What About Equality? The Rhetorical Twist List

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage

questions

The Twist List

With the CA Supreme Court convening on proposition 8, same-sex marriage questions abound.  I’m making this Q&A list sticky for the next few weeks, so it will appear before the rest of the posts down below.  These are Common Claims that Advocates of Gay Marriage Make…click a claim to see each refutation.  –Beetle Blogger

Claim 1: Marriage is an institution designed to foster the love between two people. Gay people can love each other just as straight people can. Ergo, marriage should be open to gay people.
Claim 2: Not all straight couples have children, but no one argues that their marriages are unacceptable
Claim 3: Some gay couples do have children and therefore need marriage to provide the appropriate context.
Claim 4: Marriage and the family are always changing anyway, so why not allow this change?
Claim 5: Marriage and the family have already changed, so why not acknowledge the reality?
Claim 6: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones.
Claim 7: Given global overpopulation, why would anyone worry about some alleged need to have more children in any case?
Claim 8: Marriage should change, whether it already has or not, because patriarchal institutions are evil.
Claim 9: Gay marriage has had historical and anthropological precedents.
Claim 10: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage.
Claim 11: The case for gay marriage is more “poignant” than the case against it.
Claim 12: Gay marriage is necessary for the self-esteem of a minority.
Claim 13: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic.
Claim 14: Exceptions could be made for religious communities that disapprove of gay marriage, or religious communities could simply add their rites to those of the state.
Claim 15: To sustain an “ethic of caring and responsibility,” we must include gay people in every institution.
Claim 16: Norms of any kind at all are discriminatory.
Claim 17: Almost everyone believes in equality. How can we have that if gay citizens are denied the same rights as other citizens?
Claim 18: Winning the struggle for gay marriage is important for the cause of gay liberation.
Claim 19: What about majority rule in democratic countries?
Claim 20: But gay people are a small minority. Allowing them to marry would mean nothing more than a slight alteration to the existing system and would even add support for the institution. What’s all the fuss about?

For Entire Q&A List with Answers Click Here

Advertisements

29 Comments

  1. Delirious said,

    February 27, 2009 at 3:47 am

    Some of these aren’t even logical. If these are the claims they use to make their case, they have a very weak case indeed.

    I could talk about each claim, but I don’t want to hijack your comment section. lol But suffice it to say, none of these convince me that they should be allowed to have same sex marriage. Claim 18 actually convinces me more that same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

  2. beetlebabee said,

    February 27, 2009 at 3:48 am

    Each claim has a link to a whole page of logic that these two authors put together to refute them. I love it. One of the authors is actually gay, but is against gay marriage. My views don’t coincide precisely with theirs, but as they say—close enough for government work!

  3. February 27, 2009 at 8:15 am

    Thanks for the video and the write up, it is very interesting. I have heard that many people who have a same sex attraction don’t want same sex marriage.

  4. morsec0de said,

    February 27, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    In the United States, atheists can be married to other atheists, and people who can’t or won’t have children can be married.

    Thus, it really doesn’t matter what the religions think. Gay marriage should be and will become legal.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    February 27, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Your religion, whether you are atheist, buddist, marxist, or whatever, has nothing to do with marriage. Your sexuality has nothing to do with marriage. All people have equal access to marriage regardless of any distinction you want to make, religious, sexual or otherwise. Making the argument that only religious people support marriage is a fallacy. The authors of these claims and their refutations are gay, yet they support marriage. It’s not a gay/straight issue, it’s not a religious/secularist issue, it’s a family issue, and that crosses all borders, all divides. Everyone has a mom and a dad, as it should be. No state has the right to deny a child a father or a mother. That’s the issue here.

  6. morsec0de said,

    February 27, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    “Everyone has a mom and a dad, as it should be. No state has the right to deny a child a father or a mother. That’s the issue here.”

    Marriage has nothing to do with children.

    If you want to make laws about who can have children, then make those laws.

