Untitled Document

E-mail string about the benefits or lack thereof of recognizing "gay marriage" or "gay union." Note that the most recent e-mails are at the top. The conversation begins at the bottom.

From: Stash
Date: Aug 10 2003

Wow-

You're right Toddy, this is something to argue against, I just don't know where to start. Don't have a lot of time now, but one question. I am not familiar with the data on the health levels of homosexuals versus heterosexuals. Are you sure about this or are you just assuming based on the history of Aids and the supposedly "dirty" life that our society thinks homosexuals lead? If you have numbers, please provide. Otherwise, back this up with something more than an assumption.

Keep the debate running...

From: Toddy
Date: Aug 8 2003

Now we’re talking.

“Homosexual marriage” would move our society away from being healthy,
wealthy and wise and towards suffering and degeneration. There Greg,
now you have something to argue against.

Before you freak out… I’m not saying the sky would fall tomorrow if our
country, or my church, changed its definition of marriage to include
homosexual relationships. Nor do I think the issue is the most crucial
in determining the course of our culture. Instituting homosexual
marriage would simply contribute negatively to the long-term health,
prosperity and happiness of our society.

Here are my responses to some general arguments.

The argument “hey, it won’t affect your life much” is weak because it
denies that we are stewards of our society. The issue is not whether I
will be able to lead a comfortable upper-class life until I die
(chances are good regardless), the issue is whether affirming
homosexual relations is good for our society as a whole, in the long
run.

Another argument is that extending marriage to include homosexual
relations would be a new and freer way to structure our society. Sure,
but new and freer doesn’t necessarily mean better. Stash and Walrus cite
successful social movements, such as abolition, women’s suffrage, the
Civil Right Movement and the overthrow of apartheid, and assume that
gay rights is the next obvious item in that list. But why wouldn’t it
end up in this list: communism and eugenics? Social movements can fail,
and cause a great amount of pain and suffering in the process. There is
such thing as bad social change.

Neither is “freer,” i.e. more permissiveness, always good. The one and
only successful fundamental restructuring of the family (that I know
of) was towards _less_ freedom the outlawing of polygamy. This is why
I don’t buy Stash’s argument that maintaining the status quo of
marriage is bad because it “denies privileges.” Polygamy-oriented men
can’t have multiple wives, felons can’t vote and kids can’t watch R-
rated movies. Restriction is not necessarily “oppression” (despite what
a 16-year-old kid might tell you when he wants to see Terminator 3).

I know what you’re thinking: homosexuality has nothing to do with
communism and eugenics. Maybe those analogies aren’t perfect, but
neither are the ones to abolition, women’s suffrage and black civil
rights. We’re not talking about a group of people being forced to work,
driven from their homes or disenfranchised of political representation.
We are talking about allowing, but not affirming, a type of romantic
desire. That doesn’t have the same ring of injustice as the others.
Also, we are not talking about disadvantaging a group of people based
on an immutable characteristic (race, gender, height). Homosexuality is
a behavior. Admittedly some people are more inclined to it than others.
But just because a group of people are inclined towards a behavior
doesn’t mean we should support, or even tolerate, it. Take drunkenness
for example. Estimates have ten percent of the population being prone
in part by genetics -- to alcoholism. I have a good friend who is a
kind, smart alcoholic. So are we being unfair if don’t we advocate
for “alcoholics rights?”

Here are some responses to specific arguments you guys made.

Stash notes that “informal homosexual unions date back as far as
history.” I agree that homosexual relationships have likely occurred
for a long, long time -- along with informal prostitution, gambling,
tax evasion and drug abuse. But there is no precedent for homosexual
relationships being affirmed publicly with the title of marriage.
Again, there’s a big difference between saying something is not bad
enough to actively discourage and saying it is worthy of praise and
support (pornography can be tolerated, but don’t treat it like art).

Jefe argues that divorce is bad (along with smoking and obesity). And I
agree, although I don’t know why that makes “homosexual marriage” good.

