The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Four Words

Text Size

Yesterday, I posted to these pages a blog note of 619 words on the subject of the politics of Obama’s flip-flop-flip on gay marriage. Of these, four words were “as we should be” which I used in reference to the nation’s getting more comfortable with homosexual relationships.

To be perfectly clear, I am neither gay nor willing to learn. But not being gay doesn’t cause me to automatically dislike gays anymore than not being black causes me to automatically dislike blacks. Of course, I’m perfectly willing to dislike any individual based on his or her own merits.

When I wrote those four words, I knew they would generate some controversy on the blog pages, but I did not expect that of the large number of comments to the note nearly 90 percent would be in reference to four words rather than to the other 615 words (in which I argued that Barack Obama’s rapid “evolution” on gay marriage was not turning into political success, though it was bolstering his Manhattan and Hollywood fundraising).

Since you, esteemed readers, were so interested in those four words, I thought it only fair to respond.

A few specific replies. I won’t mention commenters’ names. You know who you are, or you know if you agree with those who made the initial points:

Libertarian is not the same as libertine. I presume you know that and are intentionally misrepresenting what you know, or should know, I stand for. If you don’t know, then stop using terms you don’t understand. (Beyond that, I am more Objectivist than libertarian, though some consider the difference subtle. Certainly Ayn Rand didn’t…but that’s a story for another day.)
I did not say “celebrate” homosexuality, nor did I say people should become comfortable with (much less celebrate) “homosexual acts.” It is perfectly natural to feel uncomfortable with something so outside of one’s own inclinations. What I talked about quite specifically was tolerance of two people’s relationship, and I stand by my assertion that such tolerance is better than its opposite. It is better morally and better politically; the former is more important.
I understand that some people believe the bible says that homosexuals are going to hell. With you I have an unbridgeable gap; we will never convince each other and I am not trying to talk you out of your deeply-held religious beliefs. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice for most gays and lesbians. Therefore, I do not believe it is moral to hate homosexuals for whom they fall in love with (or whom they have sex with) any more than it is moral to hate blacks for their color.
I never said that morality is an “oppressive device.” I said that oppressive devices, i.e. the federal government, should not be used to impose morality. If any of you can convince others to follow your moral code by explaining it to them, by telling them why you think you’re right and why you think your prescription is good medicine for our nation or culture, more power to you. But government is force and it must not be used, either by a majority or by a minority, to impose morality beyond those fundamental natural rights understood by our Founders and already protected by them, at least theoretically, in our Founding documents.
Thanks to the person who said that Objectivists are not liberals or “secular humanists.” You are quite right. As you are right that I object to altruism as the left uses the term, though I do believe strongly in giving VOLUNTARILY to charities. I certainly don’t believe in “social responsibility”, again the way the left uses the term, but that does not mean I do not place value on helping others VOLUNTARILY. Feel free to read Ayn Rand’s short non-fiction book “The Virtue of Selfishness.”
What exactly is a “homosexual public display?” If it’s two guys holding hands, I admit that makes me a little uncomfortable (though much less than it used to). If it’s two guys kissing, it makes me more than a little uncomfortable. But it doesn’t make me hate them.
I don’t suggest you/we (straight white guys) join in a Gay Pride parade any more than I suggest we join in an MLK Day parade or that non-Italians join in Columbus Day parades, waving the Italian flag. I do suggest you avoid literally or rhetorically bashing gays any more than you bash blacks or Italians, even if you are none of the above.
“Spouses” was in quotes because 60 percent of our United States (or somewhat less than 60 percent if you believe there are 57 states) don’t allow gay marriage. Therefore, one state’s spouse is another state’s ___ (you fill in the blank; I don’t know the answer).
As for orgies in the back yard that neighborhood kids can see, that is improper (and I presume illegal) no matter the gender or sexual orientation of those participating.
I don’t want to pay for higher health care costs for any group because of their behavior. So get the government out of health care costs. And let private companies discriminate, i.e. permit higher (health and life) insurance premiums for gay people. If they don’t really cost more to insure, competition will bring prices down. If they do cost more, they should pay more just as smokers often do for insurance. People should live with the costs of their own behavior. I’ll bet you that gays in committed relationships have little or no actuarial difference in health/life risks. Here is one example of a benefit from encouraging committed relationships among gays. Another example would be that, just as with heterosexual couples, if one hits a financial rough spot, the other can help out and keep an American off welfare, food stamps, and the government dole generally.
For the person who suggests that gays will “roast on Beelzebub’s spit,” I suggest a long look in the mirror when considering what God really thinks is OK.
For those name-callers out there (i.e. those going after me personally because of a disagreement of philosophy/religion), I can only think of this worst-possible insult: Your behavior reminds me of what I would expect from liberals, who routinely take political disagreement as personal attack.

Now, one thing I could have made clearer: I did and do mean that I believe we should be getting more comfortable with those in same-sex relationships…with those people as individual human beings or as couples. I did not say and did not mean we should necessarily be more comfortable with “gay marriage” per se (and not with particular sexual acts, though that is no more your business than your sexual acts are anyone else’s business).

Even Barack Obama, in 2004, noted that marriage has a specific meaning with thousands of years of history behind it. I am among those who think that part of the problem with this debate is the use of the word marriage. My wife asks rhetorically: if the majority of us have to suffer through marriage, why should gays be exempt? I concur except for the use of the word marriage.

I understand that civil unions and domestic partnerships may be perceived, and may be intended by some, as the camel’s nose under the tent — a giant step toward gay marriage. But having spoken to a few gays about this, I know that a substantial percentage of them don’t care about the word marriage as much as they care about equal treatment under the law. And in that a least they have a reasonable argument.

I maintain my view that we should get government out of marriage, allow any two people to make any contract they want to (which does not infringe on the natural rights of others), allow any house of worship to decide whom they will or won’t marry, and only have government involved insofar as contract enforcement.

Lest my conservative friends and readers on these pages think I am a full-fledged apologist for “gay rights,” allow me a couple more points:

Some gays wildly exaggerate the “rights” that they don’t have. But more importantly, “gay rights” crusaders, just as many other crusaders for other “victim groups” that the left likes to create in their permanent divide-and-conquer strategy, misunderstand and misuse the word “rights.”

Our rights are inherent in our being human beings. Our Founders said that our rights come from God. It is in that sense of us being equally human — no matter your view of God — that we have equal rights. But we are a nation of negative rights, which is to say that our fundamental law, the Constitution, is a code which says what government may NOT do to us. Neither the Constitution nor any politician gives us rights. (In fact, this was part of the original argument about the Bill of Rights: James Madison, among others, initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights as potentially implying that rights not spelled out were rights not retained by citizens; thus the inclusion of the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.)

No group has a claim to special “rights” that others don’t have. (One example of the government violating this precept is the existence of “hate crime” laws. There should not be a bigger penalty for beating up a gay or black than for beating up a straight white guy.) Furthermore, I believe that private businesses and private citizens have a First Amendment right NOT to associate with people just as much as we have our rights of association as normally considered. Thus, those who dislike gays or blacks or Jews or left-handed people or people who enjoy the sport of curling should have the right to exclude them, or anyone else they don’t like for any reason whatever, from their private property.

The other side of the coin, however, is that the government should not be able to discriminate at all. Government’s picking winners and losers in no more appropriate in society or culture than in business; I say this in complete realization that today’s government does all of the above. Because, I repeat, government is force. This means that government must not treat gays, blacks or any others worse than they treat members of society’s (then current) majority; but it means just as importantly that government must not treat them better than they treat others.

One commenter got something right yesterday: When I deleted those four words – not because I was backing away from my position, but because I wanted people to focus on the other 615 words – someone suggested I should have left them. I probably should have. After all, the virulent reaction of several commenters, both against gays and against me, says at least as much about them as my words said about me.

In any case, I am appreciative, as always, of the conversation and of those who engage in a civil discussion on issues, regardless of whether we agree or disagree.

