Reader Mail
The (Same) Sex Issue
Readers on SSM. Miss California, Miss Conservative. Bev Gunn’s Diary.
(Page 2 of 3)
Marriage is one of these institutions. Marriage is a “pre-existing” institution — meaning that it existed before the state and will exist afterward. Marriage is not a creation of the state, and thus the state has minimal legitimate jurisdiction. For the state to intervene and coercively change the meaning of marriage is not an act of expanding freedom but of tyranny. It threatens the very independence of those who moderate between the individual and the far more powerful state.
It is not justifiable to reduce marriage to the mere matter of love and benefits. Instead, one has to address what marriage is for. Marriage is not a vehicle for the collection of benefits. It is not a mere visible declaration of love. Marriage is for the procreation, protection, and nurture of children. Even for those marriages where the decision is to have no children, the essential promise is that the procreative powers of each are bound within the marriage. The marriage may be childless. But one promises that one will not share one ‘s sexuality and procreative potential with another outside the marriage. Why? Because a child born outside of marriage faces seriously compromised resources and guidance.
Gay marriage in fact dispenses with the childrearing aspect in
the meaning of marriage. It expands the meaning of marriage to
include a variety of relationships that have nothing to do with
childrearing. It blurs expectations and obscures the truth
that with rights come duties and obligations. A look back a
mere fifty years in the loosening of the marriage covenant shows
that we are playing with fire. For whatever good came with
the sexual revolution (and there were good things), it was a
crippling disaster for far too many children. For children,
the loving and caring relationship between two adults is
necessary—but it is not sufficient.
— Mike Dooley
Brad Nelson asks in his letter:
“Which will it be? Doesn ‘t the love between two people count? Shouldn ‘t people ‘s ability to express that be protected? …. ”
Then he states: “The real problem with conservatives is that they have forgotten theirs (principles).”
Exactly right. Conservatives have forgotten their principles. This is because we are not really sure of their origins. But who am I to argue with 10,000 years of evolutionary psychology?
There is probably an evolutionary advantage that has led so many cultures to institutionalize heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman.
There are probably evolutionary disadvantages to same-sex
marriage that are beyond our ken. Though these disadvantages may
be lost to our modern way of thinking, we may still have the
opportunity for re-education.
— Dan Martin
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD
Re: Ben Stein ‘s For
Crying Out Loud:
I always enjoy Mr. Stein ‘s posts, for he clearly loves our American way of life. The tapestry of different folks from different places, all with different stories, is one of the strongest assets we have. For in finding this land and its way of life as genuinely marvelous, one is more inclined to have a heart filled with knowledgeable gratitude for the freedom in which we live.
Since Mr. Stein gave a rough draft of his week I thought he and readers might be interested in hearing about a few days in the life of a Texas rancher.
So, with no further ado…
Monday: Got up fed barn cats and all the dogs, finding that someone dropped off (or the better word is abandoned) a giant Great Pyrenees dog, roughly the size of an elephant. Since I discovered her in the garage in all her huge grace, I won ‘t need my usual strong cup of morning coffee, as I now am wide awake!
Looked out in pen to see if the new colt, Cinca (born on cinco de Mayo), is with her mother, Sadie. I feed them apples and carrots and save their daily rations for later, as with all our lovely rains the pasture grass is plentiful. With another horse pregnant and due in four weeks, I make note to keep them up close and I will have to watch their grazing, as horses eat many times more than cows in grasses. Cows have the amazing ability to “re-eat” their food over the day, due to their cuds and several stomachs. I quickly look at our small herd and determine that there are no new Spring calves. We chart each birth in our records to maintain herd and individual cow fertility.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/15/the-same-sex-issue
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The End of the Castros?
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- The Great Train Robbery
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
SLG| 5.15.09 @ 8:11AM
That Perez Hilton thing...?
What was Donnie Trump thinking? Having that guy as a "judge" is kinda like having Stevie Wonder officiating the Super Bowl.... stupid.
Anastasia Mather| 5.15.09 @ 8:57AM
I really believe that Beverly Gunn needs to be a regular contributor to your magazine and website.
Please.
IMKessel| 5.15.09 @ 11:41AM
Mr. Dooley presents a clear, cogent and precise argument for the marriage. His point on marriage without children is a solid rebuff to the child free argument of those who wish to alter the very nature of marriage.
This is one of the most solid arguments I have read on this issue.
Jason Porter| 5.15.09 @ 1:24PM
"Marriage is not a vehicle for the collection of benefits. It is not a mere visible declaration of love. Marriage is for the procreation, protection, and nurture of children."