Jefe says, “It is not clear that recognizing gay marriage ‘messes’ with
the concept of the nuclear family.” Maybe this is clearer: right now a
family is defined as a man and a woman and their children (if they have
any). You are proposing that a family be defined as a man and woman OR
a man and a man OR a woman and a woman, and their children (if they
have any). This is messing.

Jefe guesses that children raised by same-sex couples would be, on
average, no better or worse than children raised by heterosexual
couples. I guess that, all things being equal, children raised by same-
sex couples would be worse off.

Jefe guesses that homosexual couples would not adopt children in large
numbers. I don’t have a guess, but I don’t see why its infrequency
would make it good (maybe less bad).

Walrus let the Dean Man know I’m crazy to bring “resources” into this
debate. As I explained to Dean Man when I saw him on campus today, I
only brought up “resources” to illustrate the difference between our
country’s current stand of tolerating homosexual relations (no
resources required) and the position you are advocating which actively
supports homosexual relations with the title of marriage (resources
social, emotional, legal, economic, etc. -- required).

I’ll wrap this up before Walrus blasts me for going on to page three.

My bet is that if we run the “homosexual marriage” social experiment,
it will end up in the communism/eugenics heap of bad, painful ideas. Of
course I have no proof I can’t predict the future. But the signs seem
clear. Look at a picture of a naked man and a naked woman together,
then compare it to two men or two women. The biology is clear. Look at
the social mores of every culture. Look at the teachings of every major
religion. Look at the health problems among gays versus those among
heterosexuals. Think about what you want for your kid. Isn’t it obvious?

From: Stash
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 10:01:08 -0400

My 2 cents:

The core of this debate is about access to privileges. Marriage allows long-term, legally committed, couples to do many things that two single, independent individuals can not. Tax deductions, blah, blah, blah.

The crux of legal marriage is two individuals committing to a personal union for the long-term. This should be the case whether it is for male-female or male-male unions. Under a fair law, they commit to the same things and they receive the same privileges.

History of marriage has no role in this debate. Informal homosexual unions date back as far as history, it just happens that when our institutions for coordinating and administering society were developed – in the past 2000 years – they were done so under a particular idea of how society should structure itself and so left marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Similarly, when slavery was legal or apartheid was a legitimate way of governing, it was done under a particular idea of how society should structure itself. The process of building our legal institutions clearly made a mistake in all three cases.

From: Walrus
Date: Aug 6 2003

Here are some thoughts on “gay marriage”. To be honest, I don’t know how to argue for it because I don’t really have a sense for why it should be illegal. That said, here are some points. . .

If the argument against it is a “religious argument” I would say. . .

First, that’s absurd. There are religions that support homosexuality. America supports religious tolerance. Ergo, America should support homosexuality. This argument will break down when what a religion wants is harmful to other US citizens or society (e.g., if a religion calls for sacrificing a virgin, that would be a no-go). However, I can’t see how allowing people who live together to be bonded by the state harms people. Nothing in their life really changes. . . so it can’t have a negative impact on society.

Second, that’s irrelevant. Marriage does not have to be religious. People get married in a state house by the “power vested in me by the state of California”, so who cares about religion.

If the argument is “why mess with it” I would say. . .

Because we messed with how we recognize every other “minority” group through time – giving them more rights, and every time we were right. Blacks. Women. Native Americans. Japanese Americans. None had equal rights. We thought better. We were right.

Now we are oppressing homosexuals. Time to change. Of course, it was more efficient when blacks were slaves and women couldn’t vote and when we could just pillage and destroy an entire race of people to take over land. . . so maybe we should go back there.

If the argument is anything to do with “resources” I would say. . .

What the hell are you talking about?

If the argument is “it needs defining” I would say. . .

Its defined as the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be recognized as living together in love, supporting each other.

If the argument is around “its weird for the kids” I would say. . .

I doubt it. I bet there is no evidence to support that and that there never will be, because it won’t mess with the kids. Speculation on a future event with no grounding is not reason for ruling out marriage.