Keith D. Rodebush | 5.16.12 @ 9:28AM

I agree with most of what you have to say and in fact have said same. Government has no business telling us who can marry whom. Churches should decide and the people can determine which Churches they will attend. However, I do take issue with one thing you state. You aver that since you don't believe that the persons homosexuality is a choice we therefore have no moral stand against such. This is a dangerous fallacy as peoples souls are at stake. While God is perfect and could have created perfect humans, He didn't. Sin led us from the garden and into a world of free will, but with consequences. It can be stated that lying is innate, yet one should not surmise that we have no moral stand against it. A pedophile might have been born with a prediliction towards children but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible. My point is that while I may argue that government should not be in the business of marriage, I would also personally argue to anyone I cared for that they should take very seriously how their actions on this earth will be viewed by God above. I consider that a very moral stand with which I have scripture to support. Just because government has no business regulating something, doesn't mean that it is good and moral.

Confused| 5.16.12 @ 9:29AM

please go write for the Huffington Post- there is an unbridgable gap here. Under your logic, shouldnt NAMBLA be able to wed, or shouldnt people be able to have multiple spouses?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:15PM

No, in my view the government has a specific duty to protect children that far exceeds its duty to protect adults.

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 9:30AM

Simple, clear communication is supposed to be your profession, Kaminsky. You shouldn't blame astute observers for picking up on the four words which leaked your true position on the issue at hand and dismiss the 615 pettifogging it.

We are conservatives. You are not---and becoming less so over time as your social liberalism becomes your primary focus. We have seen the whole "growing" phenomenon plenty of times now and know all the symptoms. You show them.

Now clip and save these comments so when you go the full Frum route you have plenty of soundbites of "right wing extremism" for the people at MSNBC who'll be showering you with Strange New Respect.

Dai Alanye | 5.16.12 @ 12:12PM

Correct.

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 1:01PM

This wasn't a throw away line. This was an instance of guy smugly patting himself on the back for his supposed enlightenment on the issue. He was patting himself on the back while playing up the idea that there are conservatives out there desirous of rounding up them by the thousands and ensconcing them in some American Dachau.

Such suggestion, such implication, such smug moralizing, wasn't welcome.

Instead of lamenting his "four little words," why not acknowledge the compliment paid, that the readers went through each and every word written, paying him the compliment of CLOSELY FOLLOWING his train of thought, from commencement to conclusion?

Wouldn't that be something?

Lawrence| 5.16.12 @ 2:01PM

Well said, Teflon.

SCM| 5.16.12 @ 9:36AM

I tried curling for the first time a few weeks ago. It was fun!
"Good curling!"

Mender| 5.16.12 @ 9:40AM

Wise words. I think we should be able to allow people whose brains are wired up a little differently to ours the right to live their lives as they see fit with the minimum of hassle and government interference.

I see, and I want to see, conservatism as being supportive of people who want to live together as partners, rather than dictating that gay people live alone, frightened and unable to be honest to their friends, family and parents about who they are and who they love.

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 1:05PM

Oh yea, they're REAL frightened out there. Just the other day I went through the city hearing screams in the dead of night, of isolated, solitary, lonely men, in their tens of thousands, bewailing the thought that nobody lets them have their gay pride parades.

Oh the humanity............

What scribe is there who will accurately portray their plight?

Harvey Feinstein just the other day was seen openly crying alongside the curb of Fifth Avenue...............

Meanwhile, other people recall the assault that the frightened community made on Saint Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, where they attacked the altar, attacked the church, and threw loaded condoms all over the place. The sacrilege was so great, that in a rarely used ceremony, John Cardinal O'Connor had to RECONSECRATE the cathedral!

Yea, they're real frightened............

FastJohnny| 5.16.12 @ 9:52AM

"My wife asks rhetorically: if the majority of us have to suffer through marriage, why should gays be exempt?"

That statement is a great way to explain how many people feel about the issue. Why should we (heterosexual people) keep all the misery of marriage to ourselves. If a gay couple want to experience the trials and tribulations of being married, then fine. Marriage is both a blessing and a curse, I am happy to be sharing my life with my wife but one has to understand that with all the good times and wonderful feelings come the opposite as well. With state recognition of marriage for gays comes state recognition of divorce as well. If they decide to give up the civil union BS then what the heck, marry away. However, the extra bonus of a civil union has got to go and then the only way to get the same benefits will be to marry. It is one of those situations where the cliche, " Be careful what you wish for", fits perfectly.

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 1:08PM

Your wife's witticism is apt! Perhaps the greatest punishment for the gay and care free community would be to see them too dragged through the drama and misery of divorce court!

Of course, being apt to be drama queens, they might get a kick out the additional drama in their lives...........

Oh my.........

Is that yet another, yet another "hateful" observation?

Oh who will free us from this dreadful bigotry and prejudice that rules over all us?

Oh Save us OBAMA! Save us our new and wonderful messiah! Save me! Save me from the rising oceans and the rising hate all around me.....................

Mombassa| 5.16.12 @ 10:12AM

It looks like those four words are now gone from your post . . . ?

Mombassa| 5.16.12 @ 10:15AM

Ah never mind, I see you mentioned the deletion toward the end of this post. Naturally I followed your link to look for them. Letting things stand would probably have been better, especially if you are then going to write about what you removed.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.16.12 @ 10:19AM

I agree on every level and concur with all the implications and nuances. Your book has not been forgotten, I owe you its value (it is becoming tattered) and will reimburse you shortly.

Kenny| 5.16.12 @ 10:21AM

Kaminsky needs to learn to write with clarity or find some other type of work.

He says that he's not gay.

Well, I am .... but I'm not homosexual.

If Kaminsky did not pervert the language by adapting the code words of the Left, he'd understand the distinction.

Dai Alanye | 5.16.12 @ 12:13PM

Also correct.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 4:26PM

Oh, please, what percent of the American population would think of "happy" or something like it if you said the word "gay"?

Chris (the second one)| 5.16.12 @ 4:53PM

Because people like you continue to misuse the word. Maybe try for once to take back a term that has been sodomized by the Left.

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 5:28PM

Is lexicographical prescriptivism going to be another addition to the True Conservative litmus test?

Chris (the second one)| 5.16.12 @ 6:16PM

No, but maybe not allowing the Left to set the terms of the verbal battlefield would be nice for a change.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:16PM

First of all, I did use the word "homosexual" in yesterday's note and today's.

Second, my role is to communicate effectively (and I completely understand that some of my detractors here say I am failing at that). This means that trying to change the public's understanding of a word is usually a valid, but secondary, consideration.

Jon| 5.16.12 @ 10:38AM

Ross,
I agree with 90% of what you write, day after day. I also believe that the Bible is God's word to mankind, and that the moral principles it sets forth are important - this, obviously, makes up pretty much all of that 10% disagreement. Homosexuality is a physical act, and therefore a choice, and failing to hold people responsible for their choices and actions is a large part of the problems our country is facing today. Having said that, if you'll keep writing, I'll keep reading, and I'll give you a thumbs-up most of the time :-)

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 11:03AM

Jon,

I realize this is a subtle topic.

While performing any act is a choice, wanting to perform the act is not.

Therefore, the argument that homosexual behavior is something people need to be held responsible for is one I can't buy into since I don't buy the underlying religious premise that such acts -- when done voluntarily by consenting adults -- are immoral.

Again, I realize that others have deeply held beliefs on this. My problem is not when people say that they think homosexuality is immoral, but rather when they turn that into aggressive vitriol or into hatred of specific individuals.

SCM| 5.16.12 @ 12:56PM

I want a new car. If I go down to the dealer, take one for a test drive, and go park it in my garage for a week, I have made a decision to steal it. My actions are contrary to both religious and legal principles.
When we start saying people are not responsible for their actions, where do we stop? Society goes down the tubes.

Kenny| 5.16.12 @ 1:09PM

Kaminsky is using the word 'homosexual' and not 'gay.'

Atta boy.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:17PM

I used that word yesterday too.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.16.12 @ 1:23PM

"While performing any act is a choice, wanting to perform the act is not."

That is a ridiculous statement, to me. Every person has the desire to sin. I have a desire to steal my neighbor's sports car. I am tempted to be dishonest, rude and sometimes lazy. The temptation to sin in some form or fashion will always be present. Nobody is perfect, everybody makes bad choices but they ARE choices. Homosexuality is a choice which cannot be justified or made righteous by men. The myriad of negative effects resulting from homosexual behavior is long and well-documented.

"I don't buy the underlying religious premise that such acts -- when done voluntarily by consenting adults -- are immoral."

