he must be a heterosexual.

JESUS CHRIST – LORD OF LORDS, KING OF KINGS!



report abuse
 

Not as good as you apparently

posted December 26, 2010 at 11:57 am


“If the one who claims to be homosexual engages in one heterosexual act, he must be a heterosexual.”
If that’s the ‘logic’ you use in daily life, you are going to need a lot of help to cope with reality.
By your logic, the reverse must ALSO be true:
If the one who claims to be heterosexual engages in one homosexual act, he must be a homosexual.
Not to mention the sexism in your post – what of women?
And what of the bisexual?
Have you never heard of either?
“For those who claim to be homosexual to procreate, they must engage in heterosexuality which they say they cannot do. So, which is it?”
1. What has procreation got to do with this discussion? The topic is marriage, not makin’ babies.
2. Your statement is incorrect. A gay man can ejaculate into a turkeybaster, or a condom, or any other container. NO sexual intercourse needs to take place at all.
3. To debunk yet another falsehood of yours: Most homosexuals could “engage in heterosexuality” but it would not be pleasant, nor spiritually, physically, emotionally rewarding, nor a part of any relationship. Marriage is far more than sex,though perhaps you don’t quite understand that.
So, to answer your qustion – it is neither. When you wish to discuss reality instead of makin’ stuff up, feel free to come back and discuss the topic.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who has overcome the world and, through Him, we, too!

posted December 26, 2010 at 4:28 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
If the one who claims to be homosexual engages in one heterosexual act, he must be a heterosexual.
A poster:
If that’s the ‘logic’ you use in daily life, you are going to need a lot of help to cope with reality.
Mr. Incredible says:
If the logic of those who claim to be homosexual.
A poster:
By your logic…
Mr. Incredible says:
By the logic of those who claim to be homosexual.
A poster:
…the reverse…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, we begin with what those who claim to be homosexual say – that is, that a heterosexual who engages in even one homosexual act is homosexual.
So, the reverse of that is true – that is, that one who claims to be homosexual who engages in even one heterosexual act is heterosexual.
A poster:
… must ALSO be true:
If the one who claims to be heterosexual…
Mr. Incredible says:
There is no claim to be heterosexual. Heterosexuality is a fact of life God gave Man.
A poster:
…engages in one homosexual act, he must be a homosexual.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what those who claim to be homosexual say.
A poster:
Not to mention the sexism in your post…
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t care about your judgments.
A poster:
And what of the bisexual?
Mr. Incredible says:
If it’s true, as those who claim to be homosexual say, that one homosexual act by a heterosexual makes the heterosexual homosexual, then the bisexual is really homosexual.
A poster:
Have you never heard of either?
Mr. Incredible asks:
Does it look as though I’ve heard of neither???

JESUS CHRIST – LORD OF LORDS, KING OF KINGS!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name, the ONLY Name by which we must be saved!

posted December 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !

Mr. Incredible says:
For those who claim to be homosexual to procreate, they must engage in heterosexuality which they say they cannot do. So, which is it?
A poster:
1. What has procreation got to do with this discussion?
Mr. Incredible says:
I know it’s difficult for you. Try to follow along.
Those who claim to be homosexual say they cannot engage in heterosexual activity. If they cannot engage in heterosexual activity, they cannot have children. Procreation is an act of heterosexuality.
A poster:
The topic is marriage, not makin’ babies.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who claim to be homosexual say they aren’t capable of makin’ babies cuz-a what they say is the simple fact that they cannot get excited about the opposite sex. Opposite sex is what makin’ babies is all about.
A poster:
2. Your statement is incorrect.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, it isn’t.
A poster:
A gay man…
Mr. Incredible says:
A man who claims to be homosexual.
A poster:
… can ejaculate into a turkeybaster, or a condom, or any other container. NO sexual intercourse needs to take place at all.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, to plant that in a woman is an act of heterosexuality.
A poster:
3. To debunk yet another falsehood of yours: Most homosexuals could “engage in heterosexuality” but it would not be pleasant, nor spiritually, physically, emotionally rewarding, nor a part of any relationship.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who claim to be homosexual say they cannot get excited about the opposite sex. If they cannot get excited about the opposite sex, they cannot “do it.”
Sex with the opposite sex is heterosexuality in action. Those who claim to be homosexual who engage in a heterosexual act – by their own logic – are heterosexual.
A poster:
Marriage is far more than sex…
Mr. Incredible says:
Tell that to the opposite sex marriage partner who isn’t gettin’ any; they will tell you they don’t feel loved, that they feel undesirable.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 27, 2010 at 10:35 am


Bearing false witness used to be a sin. Sad to see an incredible poster seems to think otherwise.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of jesus

posted December 28, 2010 at 2:35 am


Not all with which you disagree is bearing false witness.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted December 28, 2010 at 2:42 am