If the argument is “its against the ideals of marriage – procreation and the family – and therefore ‘makes no sense’” I would say. . .

Procreation is not an issue when it comes to marriage. Many people choose to marry with no desire of having children. Yet, they are wed “legally”. Should these people not be allowed to marry?

If there are other arguments I’d love to hear them. I honestly don’t understand why there is a problem with gay marriage. I don’t understand or even know the arguments.

From: Jefe
Date: Aug 6 2003

50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce in the US. Perhaps society should retroactively demand economic and social benefits for failed heterosexual marriages? We'd sure save a bundle... Considerably more than would be "saved" by not recognizing gay marriage I have no doubt.

Saving society's resources in either of the above ways seems ludicrous and is financially inconsequential in comparison to any one of a thousand other problems, including, for example, the health care costs of smoking or obesity. Additionally, it is not clear what the "gains" to society's resources might be. For one concrete thing, gay couples would be required to pay the marriage penalties inherent in the federal and state income tax systems.

The resource argument holds no water as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, on the moral side, it is not clear that recognizing gay marriage "messes" with the concept of the nuclear family -- most gay couples do not have or adopt kids. Certainly, children from gay marriages are unlikely to ever make up a significant fraction of the population. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, is there any evidence that those kids who have been or are being raised by gay parents are socially deficient in any way. Divorce, plain and simple, is much more damaging to the nuclear family than gay marriage will ever be.

Perhaps we should consider outlawing it?

Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:56:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: Toddy

Heterosexual marriage is the foundation of every known (to me) civilization. It needs no defending. Homosexual â€œmarriageâ€ is the social arrangement with a short resume. It needs defending.

Remember, the issue is not whether or not to pour our societyâ€™s resources into discouraging homosexual sex. In that case the anti-gay-sex camp would need to make its case. Rather, the issue is whether or not to pour resources (through economic and social benefits) into promoting a change in a fundamental social unit that stretches back to the beginning of human history â€“ the nuclear family. Why mess with it?

From: Jefe
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003

On the contrary, I look forward to hearing a well-argued case against gay marriage. Perhaps it should be noted that estimates put the gay population at around 10%. That's a staggering 28million people in the US.

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 06:33:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Toddy

I'm obviously going to be providing the opposition on this. I'm at work, so I can't bang out my case right now, but I look forward to hearing a well-argued case for gay partnerships.

From: Walrus
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:28:22 -0700

Presumably this is another bush quote. Sorry I’m in the dark.

Have to run; EH – will respond to your email more next week when I’m back on email (can’t really even read it all now – sorry). While I don’t have my “argument” thought out fully (my reaction is more of a gut reaction) I will put out a couple points for discussion. . .

America is based on creating a society that provides for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. . . for people from all walks of life. . . unless their rights negatively infringe on the rights of others. . . and I don’t think this has any negative effect. . .

America is based on supporting a wide range of religious beliefs. . . and some religions believe in gay marriage. . . and so shouldn’t America be respecting those?

My emotional response to this issue is really strong; I’m very for gay rights. Happy to hear what others have to say / get in a debate.

From: Hoef
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:23:35 -0400

C'mon Walrus, that's good ol' fashioned red meat for the religious right!

I'd really be interested to look at the social context of "gay marriage" vs. "straight marriage" as it exists right now. Are male-male and female-female partnerships more faithful than marriages? I doubt it, but I think the difference is narrower than what most people would expect. Wouldn't a "gay marriage" still be different than a "straight marriage" in the most fundamental sense - that of procreation? I'm all for granting equal rights to male-male and female-female partnerships, i.e. "civil unions", but there's no way the majority of American people are going to recognize those relationships as marriages. The word itself is too steeped in the religious heritage that created the institution of marriage.

I don't agree that this is bad timing. This is the only time Bush can use the issue to rile up the conservative base and generate fundraising without making it a bad political move during the election season opening in September. I could be wrong, and Bush makes it an issue during the race, but I would agree that's a risky move.