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10

Jon| 5.16.12 @ 2:26PM

Good answer.

Derek Leaberry| 5.16.12 @ 11:58AM

The problem with homosexuals is that their lifestyle is dishonorable just as an adulterer's is. Most Americans throughout history have recognized this. As late as 1967, the liberal and very late Mike Wallace put out a documentary that upheld the traditional view on homosexuality and painted a very ugly picture of perversion. However, the Gramscians began their long march through the cultural institutions in the 60s. Homosexuality was made acceptable and then respectable by the mass media elite. Think of "Midnight Cowboy", Billy Crystal in "Soap", the outing of Elton John and a raft of other singers, Tom Hanks in "Philadelphia" and the sodomite cowboys in "Brokeback Nation." Those of weak mind and low morals have been turned.

Perhaps we live in a society that shouldn't be conserved but blown up. That's why four more years of Obama works for me.

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 2:00PM

"Mene, Mene Tekel Uparshim"

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 12:07PM

Ross: why any two? Why not polygamy, if all the members are consenting adults, etc. If you stop there, give me your rationale. If you don't believe government should stop there, defend polygamy, especially given its contribution to female misery over the ages.

I have no problems with "civil unions" for gays, to allow legal rights of insurance, next of kin, etc. But marriage, as an institution, does not exist for the purpose of you and your wife, or me and my Sainted One who puts up with me. It exists because it has been shown empirically through the millenia that it is the best institution for the raising of children. It is a TIME BINDING mechanism that exists for the benefit of children, and all other uses are incidental to the purpose. The government DOES have an interest in the well being of children, and therefore the institution of marriage. Please don't bounce back with the argument that the Founders put nothing in the Constitution about this, because the Founders would not have recognized the legitimacy of the argument, period. They didn't mention anything about murder, either.

This is a societal, not a basic Constitutional, issue. It may become a Constitutional issue with an amendment, and there is reason to belive given the 2/3 plus electoral outcomes, that such an Amendment may pass. Personally, I think the Gay Community overreached with this, and they are getting rightfully slapped back.

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 12:27PM

So what harm will gay marriage bring about? Are your children at risk because two women get married? Are their children?

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 1:15PM

Yes. Both society and the children are at risk of developing other aberrant behaviors.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 2:05PM

DRed: actually, my point is "yes." The minimization of marriage as an institution has been tremendously damaging to the Black community; indeed, the lack of proper socialization of Black males as a result of Black Men being able to avoid marriage IS the primary thing responsible for the increase in prison sentences, etc. If you have worked with prisoners as much as I have, you would kinow that "no daddy present" is present over 90% of the time.

Anything that trivializes marriage weakens society. And it is primarily a mechanism to tame heterosexual men to support society with their energies, including and especially sexual ones.

You really want me to bring out the heavy psychoanalytic heavy hitters on this? You want to argue with a boarded psychiatrist over Freud?

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 2:33PM

I'm still not sure how increasing the number of married couples is minimizing marriage as an institution. If you have access to academic studies showing that gay marriage reduces the number of heterosexual marriages or how children raised by married gay couples are worse off than children raised in other fashions, I'd be happy to learn. Doesn't the APA support gay marriage?

Chris (the second one)| 5.16.12 @ 4:57PM

One doesn't need studies to see that a society is on the downward slope when it destroys the family, encourages sexual promiscuity, first heterosexual and then homosexual.

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 7:37PM

Then why not maximize married couples by allowing grown men to marry children? Unlike gay marriage, that actually has an historical provenance.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 2:50PM

I am not convinced that allow civil unions among gays harms marriage.

I am convinced that having a mother and father is the best situation for a child.

If a child is in an orphanage or some other place not conducive to his optimal development, it is certainly better to go to a home with two people who love him than not to.

I believe that marriage is an important institution for society, but I don't believe it is in the purview of the federal government.

You are absolutely right that the welfare state destroyed the institution of marriage among American blacks, with further great damage to that part -- and every other part -- of American society.

Oldefarte| 5.16.12 @ 4:27PM

I am going to stick my nose into this and I hope my intrusion will be forgiven or tolerated. OT defined correctly 90% of this issue by stating '... It exists because it has been shown empirically through the millenia that it is the best institution for the raising of children. It is a TIME BINDING mechanism that exists for the benefit of children, and all other uses are incidental to the purpose.....' Marriage is a sacrament created by G-d FOR THE STATED PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO PRODUCE AND RAISE CHILDREN. G-d created Adam and Eve [sorry NOT STEVE] as the first two human beings and santified their coupling-union by providing the sacriment of marriage. G-d also is the creator of the NATURAL LAW which is the basis [and gives authority to] MAN'S LAW. The former forbids homosexual marriage by definition in numerous ways [again, the reason why first two humans created were a MAN and a WOMAN; and the Commandment THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE, indicating a MAN cannot covet another's WIFE/WOMAN]. Due to G-d's granting all humans with the concept of FREE WILL, if human-man so individually chooses to live with, copulate with etc a same sexed individual, he uses his free will to do so [but in doing such, he breaks the NL and sill be subjected to G-d's punishment as the ultimate Judge at death]. If Man's Law becomes contrary to the Natural Law, then although it is applicable to human beings on earth during their lives, but will not have any relevance at death due to its being contrary to the Natural Law. Whether or not homosexual or heterosexual marriage represents the best environment for the raising of children is not the issue, since the latter again was created and sanctified by G-d and is therefore the one/only marriage ultimately possible and allowable!!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 5:51PM

I stated I was for "Civil Unions." I separate that from "marriage." DRed: you could argue that providing money for this single mom or that one affects nothing. Yet, Moynihan recognized the danger of trivializing Black fatherhood.

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 6:00PM

Well, I could make arguments about single motherhood, but I wouldn't if I was talking about gay marriage, because it's completely irrelevant. How about answering my questions about gay marriage?

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 7:53PM

See below.

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 12:29PM

Once society accepts aberrant behavior as somehow excusable, the legitimization of the perversion becomes a foregone conclusion. That is why this Hill is one to die on, Once "alternative lifestyles" become state recognized there is no longer a cultural consensus, ergo no norms. All behaviors become equally legitimate and where it stops no one can say.

buckeyeman| 5.16.12 @ 2:00PM

Occam, Haven't you learned that gay marriage advocates almost never address the polygamy/polyandry issue. My oh-so-liberal brother-in-law was visiting from Hew Hampshire last week. He opined that the government should not be in the business of telling us whom to marry. I asked him about polygamy and he said blithely, "well, society has to impose some norms and limits", ignoring his strongly stated position of 30 seconds earlier.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Ross that government should get out of the marriage business, but what about all the "social contracts" that we all pay for? Healthcare for spouses but not girlfriends, Social "Security", and lots of private contracts that include spouses but not live-ins?

I'd add the issue of child rearing but sadly, the governments support of unwed mothers makes that a moot issue.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 12:08PM

I hope you noted I was polite. That's because I like you, and I respectfully disagree. It takes a monster like you know who to get me out of niceness.

Clint| 5.16.12 @ 5:05PM

That's Because I Remind Tool Job,That He's A Sorry -Assed Bloviatin' Bottom Of The Barrel Government Hire Self Help Nutbag Shrink, Who Some Poor Snuck Mental Patients Have To Get Their Pills Pushed From.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 5:54PM

Hello, Monster.

Clint| 5.17.12 @ 1:04AM

Get Bent, Bibi's Cabana Boy, Tool Job.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 12:09PM

I also have specific clinical interest in this issue given my day job, and the shattered families I see.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 2:52PM

Occam, I would be interest in seeing any believable data suggesting that allowing gay civil unions or even gay marriage harms the institution of marriage.

It is not obvious to me that that should be the case.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 5:53PM

Ross: start checking Swedish data, I believe.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 6:06PM

"Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2009 Aug;23(4):289-97. Epub 2009 Jan 20.
Adult attachment style dimensions in women who have gay or bisexual fathers.
Sirota T.
SourceDepartment of Behavioral Sciences, Community and Health Systems, College of Nursing, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079, USA. sirotath@shu.edu

Abstract
This study explored possible differences in adult attachment style dimensions between women with gay or bisexual fathers (n = 68) and women with heterosexual fathers (n = 68) using a revised version of the Adult Attachment Scale (Collins & Read, 1990b). Data analysis revealed highly significant differences between groups on all three adult attachment dimensions. Women with gay or bisexual fathers were significantly less comfortable with closeness and intimacy (t = 5.264, P = .0001), less able to trust and depend on others (t = 6.621, P = .0001), and experienced more anxiety in relationships (t = 4.368, P = .0001) than women with heterosexual fathers. Theoretical and methodological issues, conclusions, and implications related to the findings are discussed."