I stopped reading here. How can you argue that the true purpose of marriage is to procreate? There are thousands of married couples who never have children, and if the state of our economy and current employment rates aren't sure enough signs that we are OVER POPULATED, I don't know what its. Marriage IS about love, and two people who love each other should be able to get married. With your argument, then infertile women should not be granted marriage rights, and couples past child-bearing age shouldn't be able to wed either.
Not only will legalized gay marriage grant the basic happiness and legal stabilization that same-sex couples desire, but will open the door for gay adoption so the THOUSANDS of parentless children can enter households that will love them.
Regardless of what anybody thinks of this issue, legalized gay marriage is inevitable and within the next 20 years you can bet on a nation-wide acceptance of homosexual marriages as the conservative baby boomers die (inevitable) and the liberal, open minded youth obtain voting rights (also inevitable). Fight it as long as you wish, but you all KNOW you're fighting a losing battle.
PolishKnight| 5.15.09 @ 2:03PM
Jason, Mike specifically addressed the context of childless marriages: That even if they choose not to have children, the marital vows assure them that they won't be having children WITH SOMEONE ELSE. The marital structure is about creating a welcoming, nurturing environment for children even if the parents choose not to. By the same token, a child-friendly neighborhood also happens to be safe for normal people to live in.
I chuckled a bit at your claim that gay marriage would "grant the basic happiness and legal stabilization that same-sex couples have". I have long observed on this forum that 'same-sex' marrige is a mess due to divorce court policies that encourage marital discord. One of the few benefits of being gay is not having to put up with that nonsense.
I don't think of this as a losing battle so much as a diversion. The real issue is that our society is being undermined by create a third world socialist banana republic just so that socialists don't have to admit they were wrong. Like dictators being found in spider holes "I'm willing to negotiate!", they would rather take all of society down with them rather than admit that punishing the productive and rewarding the lazy is a bad idea.
jim rice| 5.15.09 @ 2:11PM
My God... I'm with Jason... that paragraph he referenced was just stupid. Marriage doesn't have dick to do with procreation except that humans have decided the children born out of wedlock somehow deserve less than those born to a married couple
The author was correct in that marriage is not, obviously, a creation of the state... at least not this state. But the following argument cannot be drawn from the premise at all. The state should have NO control over marriage. There should be a completely separate status for committed couples living together that has nothing to do with your religious sacrament, and it should apply to hetero and homo sexuals alike. Marriage is nothing. It is made up. It's quaint. And I don't care what you do with it. But when you start ascribing legal rights to it, denying those rights to others based on their gender is simply wrong.
As for Ms. Prejean? I am baffled as to why anyone cares. Isn't it more that she sounded like an idiot when she replied? "Opposite marriage??" Furthermore, she didn't even answer the question that was posed to her. She just gave her personal opinion about gay marriage. She did, however, lead off with, "I think it's great that Americans can choose." So what the hell - sounds like her head's in the right place even if she did do a piss-poor job of answering the question.
Also... Order is diametrically opposed to freedom. Complete freedom lacks all order. We sign away some of our freedoms when we enter into the social contract with the state... we desire some form of order, and we are required to give up some freedoms to gain it.
This article is fraught with inconsistencies, non sequitur commentary, and close-minded opinions. Just terrible. Thank you, Jason, for putting even the slightest bit of reason on this page.
baluc/ka| 5.15.09 @ 7:41PM
Let's say that same sex marriage becomes mainstream. Then what? Will there be protests over Mother's Day? Father's Day?
In a same sex marriage, the mother or father are personality / behavior types, but not identified by one's sex.
Will these days be stripped like Columbus day portends to be? And argued as
Mother's Day: submissive
Father's Day: dominant
Ergo do away with these and replace them with Parent's Day and Partner's Day.
Or create new days for these as well.
Can you imagine a day when a beauty contestant is asked whether she's for motherhood, and in saying yes, is reviled.
jim rice| 5.15.09 @ 7:51PM
really?? Mother's Day and Father's Day are what you're worried about? Some stupid made-up holidays designed to make more money for the purveyors of crap?
I'm all for getting rid of both of them.
And if that person is actually able to answer the direct question directly and without sounding like an idiot... and there's not some dumbass sitting on the judging panel... then she shouldn't be reviled no matter what she says.
Smitty| 5.16.09 @ 12:32AM
Jim Rice didn't have a mother or father--he was some mad scientist's experiment gone bad. Real bad.
Smitty| 5.16.09 @ 12:34AM
By your logic, the idiot Joe Biden should be reviled every time he opens his stupid mouth. And you voted for him, moron.
reads1| 5.16.09 @ 8:19AM
Jim Rice is obviously another pseudonym of David Matthews, produced by the moral decay that exists today. Of all the problems the U.S faces today, Homosexuality on its own will bring this Country to its knees. (No pun intended!)
jim rice| 5.16.09 @ 9:07AM
Don't people make fun of Joe every time he says something stupid too? All's fair.