Just my two cents, for the record...

Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stash

Lighten up Walrus. Don't you know that "we are all sinners"...

so it's all ok.

From: Walrus
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:00:03 -0700

I’m not a big fan at all of Bush’s attempt to have marriage be defined as the union of a man and a woman.

I also think this is a bonehead political move for him. Seems like an odd battle to fight right now

(Two year break, oddly enough.)

From: Toddy
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:14:44 -0400

Walrus, I am trying to help you out with the new heading for this email
string - I know you were concerned your co-workers would think you were
closed minded. I'll go ahead send off another ten or so blank emails with
this heading to balance things out. Is there anyone else in your firm I
should copy?

Seriously -

What I Believe
A man can only marry a woman. A man can decide to kiss another man, put a
ring on his finger, vow to love him, and touch this other man's penis at
night, but the two are not married. He could do the same thing with his
dog, but the man and dog are not married either. Both instances fall
outside the definition of marriage, which can only occur between a man and a
woman. The United States government can call these acts whatever it wants -
"marriage," "civil union," or "perversion." The law will not change my
belief. And yes, this is my belief in the context of the Christian
religion. In the context of science, I believe the earth orbits the sun. I
also happen to believe that science holds the truth about the earth's orbit
and Christianity holds the truth about marriage.

In Practice
This does not mean that I hate gay people, spend my time lobbying the issue
politically, or think I am better than someone because they are gay.
Homosexuality is one of many misuses of human sexuality. When a crowd was
condemning a woman for adultery (another misuse of human sexuality) by
stoning her, Jesus rebuked the crowd by saying, "Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone." I won't be casting any stones at gay people.
Notes on the Debate

The biggest error that I see people making in this debate is the one Jefe
made when he said, "People who run families successfully know that and will
always know that -- no matter what their gender, race, sexual orientation,
etc." Many people try to apply principles about equal treatment based on
gender and race to sexual orientation. To find out why this doesn't work,
let's play a quick childhood game. "One of these things is not like the
other: race, gender, sexual orientation." That's right, race and gender are
immutable, inborn characteristics and sexual orientation refers to a chosen
lifestyle. It belongs in this list: criminal orientation, dietary
orientation (vegan, vegetarian, etc.), musical orientation. Even if there
is a genetic correlation between homosexuality and certain genes that
doesn't make homosexuality morally neutral. There is a proven correlation
between increased criminal activity and having two Y chromosomes. That
correlation doesn't make crime morally neutral. The point is that
homosexuals do not defacto "deserve" equal protection under the law the way
women and racial minorities do.

The other mistake in debating social attitudes is to use a particular case
to make a generalization. Stash points out that his parents are not wicked
people and that he is a decent human being even though they got divorced. I
agree. But that one case does not mean that divorce in general should be
tolerated. I am sure we could find a case where a child's parents were shot
to death, but the child turned out well anyway (he may even be stronger for
it). This one case would not show that shooting parents is a tolerable way
to promote a decent society. You can still say that the ONLY way to raise
healthy children is not to shoot their parents. People with murdered
parents may take offense at that, but it is fair to question whether I am
wrong in my stance on not shooting parents or they are wrong in taking
offense.

In the case of divorce, I believe, in general, it does correlate with
negative behavior like criminal activity by the child and child abuse by the
guardians (parents and step parents). This correlation does not establish
any kind of cause and effect. This issue is much more complicated than
"divorce is the root of all social evil." But I do think that a high
divorce rate is a bad sign for a society.

Hoefer, to answer your question about adoption (from what I know): Yes, you
do have to go through a thorough screening process. It took Dave Gold and
his wife Kathy over a year to adopt a baby. It's not easy to get a healthy
baby quickly. I don't know too much more than that. I believe that
adoption is done through numerous non-profit agencies whose specific
criteria for qualified parents varies. For example Catholic agencies
probably don't hand out babies to gay couples.