"Psychol Rep. 2009 Apr;104(2):649-59.
Gay fathers' effects on children: a review.
Cameron P.
SourceFamily Research Institute, Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640, USA. pdcameron@juno.com

Abstract
Extrapolating results from studies of lesbians' children to gays' children and assertions of "no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents" are questioned. A review of 9 studies gave evidence that gays' children were (a) more apt to adopt homosexual interests and activities, (b) more apt to report sexual confusion, (c) more apt to be socially disturbed, (d) more apt to abuse substances, (e) less apt to get married, (f) more apt to have difficulty in attachment and loving relationships, (g) less religious and more unconventionally religious, (h) more apt to have emotional difficulties, (i) more frequently exposed to parental molestation, and (j) prone to more frequent sexual acting out.

PMID:19610497[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] "

"Psychol Rep. 2002 Feb;90(1):71-82.
Children of homosexual parents report childhood difficulties.
Cameron P, Cameron K.
SourceFamily Research Institute, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640, USA.

Abstract
Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems or concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality."

"J Biosoc Sci. 2010 Nov;42(6):721-42. Epub 2010 Jul 20.
Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data.
Schumm WR.
SourceKansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.

Abstract
Ten narrative studies involving family histories of 262 children of gay fathers and lesbian mothers were evaluated statistically in response to Morrison's (2007) concerns about Cameron's (2006) research that had involved three narrative studies. Despite numerous attempts to bias the results in favour of the null hypothesis and allowing for up to 20 (of 63, 32%) coding errors, Cameron's (2006) hypothesis that gay and lesbian parents would be more likely to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure (of sexual orientation) sons and daughters was confirmed. Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%, with odds ratios of 1.7 to 12.1, depending on the mix of child and parent genders. Daughters of lesbian mothers were most likely (33% to 57%; odds ratios from 4.5 to 12.1) to report non-heterosexual identities. Data from ethnographic sources and from previous studies on gay and lesbian parenting were re-examined and found to support the hypothesis that social and parental influences may influence the expression of non-heterosexual identities and/or behaviour. Thus, evidence is presented from three different sources, contrary to most previous scientific opinion, even most previous scientific consensus, that suggests intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation can occur at statistically significant and substantial rates, especially for female parents or female children. In some analyses for sons, intergenerational transfer was not significant. Further research is needed with respect to pathways by which intergenerational transfer of sexual orientation may occur. The results confirm an evolving tendency among scholars to cite the possibility of some degree of intergenerational crossover of sexual orientation.

Comment on
J Biosoc Sci. 2007 Jan;39(1):153-4; discussion 155-6.
J Biosoc Sci. 2006 May;38(3):413-8."

Wrong about Sweden, right about studies.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:22PM

Very interesting. So, from one data-driven guy to another, here's my question for you which will be very hard to answer from the studies:

Of the people studied (the adopted children of the homosexual parents), how many of them would have had (functionally) no parents had they not been adopted?

As a general question, would you not take the risk that a child would have a higher chance growing up to be homosexual or to be less comfortable with intimacy in return for putting the child into a loving home rather than a broken home or orphanage?

FYI, I used to be strongly against gay marriage, assuming it could cause some of the impacts suggested in these studies. But my view has changed -- and I admit I could be wrong -- to believing that it's better for a child to be in a home with people who love him/her even if it's a "non-traditional" situation and understanding those risks.

Again, I realize this is a very tough subject and my point is to try to encourage tolerance of people as individuals without suggesting that straight people and particularly religious people should "celebrate" behavior they find immoral.

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 6:38PM

Occam, citing a study of women raised with gay fathers in heterosexual marriages (the Sirota study) proves what children raised by homosexual parents in a homosexual relationship?

sorry, meant to say 'proves what about children raised'

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 7:39PM

How quickly can you move those goalposts? The question asked and answered was: "Occam, I would be interest in seeing any believable data suggesting that allowing gay civil unions or even gay marriage harms the institution of marriage."

He answered it. Both you and Kaminsky ignored his answer and immediately posed another question.

Neither of you are interested in truth; you merely want to pose as people so interested.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:29PM

Danke, Teflon.

Ross and DRed, my job is to work with indigent familes, half of them indigenous peoples with horrific social problems, in places where the violence and family disintegration rates are off the charts. I've done this here and in New Zealand, and have worked in: private hospitals, an LA county hospital, a California VA, Alabama and New Mexico prisons, Rural Kentucky and Alabama, a megalopolis (Los Angeles), overseas in an NHS, nursing homes all over the state of Alabama, a State Developmental Disability center, a suboxone clinic on a reservation, a medium sized city in a Community Mental Health Center in the Desert Southwest---in short, I have been and seen it all, folks, and will hit my 19th year of practice after residency (at UCLA) in July.

Really, my experience is damn broad and deep. I also do, on average 150 hours or so of CME a year now, and re-boarded (as I must do every 10 years) with a 92% score in 2005, and there was a curve---but that was my base score---184 questions right out of 200.

You really want to argue with me on my home turf? I have grave reservations on this. It has been legal in Europe for about 20 years now, with Denmark leading the pack in 1989. You know any Western European societies breeding to replacement rate that are kid friendly and where societies are getting less violent and more socially cohesive? Take your time, guys. Hell, Ross, you probably know Mark Steyn, or RET can introduce you. I know Colonel Tom Kratman (the writer of the fictional version of "America Alone," "Caliphate" quite well.)

I don't forsee good things here.

It's a dead end.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 7:54PM

The presence of one gay parent has effects. Why would the presence of two gay parents have counter effects, DRed.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.16.12 @ 9:17PM

Ross said he could be wrong and obviously doesn't hold strong convictions but will decide based on supply and demand. What if I told you that in fact, every child ever adopted by homosexuals would have been adopted into another family? What if it's 99%? 80% 50%? You shouldn't need to check statistics to calibrate your morals.

DRed| 5.17.12 @ 11:16AM

Sure, I'll argue with you on your home turf if you keep citing irrelevant research. If anything, your extensive professional qualifications and your successful career make it even more embarrassing that you're relying on such flawed evidence. We'll take them one at a time.

The first study you cite as evidence that homosexual marriage is harmful to children isn't a study of children raised by a homosexual couple. It's a study of the children of homosexual men married to heterosexual women. Do you think homosexual men married to heterosexual women are men who are comfortable with their sexuality? Might these relationships have other problems that might affect children, like increased divorce rates or poor relationships between the parents?

Next you cite a study from the partisan Family Research Institute, authored by its founder, Paul Cameron, who was kicked out of the APA in 1983. His work has been repeatedly criticized for misrepresenting sociological and scientific data. He's a hack.

Finally, you point to a study that shows the children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual themselves based on data the study's author compiled by reading general-audience books on gay parenting. You're a genius and a highly trained professional-can you tell me why conclusions drawn from that sample would be statistically irrelevant?

If you want me to take you seriously, Occam, cite serious work, not the bullshit you assembled above.

Finally, there's no legalized gay marriage in Denmark.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 9:07PM

Ross, there are adoptive couples begging for kids. I adopted both my kids. $40,000, plus the month long trip for my wife to C.A.

That argument is a non-starter.

My point is very simply this, and it is a Conservative one: one should change major social structures that have been functioning for millenia with great slowness if benefit has been shown. Furthermore, when data shows that outcomes have worsened as marriages have grown weaker, even more caution should be shown.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.16.12 @ 12:28PM

I was responsible for four of the comments on yesterday’s post (one myself, the troll’s response, and my two responses to the troll) that had nothing to do with homosexuality, and instead was engaging in my frequent hobby of mocking Biden (whose position on the related issue is only one of so many that he has got wrong).