It’s not false witness to testify of/to the Truth, and the Truth is that God detests what we now call “homosexuality.”
It is not a lie to say that those who claim to be homosexual also say that they cannot get excited by the opposite sex. If they cannot get excited about the opposite sex, they cannot have sex with the opposite sex.
Everything about procreation, inside and outside of sexual intercourse, is heterosexual; and those who claim to be homosexual say that, if a heterosexual has one homosexual act, he is homosexual. That must mean that, if the one who claims to be homosexual has one heterosexual act, he reverts back to what God made him in the first place — heterosexual. Of course, he never left heterosexual, only chose the homosexual, lifestyle-orientation option.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted December 28, 2010 at 10:05 am


Yeah, ri-i-i-ght. God detests God’s own human creation just as God detests eating shrimp and lobster (equally an “abomination”, no?).
“Everything about procreation …”
Too bad for you that the topic isn’t “procreation”.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm


Your Name says:
Yeah, ri-i-i-ght. God detests God’s own human creation…
Mr.Incredible says:
God didn’t make homosexual those who claim to be homosexual. He made Man hetersexual.
Had He made Man homosexual, He wouldn’t have programmed the spirits as He did in Genesis 1. He didn’t program “homosexuality” in them. That was the programming creation, and it woulda happened then.
Since it didn’t happen when He programmed the spirits, some humans musta programmed themselves to pervert God’s programming, having chosen the homosexual, lifestyle-orientation option, a suggestion of the sin nature.
Your Name says:
… just as God detests eating shrimp and lobster (equally an “abomination”, no?).
Mr. Incredible says:
No. The act of eating bottom-dwelling seafood is a violation of Jewish law. The abomination God sees is that the Jews can’t even follow their own laws. If you reject Christ, your rejct Him, and, if you reject Him, yu are still under the Old Law, even the laws of your own conscience, since you would say that you follow the law. You must follow the WHOLE law, even the law you make for yourself, in order to be saved by the law. Yoou can’t follow ALL the law, and that’s where Grace comes in, IF you receive Christ. That’s the deal; this ain’t “Let’s Make a Deal.”
“Rightly dividing” the Word of God means knowing when and where God is talking to Man, or men, or Jews, et al, and when and where God is talking about His Law, or Man’s laws, men’s laws, or Jewish laws.
So, that’s why Jesus said that what goes into the mouth doesn’t defile the man, that it’s what comes out the mouth that defiles him, just as Proverbs 18:21 says.
Your Name says:
Too bad for you that the topic isn’t “procreation”.
Mr. Incredible says:
Too bad for you that the topic can the issue of “procreation.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who will cast out none who come to Him!

posted December 28, 2010 at 6:15 pm


CORRECTION
the topic can the issue – – > the topic includes the issue



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted December 31, 2010 at 9:32 am


CORRECTION
God made heterosexual men hetersexual.
What does “the topic can the issue” mean?
The ‘topic’ is marriage, not makin’ babies.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted December 31, 2010 at 2:32 pm


The topic is not “marriage.” It is so-called “same-sex ‘marriage.'” That includes the question of whether that includes procreation. You’re having trouble following that, huh.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted December 31, 2010 at 5:41 pm


Actually, the topic is “Arguments for” so-called “same-sex ‘marriage.'” That assumes there are arguments against. We are free to post arguments against. Procreation speaks against, and we have been telling you how. We understand that you don’t like such information. But that’s really too bad.



report abuse
 

Not as good as you apparently

posted January 4, 2011 at 11:54 am


If you have been “telling [us] how procreation speaks against” same-sex marriage, you’ve done a p!ss-poor job of it. We understand that you don’t like information such as procreatoin isn’t a requirement of ANYONE’s marriage. But that’s really too bad.
l@u



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Religion and Public Life. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Latest News Story on Beliefnet Happy Reading!  

posted 3:10:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

The Ayn Rand Republicans
I confess to feeling a little bit queasy about the American Values Network's new video hoisting Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and other GOP luminaries on the petard of Ayn Rand and her atheistic philosophy of objectivism. Take a look. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxCW

posted 7:13:30pm May. 24, 2011 | read full post »

Whither evangelicals?
I'm fully prepared to believe that Mitch Daniels' family proved to be the unleapable hurdle in his abortive run-up to the GOP presidential race. Imagine yourself as wife Cheri, having split for the coast to marry on old flame, your husband and young daughters left behind in Boone County, Indiana,

posted 9:19:56am May. 23, 2011 | read full post »

No more "social conservatives"
With the presidential election cycle getting up to speed, it's time for reporters and yakkers like me to stop writing about "social conservatives" as if they were an identifiable segment of the voting population. I say this as someone who has happily been using the term since late 2008, when it

posted 8:25:11am May. 20, 2011 | read full post »

So clerical celibacy was not the problem?
Those on the Catholic left are not very happy that the Jay Report declines in no uncertain terms to blame clerical celibacy for the sexual abuse crisis. As the report puts it: Factors that remained consistent over this time period, such as celibacy, do not explain the sexual abuse "crisis." Celib

posted 9:50:34am May. 19, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.