@reads1: Bigotry like yours will bring this country to its knees.
Mike| 5.16.09 @ 10:05AM
Heterosexual only marriage is an ancient venerated institution with the power of every world religion behind it. Let us not allow it to pass away like other great institutions humanity once depended on for advancement that are now extinct but were also backed by every major religion. Slavery. (supported by Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox -Jewish and Christian - Islam, Hinduism, Taoism...) Pogroms against members of minority religions (supported by above list). And here in the USA... segregated schools and toilets (suported by our most populous denomination (if you count just the 'true' WHITE Americans of course) the illustrious The Southern Baptists.
Don't misunderstand me please. I believe in Jesus Christ as God Almighty. He is the savior of all mankind and the image of the invisible God. It just seems to me that his more just world advances in spite of his church not because of it. Yes I know that there were Christian groups opposing all of these things, but they did so in opposition to the dominate "Christian" institutions and were severly persecuted by the mainstream (read "90% of Americans agree...") church. Thank God for groups like the Quakers and Anabaptists. One day Soulforce will be counted among the number of courageous Christians who dared to say that the majority of Christians were serving tradition not Christ.
BTW The way Prejean was treated was terrible. No argument. David Duke was shown more respect when he ran for governor of LA. Not every person who thinks that this is an issue of social justice thinks its okay to treat the opposition so shabily; so lets avoid that straw man and stick to the issue shall we.
Big J| 5.16.09 @ 12:19PM
Mike Dooley makes several excellent points.
Jim Rice, as usual - not so much.
Another poster left a link to this article:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Please take the time to read it. It is very enlightening.
Of course there are many who don't care to be enlightened. Too bad.
Nice post, Mike. It's a shame that some refuse to "get it".
george| 5.16.09 @ 1:15PM
"Rightesnous exalteth a nation. But sin is a reproach to any people."
Mike Harding| 5.17.09 @ 4:25AM
george,
As a Christian I cannot possibly disagree with your quote. God's word is true. I am just not sure where you stand. What do you think God says is righteous and what do you think God calls sin? I will agree with God - I am just not sure I agree with you or your interpretation of what God said.
matt jones| 5.18.09 @ 1:53AM
it is unfortunate that many conservatives subscribe to Mr. Dooley's view of marriage. the fact is marraige has nothing to do with procreation. rather it is a device intended to allow the offspring thus generated to be protected and regarded as important. furthermore the basis of biology suports this view. human beings, traditional institutions or not, have decidly low amounts of children. the reason for that is simple: human beings subscribe to a survival stratagey that is based on producing an offsping and focusing a massive amount of energy in to raising that offspring as opposed to say, some sort of insect that favors, evolutionarily speaking, to have many offspring invest very little and hope for the best, that at least a few will survive to mate again. however as society has shown, humans have a very good track record with procreation, not so much with the protctection department however. so gay marriage is useful in remeding that situation, increase marriage, rather than focusing on decreasing sex will help children in the long run. by recognising stable partnerships, and well structured relationships with adoption benefits and the like, families will be created. in response to the commentor who provided the link to the blog: thank you so very much. the arguments found there were extremely refeshing, nearly as much as the commitment to remain non judgemental which was kept, i do believe. however the argument was flawed, even though exceptionally crafted. as pointed out, society is afffected by people, and vice versa. so when incentives affect society, people are affected. however in all the situations provided a 'what' was changed, not a 'who', as in gay marriage: welfare extended beyong strugggling families, divorce made easier to obtain and the tax was capped. however in gay marriage a 'who' is changed, and all the fears about the redefinition of marriage are also 'whats' : incest, extending marriage to be an addition to already exisiting blood ties; interspecies relationships- what can and can not get married, polyagamy, redefining that a marriage is between two people only, which is a 'what'. the difference thus takes many cultural underpinnings down to a specific one, which should be changed.
Conveyor Bearings | 5.18.09 @ 3:06AM
This article is fraught with inconsistencies, non sequitur commentary, and close-minded opinions. Just terrible. Thank you, Jason, for putting even the slightest bit of reason on this page.
Spray Gun | 5.18.09 @ 3:13AM
"Rightesnous exalteth a nation. But sin is a reproach to any people."
Bobby Bobsingerling| 4.15.10 @ 4:24AM
"Here she was expressing the views of probably over 90 percent of Americans, to wit (1) America is a great country because opposing views are allowed, protected even. (2) But for her, she was brought up as a Christian and guides her life on those precepts, and thus (3) She believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. "
- You are right! I am not a native american but I feel like one and I have the same thoughts as you mention in this article. But I have personal concerns about the same sex marriages which could lead to some problems according to my own opinion and to opinion of experts.
Bobby@mens health tips