Regarding today’s post, as I read “I am neither gay nor willing to learn”, I was taken back to the film “Stripes”. As a piece of trivia, the Army recruiter who asked the question of Bill Murray and Harold Ramis was William Lucking, who, until his fictional demise this season, played “Piney” in “Sons of Anarchy”.

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 1:03PM

No spoilers!

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:41PM

"Is there special training?"

Dai Alanye | 5.16.12 @ 12:40PM

Sadly, Kaminsky wastes a ton of words to state the simplest of thoughts. More sadly, as is so often the case, his simple thoughts are incorrect.

Marriage is the business of society. It is what it is and has been for thousands of years, if not tens or hundreds of thousands. On the most basic level it exists to promote the continuation of stable communities, while offering benefits to the individual along the way.

Homosexual relationships are little more than same-sex friendships plus the possibility of perverted lust, which offer few benefits to society. We may overlook such relationships if we wish, but we can't realistically demand society change its historical standards to accommodate the transient feelings of an anti-social minority, despite the fashions of the hour.

Note that this analysis says nothing of the worth of individual practitioners of homosexuality. My concern is merely with the attempt to pervert marriage by extending the title to those relationships which are, in fact, not marriage at all.

9thID| 5.16.12 @ 12:45PM

To briefly try and clear up some of Kaminsky's fallacies and strawmen; I stand by my claim that Liber-alism and Liber-tarianism are the two sides of the coin of Libertinism. While there may be "shades" within these groups, both are fundamentally based in humanism, be it secular, or wrapped in a cloak of religiosity, or "altruism". In this case, Objectivism is only obfuscation. Liber-alism is the path to collectivism and Liber-tarianism is the path to anarchy.

In any case, Libertinism is rebellion against our Judeo-Christian founding and that is why the two camps basically agree on 2 of the 3 major policy platforms -- social issues and national security policy -- although they may say it is for different reasons. Murray Rothbard and Rand were both atheists and that reflects in their amoral (moral relativist/objectivist if you prefer) forms of Libertarianism. Randianism may differ slightly, but Rothbardian/Paulist Libertarianism is "Voluntaryism", not Federalism, as put forth in our founding documents and The Federalist Papers. Libertarian Anarcho-Capitialism has its basis in -- yes, anarchism. Words have meaning, or at least they did before you Libertines bastardized them.

I know Libertines don't accept this basic truth, but ALL laws are based upon someone's morality, and since our republic was founded upon the Judeo-Christian version, our laws should reflect its basic tenants. If there are those moral relativists and atheists like Kaminksy, who don't want to live under that form of Federalism, they should quite frankly consider emigrating to places that better suit their non-Federalist, non-Judeo/Christian mindset. As for me, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and I will do so until my last breath.

Homosexual marriage and adoption, along with abortion, are social issues that most true Conservatives are against. I have zero doubt that their acceptance in America would have shocked our Founders. These are fundamental aspects of our Judeo-Christian founding that must be protected at a Constitutional level via the Federalist amendment process. To bring this forward to our day, this points to what Reagan called "3-legged Conservatism", i.e., Social/Fiscal/National Security. If slavery must be protected at a Federal level, which I believe it should, then so too must Life & Traditional Marriage. A hodgepodge of homosexual marriage, adoption, and abortion laws across 50 states only leads to chaos.

As Kaminsky openly admits he is NOT a Conservative, why he is writing here is a mystery, and his choice of words yesterday and this past weekend were intentional jabs at our core beliefs. I am not the only one here who caught his shot across the bow. Using correct labels to identify someone is not "name calling", which Kaminsky uses as deflection, but the ones I used were accurate none the less. If Kaminsky wants to tackle true "name calling" he only has to look no further than many of his Ron Paul co-conspirators on these threads.

I could go on, but that should suffice. If anything, Kaminsky owes TAS readers an apology for being so thin skinned, initially and falsely posing as a Conservative, and goading TAS readers into impassioned responses to his Libertinism and then pleading VICTIM status...

Simon Templar| 5.16.12 @ 3:19PM

Superb response!

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 4:29PM

In response to a few points at the end of your comment:

I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, though I did donate $100 to his 2008 campaign before he went so far off the deep end in his foreign policy views.

I NEVER "posed as a conservative." Those who have been reading me for some time on these pages -- even those who disagree with me or dislike me as much as you do -- will, if they're honest, acknowledge that I have always called myself a libertarian (though again Objectivist is more accurate.)

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 7:42PM

I'll vouch for that.

And place my bet that your Objectivism will wind up as garden-variety Liberalism in the end, social liberalism being your metier these days.

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 12:54PM

You mistook my comment.

I didn't refer to you seeing morality as an "oppressive device," but rather our cultural elite seeing it as an oppressive device, our academics seeing it as an oppressive device, -------- which they do.

Secondly, which is a bizarre observation on your part, you ask what exactly is a "homosexual public display?" I suppose I could simply riff off of Justice Black's quip about porn, "knowing it when you see it," but that would be unnecessary.

A gay pride parade is, QED.

When you go to a Manhattan restaurant, and you see two men falling all over one another at the table next to you............ it's hardly a stretch to suggest that you've just witnessed a "homosexual public display."

Get the point...........

Moreover, whoever said anything about "hating" anybody?

I don't recall inserting the word "hate" into any comment, on this thread or any other for that matter...........

What does Dennis Prager suggest on the issue, on the MACRO, you maintain principle and position, whereas in the micro, you behave yourself civilly, if you can't quite bring yourself to a cordiality you don't feel.

I've always been civil if not cordial to such creatures, not because of political correctness, but because of the admonition of one who is both my redeemer as well as my future judge. Besides, it's bad taste to be needlessly rude......

Others introduce the element of "hate" or "bigotry" into the discussion all so as to blur the underlying principles and issues involved. This isn't, nor has it ever been, a question of prejudice or bigotry. You want to see bigotry in action, go to Hollywood and study the actions of the Lavender Mafia!

It's a comfort that you should view open orgies by groups of men in full view of scores of neighbors as, in your term, "improper." Ordinary folk would see it as a damn outrage.......... but at least you can bring yourself to conclude said behavior is "improper." I suppose that's something, and today, that might be all we can get from many..........

The supposition that there is a genetic origin for the behavior has not been demonstrated, it's still very much a supposition.

Homosexuals had better hope to God it can't be located in the genetic code, because if it can be, there will surely be tests conducted for that in utero, which will promptly result in an open season declared on homosexuals still in gestation in their mother's womb. Won't that be a tremendous irony, the community that went to bat for the abortion crowd now seeing the right they fought for, and fought for decades for, now used to polish off their own!

Lastly, the moral code isn't mine, nor does it belong to someone else, or some other group.

The moral code if it exists, must exist for all, semper, et pro semper. Genocide is wrong always, not just for some, not just in some instances, not just in certain circumstances. Once we can agree that actions such as genocide are wrong, semper, et pro semper, than that allows us to move into other areas of human activity, and discern whether or not a moral code exists for all. We move from the sure and the certain to that which is more difficult. Recall our founding document, which states that we are a people who don't just believe in truth, but believe in truths so great, so obvious, so demonstrable, as to be "self evident." Nor is that truth narrowed to cultural and ethnic groups, no, that truth extends towards all.

Living in truth, speaking truth, trying to reconcile your life to truth is of course a tremendous challenge, and for some, such a strenuous life is beyond them. There will always be a tension in a society that provides her citizens the ability to pursue their own happiness with the overall ability of that society to provide an overarching legal system fully consistent with the moral code.

That will only prove the more difficult when even our own understanding of what morality is, is collapsing all around us. Which is evidenced by even the debate about this group and their bogus legal claims.

The answer is what the answer always was, they stay behind closed doors, and the wider society tacitly, unspokenly promises not to have the constabulary burst through those doors rounding them up.

And by the way, ---------------- when are they ever going to offer the wider society an apology for what they did to Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, to Provincetown, to San Francicsco?

When do we get that apology?

Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.16.12 @ 2:37PM

Not that it changes your content, but a couple of minor corrections to your comprehensive comment:

"of Justice Black's quip about porn"

Justice Potter Stewart

"Rehobeth Beach"

Rehoboth Beach

As one of Delaware's regular commenters, but I meant to point it out yesterday, but I thought it was nitpicking.

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 7:19PM

I was kinda sure I was misspelling that beach, but I figured few would notice........