Walt Whitman's poetry is excellent and has no bearing on this discussion.

Paul Simon and Art Garfunkl clearly state in one of their songs, "I'd rather
be a hammer than a nail, yes I would, if I could, I surely would." The
implication is clear: both men identify themselves with the male striking
instrument, the hammer, rather than the female, passive object, the nail
head.

From: Hoef
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:36:34 -0700

The civil union idea is not a "separate but equal" idea AT ALL. The government and religious institutions have had a long-running relationship wherein the state recognizes a religious marriage as a legal and binding civil contract. I'm all for gay marriages, even in a church that would allow for a gay wedding, but I think the state should recognize a gay marriage using a separate but UNEQUAL classification. The gay movement toward recognition of marriage is about gaining similar rights as married heterosexuals; I don't think it's a movement toward "sameness" with married heterosexuals. In fact, married homosexuals may deserve rights that married heterosexuals don't have - and vice versa, as in this adoption issue. I simply don't know many of the ins-and-outs of the adoption process to make a judgement.

Hence, I stand by my argument for "civil unions". The one flaw in the semantics is if a gay couple does have a religious ceremony, the term "civil" would appear a misnomer. However, the couple could still have a religious ceremony and the state would recognize that by granting a "civil union" in the same fashion as it recognizes a marriage.

From: Walrus
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:00:17 +0100

I don't think this argument is that a Gay Marriage is wrong. I think the
argument is that a Gay Marriage is not a Marriage under Jewish Religious
code. That is all. I agree with Justin's point that the paragraph copied
in Stash's email below is not only offensive but 'wrong' (I think I am safe
using the word wrong here b/c I can back up statistically that
non-mother/father marriages raise 'successful' children).

Personally I think gay marriages are morally sound and shouldn't be illegal
anywhere. However, I would not argue that the Christian or Jewish religions
need to endorse them. That is their choice. The moral fabric against which
I make my argument is not the strict backdrop of either religion, it is just
my own personal code of ethics.

Finally, I changed the subject line of this email b/c a client just saw 3
emails in my inbox titled "WHAT IS WRONG WITH A GAY MARRIAGE" and that isn't
exactly the tone I'm trying to give off here.

P.S. Art Garfunkel is gay.

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jefe

I'm all for gay marraige.

The family is still sacred. People who run families
successfully know that and will always know that -- no matter what their
gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

I don't know how many gay couples adopt children, but my guess is that it's
a vanishingly small number compared to the number of heterosexual
couples adopting. I don't know if there is a higher incidence of child
abuse among children raised by gay couples. I would be interested to
find out, but I suspect there is no difference.

Hoef, be careful with the "separate but equal" civil union thing.
History reflects poorly on any ideas of separate but equal.

Toddy, I don't know what the hell brought this up, but let's not forget
that some pretty impressive figures were homosexual -- among them Walt
Whitman and Aaron Copland. And probably Art Garfunkel. Would you rather
be the hammer or the nail?

From: Hoef
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 18:18:07 -0700

I'm with Stokes on this one. Does anyone know what the criteria are to adopt, anyway? Do parents have to pass a background check or "fitness" check? Can a single woman adopt?

This may sound hypocritical to the above comment, but I'd rather the union of two homosexuals be termed "civil union" to make the distinction from marriage. It's just a semantic thing.

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stash

Guys, be careful with this. I agree that human nature has evolved such that the union between the male and the female has been the most successful way to raise children and ensure the continued survival of our race. However, the author expresses some VERY conservative, dangerous and potentially offensive comments not just against gays. The excerpt below is where I was focussing my question. I can't find the original full article, but the way I read the excerpt below, the author is implying that only a married couple can produce and raise "whole and successful human beings". Gays aside, there is evidence all over the place that a marriage is not a necessary criteria for raising good kids. Single mothers do it all the time. I would argue that an orphan has a better chance of "success" being raised by two well-educated, upstanding gay men than if he/she were left to the foster system. Being married is still the best way, within current societal norms, to raise children. But to claim that it is the only way is offensive to many people in this world that have been raised out of wedlock (including yours truly) and/or are doing so right now.