As for Black vis a vis Stewart, ---- again, I wasn't completely confident in that quip deriving from Black, {really didn't jive with his temperament...}, but I just didn't feel like doing a quick search on the author of that quote.

Thanks for the corrections.........

Lawrence| 5.16.12 @ 1:57PM

Ross writes:

"I understand that some people believe the bible says that homosexuals are going to hell. With you I have an unbridgeable gap; we will never convince each other and I am not trying to talk you out of your deeply-held religious beliefs. I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice for most gays and lesbians. Therefore, I do not believe it is moral to hate homosexuals for whom they fall in love with (or whom they have sex with) any more than it is moral to hate blacks for their color."

This is a complete non sequitor unless he believes that hatred is the only explanation for the position that certain people face God's judgment for certain behaviors -- in which case it's entirely appropriate to return to him that "worst-possible insult:"

Your behavior reminds me of what I would expect from liberals.

It's liberals who conclude that their opponents are driven by hate, fear, and irrationality.

Ross writes, regarding insurance premium prices, "People should live with the costs of their own behavior."

Indeed, and Christians (along with believers of other faiths) simply believe that people WILL face the costs of their behavior if it is in deliberate violation of their Creator's revealed will -- and we believe that God made us male and female for a reason. Many Christians truly do love their homosexual neighbors, and we don't whitewash what we believe about the serious consequences of their behavior because we care for them.

As Sowell has said in another context, you tell someone the truth if you want to help him, and you tell him what he wants to hear if you want to help yourself.

Ross claims to know that "a substantial percentage of [gays] don't care about the word marriage as much as they care about equal treatment under the law."

He doesn't tell us how many (or how few) would be needed to file a lawsuit arguing for "gay marriage" on separate-but-equal grounds.

I notice that Ross first defends the Randian/Objectivist idea that the use of government force ought to be limited to defending natural rights, but then he implies that public orgies are improper and ought to be illegal.

If he thinks that the government ought to have the power to prohibit certain public acts of intimacy, I'm not sure why he thinks that the government shouldn't have the power MERELY to endorse certain intimate relationships -- "we should get government out of marriage," but government should be used to ensure that certain behavior is kept behind closed doors?

On that subject, Ross writes:

"I maintain my view that we should get government out of marriage, allow any two people to make any contract they want to (which does not infringe on the natural rights of others), allow any house of worship to decide whom they will or won't marry, and only have government involved insofar as contract enforcement."

Like some of the more doctrinaire libertarians, he makes absolutely no account of the fact that only one type of relationship is capable of natural procreation. A host of social ills results as society is no longer organized to encourage the rearing of children and the responsible, self-control of their parents, and it does not help for us to treat society as populated only by adults.

And I wonder, why "two"? Why is two a magic number for these private arrangements?

It's a number that makes sense if one recognizes the uniquely complementary and procreative nature of the male-female coupling, but it makes little sense otherwise.

Simon Templar| 5.16.12 @ 3:21PM

Lawrence, very astute observation!

"It's liberals who conclude that their opponents are driven by hate, fear, and irrationality."

Simon Templar| 5.16.12 @ 3:24PM

By the way, Lawrence, also a superb, logical, and brilliant response.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 2:57PM

I have to say that the polygamy argument is a tough one for me but, and I admit not having thought about it very much, I would leave it to the states, and not require a state to recognize a polygamous marriage in another state.

My guess is that no state, including Utah, would permit it.

On most issues of government intrusion, my primary objection is to federal involvement. After all, it's a lot easier to move out of a state than out of the nation.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 6:08PM

Yes, sir, this requires deeper thought. My point is, with what logic do you prevent it when people request it, or attempt legal challenge once you have accepted the other?

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 6:09PM

The State would not have to accept it---it would go, as all these things eventually go, to the US Supreme Court. The issue is important enough.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:25PM

OT,

As almost everything I've described is what "Ross' perfect world" would look like, in that world the Supreme Court would defer to the states.

Other than that, I can't tell you that I have a great answer. I can't even tell you that my prior answer was great. I can tell you that I don't think it's a particularly important question, even if it's a slightly interesting one.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:33PM

That's because, sir, you don't think in terms of psychiatric/social outcomes for legal initiatives. In my field, I have to think about it every day.

It will become a major issue if the gay marriage situation gains true traction. The Supreme Court does not defer to the States in the real world, and polygamy tends to be male dominated rather than female dominated in most human societies. It doesn't tend to turn out well for women.

Mick Lee| 5.17.12 @ 2:26PM

Ross: The left doesn't play by our chosen ground rules. If they think they'll have a shot, to the Federal courts they'll go. And nothing puts a burr under their horse blanket more than the thought that what they can do in Virginia they can't do in Indiana. (As barbaric as it may seem, here in Indiana, strippers can't take off their g-strings.)

Along with the above, historically, the Supreme Court has never liked the Ninth and Tenth Admendments much. Thus a whole host of issues have been "constitutionalized" in the past..and, frankly, in the present day. Leaving it to the states and thinking it ends there (as far as that goes) will be a failed solution. The left regards state governments as little more than extentions of the Federal government. All too often, the Court too happily agrees.

P.S. All sorts of folk here in Hoosierland would love it if the Supreme Court would allow our strippers to take off their g-strings. As to how said srippers will receive the dollar bills from bar patrons without g-strings for those same bar patrons to stuff them into...well, the imagination immediately suggests certain locations; but we needn't go there.

Derek Leaberry| 5.16.12 @ 3:59PM

In questions such as that being discussed, I often ask myself what would George Washington have thought? Or Robert E. Lee? Or C.S. Lewis? Or Walker Percy? Or Chesterton? Or the present pope?

In any event, it is peculiar that at a conservative site we have a writer who would be fine with Roman Emperor Elagabalus becoming the bride of his charioteer. Or consider the English King Edward II to be respected in his keeping of a male concubine. Such madness.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.16.12 @ 4:06PM

"I have to say that the polygamy argument is a tough one for me..."

From where I sit, of course it would be! The truth isn't always easy to swallow. Societal approval of a wrong is still a wrong and cannot be reconciled in an honest, logical way with truth.

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 7:34PM

Something new has occurred that throws additional light upon the subject.

Obama's Defense Department has just ordered Service Chaplains to preside over the nuptials of gay service members, regardless of the fact that such presiding clashes with their right of religious conscience.

As I remarked earlier, this subject has got nothing to do with toleration.

This is about ramming down radical and seismic societal change down the throat of Uncle Sam.

This is the opening salvo of a modern American Kulturkampf, and religious Jews and all denominations of Christians need to rally together, to see off this dangerous development.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:15PM

More research fun:

"Psychol Rep. 2005 Jun;96(3 Pt 2):915-61.
Homosexual sex as harmful as drug abuse, prostitution, or smoking.
Cameron P, Landess T, Cameron K.
SourceFamily Research Institute, P.O. Box 62640, Colorado Springs, CO 80962, USA.

Abstract
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court said same-sex sexual activity could not be prohibited by law. Analyzing data from the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (N= 12,381) and comparing those who engaged in four recreational activities-homosexual sex, illegal drug use, participation in prostitution, and smoking --against those who abstained, participants (1) were more frequently disruptive (e.g., more frequently criminal, drove under the influence of drugs or alcohol, used illegal drugs, took sexual risks), (2) were less frequently productive (e.g., less frequently had children in marriage, more frequently missed work), and (3) generated excessive costs (e.g., more promiscuous, higher consumers of medical services). Major sexuality surveys have reported similar findings for homosexuals. Societal discrimination inadequately accounts for these differences since parallel comparisons of black and white subsamples produced a pattern unlike the differences found between homosexuals and nonhomosexuals."

Here's another, not directly correlated, except for this: part of the background for the reason for research on this article is that among Men Having Sex with Men, the rate of meth use is 22.5 TIMES more likely than in the average population.

"Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Nov;68(11):1168-75.
Mirtazapine to reduce methamphetamine use: a randomized controlled trial.
Colfax GN, Santos GM, Das M, Santos DM, Matheson T, Gasper J, Shoptaw S, Vittinghoff E.
SourceSan Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA. grant.colfax@sfdph.org

Abstract
CONTEXT: No approved pharmacologic treatments for methamphetamine dependence exist. Methamphetamine use is associated with high morbidity and is a major cofactor in the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mirtazapine would reduce methamphetamine use among MSM who are actively using methamphetamine.

DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, controlled, 12-week trial of mirtazapine vs placebo conducted from September 5, 2007, to March 4, 2010.

SETTING: San Francisco Department of Public Health.

PARTICIPANTS: Participants were actively using, methamphetamine-dependent, sexually active MSM seen weekly for urine sample collection and substance use counseling.

INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment to daily oral mirtazapine (30 mg) or placebo; both arms included 30-minute weekly substance use counseling.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study outcome was reduction in methamphetamine-positive urine test results. Secondary outcomes were study medication adherence (by self-report and medication event monitoring systems) and sexual risk behavior.

RESULTS: Sixty MSM were randomized, 85% of follow-up visits were completed, and 56 participants (93%) completed the final visit. In the primary intent-to-treat analysis, participants assigned to the mirtazapine group had fewer methamphetamine-positive urine test results compared with participants assigned to the placebo group (relative risk, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93, P = .02). Urine positivity decreased from 67% (20 of 30 participants) to 63% (17 of 27) in the placebo arm and from 73% (22 of 30) to 44% (12 of 27) in the mirtazapine arm. The number needed to treat to achieve a negative weekly urine test result was 3.1. Adherence was 48.5% by medication event monitoring systems and 74.7% by self-report; adherence measures were not significantly different between arms (medication event monitoring systems, P = .82; self-report, P = .92). Most sexual risk behaviors decreased significantly more among participants taking mirtazapine compared with those taking placebo (number of male partners with whom methamphetamine was used, P = .009; number of male partners, P = .04; episodes of anal sex with serodiscordant partners, P = .003; episodes of unprotected anal sex with serodiscordant partners, P = .003; episodes of insertive anal sex with serodiscordant partners, P = .001). There were no serious adverse events related to study drug or significant differences in adverse events by arm (P ≥ .99).

CONCLUSION: The addition of mirtazapine to substance use counseling decreased methamphetamine use among active users and was associated with decreases in sexual risk despite low to moderate medication adherence. Trial Registration clinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00497081."

I have a problem opening up child rearing and adoption, which "marriage" would certainly do, without careful evaluation of possible consequnces. We have a hideous example of social engeneering in our welfare system. Nothing I have seen here makes me feel better about this.

Oh, and on gay marriage affecting hetero marriage rates: I knew there was a Scandinaviamn Connection---from The Weekly Standard: The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses.
Feb 2, 2004, Vol. 9, No. 20 • By STANLEY KURTZ

Chesterbelloc| 5.16.12 @ 8:27PM

The beltway "conservatives" are at home with the mores of the elites and they cannot be counted on to resist the "trans-valuation of all values" that is central to the Leftist project.

The beltway conservative elites sponsor a small stable of anarcho-liberaltarians and various and sundry other ideologues, or chirping sectaries as Russell Kirk dubbed them, and they release them into conservative media. The ultimate goal is to announce, that through the influence of these "forward thinkers" they too have "evolved", "grown" and "developed" and now see that marriage and family were never central to Western civilization but merely a historical chapter that society has grown out of. Pathetic.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:38PM

To give an example of the outcome situation: in Riese versus St. Mary's involuntary psychiatric hospitalization was separated from involuntary medication---in essence, people could spend weeks in hospitals against their will, but untreated. RCV could give you an idea how much that has cost CA taxpayers over the last two decades, even though he probably disagrees with me on gay marriage (I know he agrees with me on Reise).

The point is, there are unintended consequences, and I, vvery respectfully and without vituperation, suggest that since you have very little social/psychiatric interest in things, that you haven't thought this one through. If you pick up Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons and review Thomas More's comments on the nature of the "thickets of law" in a comment to Richard Rich, my comments will gel better, I think.

At any rate, good argument. Thanks.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:40PM

Oops, I think it is spelled "Riese." And there was the double "V" in "very."

Hey, but we agree that Clint's an idiot. And on most other things. :-)

k. bourg| 5.16.12 @ 10:41PM

As a black man, I find it extremely offensive when someone equates homosexuality with race. I was born with black skin. Homosexuals may have been born with an inclination to be attracted to members of their own sex, but they can choose whether or not to act on it. Theirs is a behavior, mine is a biological fact. They have a choice. I can't choose to have white skin. They can choose to not sodomize eachother.

Lawrence| 5.17.12 @ 9:31AM

Ross, I appreciate your responding to comments here. Your willingness to engage your critics is commendable even as I don't find your every argument to be persuasive.

You write:

"While performing any act is a choice, wanting to perform the act is not.

"Therefore, the argument that homosexual behavior is something people need to be held responsible for is one I can't buy into since I don't buy the underlying religious premise that such acts -- when done voluntarily by consenting adults -- are immoral."

I really, REALLY don't understand the "therefore" here, since many religious believers (myself included) distinguish between appetites and actions. Disordered appetites are an unavoidable result of the Fall, and I do not believe that merely having these appetites is wrong. The sin is EMBRACING these appetites in one's actions, words, and thoughts.

A man cannot help if he's attracted to another man's wife, but he ABSOLUTELY can be held morally responsibly for acting on that attraction and even merely indulging in the mental act of coveting his neighbor's wife.

You write, "I believe that marriage is an important institution for society, but I don't believe it is in the purview of the federal government."

Is it in the purview of state governments? If not, you should probably say so clearly, and it's an odd position to say that marriage is important but that the government shouldn't even promote marriage through licenses that people DO NOT have to obtain in order to co-habitate and have physical relationships. States have been in the marriage business since before they were states.

Even if there are principled, consistent reasons for supporting the states' withdraw from an area that's been their business since colonial days, it's not clear that their doing so wouldn't send a message that diminishes the institution's importance in the minds of the people.

Or, if you do think states can and should issue marriage licenses, you must realize that the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to determine how and whether states must recognize licenses issued from other states. Are forty-five states going to be required to recognize the most radical redefinitions put forth by the other five? That is a question that the federal government has an obligation to answer.

On the subject of polygamy, your position seems to be that no state should be required to recognize the polygamous marriage of another state. Appealing to federalism, you write that it's easier to change states than change countries. This seems to suggest your would support the DOMA provision that no state need recognize a "gay marriage" from some other state. But, again, such a provision does make marriage a purview of the feds, if only in addressing "full faith and credit" issues.

The issue of gay adoption came up, and it is striking that we're supposed to believe that "gay marriages" are so relatively rare that they'll have no effect on the institution (never mind the effect of the redefinition itself), but -- ON THE OTHER HAND -- there are so many gay couples waiting to adopt that they could be crucial in addressing the problem of too many orphans and too few adoptive parents.

It's possible, I guess, especially because no homosexual relationship can ever result in procreation, but it also seems convenient.

Anyway, Ross, you write:

"If a child is in an orphanage or some other place not conducive to his optimal development, it is certainly better to go to a home with two people who love him than not to."

Most people would agree to that in the general case, but what if one or both loving adults have impulse issues that have made it difficult to keep a steady job, have led to miserable credit scores, a record of substance abuse or even criminal convictions?

Loving or not, well-intentioned or not, two might not be better than none.

But let's agree that this is a matter of prudence, that reasonable people can disagree.

The problem is, the so-called "gay rights" agenda is to REQUIRE charities to open the adoption application to gay couples, regardless of the charities' religious beliefs and conclusions about what's best for the child.

That's because the issue isn't the child's welfare, but the homosexual adult's self-esteem.

Finally, about polygamy, you write "My guess is that no state, including Utah, would permit it."

Maybe not, but there are groups that seek to leverage the arguments for "gay marriage" to redefine the institution even further; how would you argue against them?

Western countries are already having to deal with polygamy as it affects welfare payments, and this growing problem has more to do with Muslim immigrants than with native Mormons. Are we quite sure that the problem won't worsen?

Literally fifty years ago, the idea of "gay marriage" would have been quite unthinkable for all but the most decadent student of Kinsey. Are you QUITE sure that polygamy -- a practice with a FAR more substantial pedigree and with FAR more practicioners worldwide -- will still be a political impossibility in the United States in 2062?

If you're not sure, perhaps you should think more carefully about the implications of your positions.

Mick Lee| 5.17.12 @ 12:19PM

Much of this discussion reflects the old dispute between the root beliefs of libertarians and conservatives. As with most other libertarians, Mr. Kaminsky displays a certain naiveté about how societies actually work. All societies enforce some version of morality. Governments enact legislation every day. Perhaps it is tiresome to say so; but it must be stated: even the libertarian “morally neutral” regime in civil law in fact reflects a moral code. For conservatives, the real question regarding adopting a particular moral “law” into the civil code is whether it is prudent to do so: a much different question. As far as this conservative is concerned, making most homosexual behavior subject behavior subject to criminal law (much less enforcing such law) isn’t worth the time or effort and can actually do much harm.
That being said, we should not misperceive what is really going on. The whole press for same-sex marriage isn’t really about the legal recognition of gay marriage at all. It is about supplanting one ethic with another for dominance. Gays don’t want mere acceptance. Like atheists want crosses banned on public property (and for many like the late Madeline Murray O’Hair, the banning from public display), they want the removal of any public suggestion that there is anything wrong with being a homosexual. They want anyone who overtly thinks it is wrong to be regarded as a bigot and treated as such—with all that entails: dismissal from public (and much private) employment, exclusion from much prospective employment, grounds for prohibiting the adoption of children, and other varieties of social ostracism.
It matters little how even with good will most of today’s proponents of gay rights protest they would do no such thing. It is not they are untrustworthy or insincere—they most likely mean what they say. It is the “evolving” nature of liberalism itself which makes their assurances unreliable. Liberalism and liberationism knows no limiting principle: it does not say to itself “I will go this far and no further”. Those of us old enough to remember can recount the time not that long ago when gay rights proponents were outraged at the very suggestion that gay rights would eventually lead to the demand for gay marriage. This supposedly was a scare tactic invented by the Christian right to frighten otherwise rational people away from extending civil protections to homosexuals. Now yesterday’s “enlightened” progressive opinion is regarded as insufficiently emptied of hostility toward gays. What is radical, preposterous and unthinkable today has a way of becoming perfectly reasonable to the very same people tomorrow.
In the pursuit of equality, for our present day liberationists it matters little to none what destructive effect “reform” will have on the institution of marriage nor can they predict what consequences will follow—what matters is the goal. The liberalization of divorce laws in the 1960’s was advocated in the name of compassion and self-determination; yet that compassion was absent when the suffering and misery of children appeared in grand scale in the years that followed. Unhappy children were touted as justification for divorce; but unhappy children were never cause to reconsider and reform relaxed divorce laws after the fact. (And this says nothing of the grinding and costly aftermath so many adults endure after divorce.)
I am sure Mr. Kaminsky believes—contrary to any radical gay rights agenda—we should more properly live in a “you go your way and I’ll go mine” moral society. Further, the presence of my neighbors’ “gay marriage” will have no impact on my marriage. At best, this strikes me as Pollyannaish. The very nature of “social ecology” does not and has never worked that way in human communities. Human beings being fallible, the way you live and the morality you observe follows what your community expects and holds you accountable. We all need a sustaining community to re-affirm to us what the right thing to do is and support us to do the right thing in the myriad of critical junctures that meet us. We can expect more from individuals (to “run against the grain” so to speak) from time to time; but we are human beings—not angels. It is not sensible to expect all the time what we can only do some of the time.
If the twentieth century teaches anything, it is that “progress” is a pretty mixed bag. With the good things that may follow change, good things are also lost. Like bad money chasing out good, the bad that follows ruinous change also has a way of chasing out the good.
Gays deserve to have society extend its protections. For the most part, they should be left alone. But marriage is a pre-existing institution. It is not a creation of the state. It is only by the interference of the state that such a thing as same-sex marriage is possible. For anyone concerned about an overweening, managerial state, the prospect of any government reaching over into an area it is not sovereign and arbitrarily reducing this complex institution to “two people who love and care for each other” should give them pause.

NLP| 5.17.12 @ 4:44PM

libertarians might, on an individual level, be moral orels, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an inherently unconservative ideology that is functionally libertine. or do i have to go over all the retarded "legalize pot maaaaan" Talking Point #1 while enlightened libertarians then wonder why people don't vote for them.

i'll say it again, once homosexual marriage is legal, we officially have this worthless revolving door marriage system in place forever. of course, we probably do anyway, and it's not homosexuals' fault, just the nature of defining marriage as "two people, kids optional" rather than procreative (yeah i know, not all straight couples have kids, blahblahblah, that doesn't change the fact that it's a primary purpose.) if people were for a world where marriage actually meant something and homosexuals were allowed to marry, that'd be one thing, but that ain't happening, at least not on a legal level.

that's not even getting into the problems of introducing kids to the concept at a young age and telling them they can't help it when there's a number, however small, of people (women mostly) who've flipped back the other way later in life

edgard| 5.26.12 @ 1:51AM

I like the part that smokers pay more for insurance then non smokers, thus, since those chosing the homosexual life style are more in danger of contracting and spreeding AIDS, and therefore they too, should pay more for their insurance. Now I like to take this a step further and and lets consider "MAD COW DESEASE": Where not thousand upon thousands cattle exterminated and incinerated in the UK awhile back, to spare the general public of any remote? chance of contracting this dreadful desease. I remember as a kid during worldwar II that TB patients were quarantined in SANATORIUMS to spare the public from contracting this disease. Prior to that lepers were banished to remote islands to avoid them infecting the general population. Why then are gays and company free to roam in the wide world and continue to expose the general public to the posebility of contractacting aids and other dreaded veneral maladies?

The American Spectator

View all comments (94) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Keith D. Rodebush | 5.16.12 @ 9:28AM

Confused| 5.16.12 @ 9:29AM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:15PM

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 9:30AM

Dai Alanye | 5.16.12 @ 12:12PM

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 1:01PM

Lawrence| 5.16.12 @ 2:01PM

SCM| 5.16.12 @ 9:36AM

Mender| 5.16.12 @ 9:40AM

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 1:05PM

FastJohnny| 5.16.12 @ 9:52AM

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 1:08PM

Mombassa| 5.16.12 @ 10:12AM

Mombassa| 5.16.12 @ 10:15AM

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.16.12 @ 10:19AM

Kenny| 5.16.12 @ 10:21AM

Dai Alanye | 5.16.12 @ 12:13PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 4:26PM

Chris (the second one)| 5.16.12 @ 4:53PM

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 5:28PM

Chris (the second one)| 5.16.12 @ 6:16PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:16PM

Jon| 5.16.12 @ 10:38AM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 11:03AM

SCM| 5.16.12 @ 12:56PM

Kenny| 5.16.12 @ 1:09PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:17PM

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.16.12 @ 1:23PM

Jon| 5.16.12 @ 2:26PM

Derek Leaberry| 5.16.12 @ 11:58AM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 2:00PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 12:07PM

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 12:27PM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 1:15PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 2:05PM

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 2:33PM

Chris (the second one)| 5.16.12 @ 4:57PM

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 7:37PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 2:50PM

Oldefarte| 5.16.12 @ 4:27PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 5:51PM

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 6:00PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 7:53PM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 12:29PM

buckeyeman| 5.16.12 @ 2:00PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 12:08PM

Clint| 5.16.12 @ 5:05PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 5:54PM

Clint| 5.17.12 @ 1:04AM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 12:09PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 2:52PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 5:53PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 6:06PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 6:22PM

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 6:38PM

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 6:38PM

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 7:39PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:29PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 7:54PM

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.16.12 @ 9:17PM

DRed| 5.17.12 @ 11:16AM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 9:07PM

Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.16.12 @ 12:28PM

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 1:03PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 8:41PM

Dai Alanye | 5.16.12 @ 12:40PM

9thID| 5.16.12 @ 12:45PM

Simon Templar| 5.16.12 @ 3:19PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 4:29PM

Teflon93| 5.16.12 @ 7:42PM

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 12:54PM

Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.16.12 @ 2:37PM

Questions| 5.16.12 @ 7:19PM

Lawrence| 5.16.12 @ 1:57PM

Simon Templar| 5.16.12 @ 3:21PM

Simon Templar| 5.16.12 @ 3:24PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.16.12 @ 2:57PM

Occam's Tool| 5.16.12 @ 6:08PM