--> Only a married couple that is committed to each other for life will bring
children into the world and give them the love, the care, and the nurturing
that they need to grow into whole and successful human beings...and only
children who have been brought up in such caring and nurturing households
will give their elderly and frail parents the care and compassion that they
need when that is required.

That is the reason -the only reason- that lawmakers throughout the ages
have recognized Marriage between a Man and a Woman as a very vulnerable,
very special and very sacred institution, worthy of special protections,
rights, and privileges.

From: Walrus
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:39:28 +0100

Toddy - I thought that this response was very good. The whole point is that
'true and false' are defined in the terms of the Jewish Religion. That
doesn't mean that any particular individual has to agree.

As for the whole 'reproduction' issue, the only caveat is the adoption
clause...

From: Toddy
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:17:39 -0400

The wise ass answer is that it is obvious why a gay marriage won't produce children who love their parents: a gay marriage won't produce any children. The more serious answer is: that is human nature. There is no grand "why" as to why men are meant to marry women instead of other men. Why is pluto the furtherest planet out in the solar system and not Jupitor? They are making a statement of fact based on the Jewish wisdom tradition: the nuclear family is the key to a good society. Backing that up requires an extensive knowledge of human history and psychology, which I don't have. It strikes me as true and controversial, so I passed it along.

From: Stash
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:44:59 -0700 (PDT)

I'm not sure I understand how this guy believes that a gay marriage can't fit this description. Why does this guy believe that this can only be created through a union between a man and a woman?

From: Toddy
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:15:47 -0400

I didn't sign up for the "Jews for Morality" email list, but somehow their
press releases get forwarded to the station. This one is both shocking and
well thought out. I thought it was worth passing on. I think there is
something to what this guy is saying.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David ben-Ami" <benami@jewsformorality.org>
To: <wuncfm@unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 5:27 AM
Subject: WHAT'S WRONG WITH 'GAY MARRIAGE'?

Jews for Morality
ON THE SOCIO-MORAL ISSUES OF THE DAY
-From a Traditional Jewish Perspective
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Press Release

For Immediate Release
10 Av 5761 / 30 July 2001
Contact: David ben-Ami 917 842-4217

WHAT'S WRONG WITH 'GAY MARRIAGE'?
Nothing at all-if you really believe that marriage is nothing more than
legalized prostitution!!

"When the story of our era is written, it is the cultural battle that will
count.... The family is at the heart of that struggle."
-Stanley Kurtz, The Hudson Institute

The drive for 'Gay-Marriage' legislation is a logical outgrowth of the
mistaken idea that the first consideration in marriage is the need for an
emotional and spiritual "soul-mate", that marriage is simply a selfish
act-something you do to gratify yourself, and only yourself.

Over the past half-century in America, various laws have been created to
make certain that nothing stands in the way of unlimited
self-gratification. People engaged in "easy-sex" in the '60s, and
(logically) were blessed with easy "no-fault" divorce and easy abortion in
the '70s.

Well, if marriage and its legal benefits are to accrue to people simply
because they have agreed to get together for mutual exploitation and
self-gratification, why not 'Gay Marriage'? Why not, indeed?

We Orthodox Jews -and non-Jews who have a similar outlook on life-
understand that marriage is not at all about infantile self-gratification
It is about something much more serious and much more consequential.

Marriage is nothing less than the survival of mankind on Earth as
civilized, decent human beings. It protects us from degenerating into a
selfish, bloodthirsty, barbarian mob. It is the sole guarantor of our
future.

Only a married couple that is committed to each other for life will bring
children into the world and give them the love, the care, and the nurturing
that they need to grow into whole and successful human beings...and only
children who have been brought up in such caring and nurturing households
will give their elderly and frail parents the care and compassion that they
need when that is required.