  7. February 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Marriage has nothing to do with children.

    morsecode, what do you think would happen if we removed all children from from those who were married to each other? If marriage and children have nothing to do with each other then nothing should happen when we remove the children.

    Gay marriage should be and will become legal.

    Why should gay marriage be legal?

  8. rubyeliot said,

    February 27, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    morse.
    I have two questions for you:

    Why does government regulate marriage?

    What benefit does marriage have for the state?

  9. beetlebabee said,

    February 27, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    On the contrary. I understand why gay advocates want to frame the marriage debate all about the adults, but you can’t divorce the union of a man and a woman from the product of that union. The best way to raise children is in a married family with a mom and a dad. Families aren’t built on sex, desire or needs. Sure those are components, but children are absolutely part of family and so is marriage.

  10. morsec0de said,

    February 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    “morsecode, what do you think would happen if we removed all children from from those who were married to each other?”

    Sorry, but this argument makes absolutely no sense.

    Show me in the laws where it states that, either, you must be married to have children or you must plan on having children to get married.

    “Sure those are components, but children are absolutely part of family and so is marriage.”

    Children are part of FAMILY. Not marriage. We’re talking about laws dealing with marriage, not family.

    “Why does government regulate marriage? ”

    Because the people getting married wanted to share benefits and be able to do lots of other things legally. Having one contract to do so was easier than the dozens it would require otherwise.

    “What benefit does marriage have for the state?”

    No idea.

    There’s nothing you could get from a married couple as a benefit to society that you couldn’t get from a couple who was monogamous.

    “The best way to raise children is in a married family with a mom and a dad.”

    Actually, scientific studies show that the best way to raise children is with two emotionally, physically and financially stable adults. There has been literally no difference shown between children raised by straight and gay couples.

    Other than right wingers finding one acceptable and the other icky, of course. :)

  11. February 27, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    moresecode, I wanted to point out that marriage, family and children are interconnected. You said that “marriage has nothing to do with children.” I’m not a lawyer but I expect that some marriage and family laws would impact on each other while others would not.

    There has been literally no difference shown between children raised by straight and gay couples.

    The experiment has only just begun. It will take one or two generations to really get to the bottom of this issue.

    This study found that it was best for children to have a mother and a father.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    February 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    Gender matters. There are many studies out that already show the importance of having two gender families. 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters is an Australian effort that shows statistically why families need moms and dads. You can raise children alone, but that should never be accepted or encouraged as the ideal.

    It’s not just adult sexual preference at stake here, kids have rights too. Children’s rights trump adult sexual preference. Why are your needs more important than a child’s?

    Every child comes into this world with a mom and a dad. No state has the authority to deny children the fundamental right to both a mother and a father.

  13. melania said,

    February 27, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    Hey this is a great list!

    I like Claim 10: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage:

    Actually, it is not. This argument is based on a reductive analogy between racism and heterosexism. Most people today would agree that the state should have no right to prevent interracial marriage, and some now argue for the same reason that it should have no right to prevent gay marriage. Both racism and heterosexism are forms of prejudice. Both are due to a combination of ignorance and malice. Both are evil. But the analogy is seriously flawed, because it assumes that all those who oppose gay marriage, like all those who oppose interracial marriage, are bigots. Some are, but others are not.

    Marriage between people of different races was indeed banned because of racism. But that was only one example of a larger phenomenon. We refer to endogamy, marriage only with those from inside the community. And endogamy is not always caused by racism. Sometimes, for instance, it is caused by religion — that is, by the urge to perpetuate a religious culture. These societies ban interreligious marriage but usually accept marriage to converts, regardless of their racial or ethnic origins.

    In any case, endogamy is a cultural variable. Many societies practice exogamy, after all, marriage only with those from outside the community. Endogamy cannot be considered a universal feature of marriage and should not, therefore, be required by law in a diverse society. Marriage between men and women really is a universal feature, on the other hand, both historically and anthropologically. And for a good reason: bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic reasons. The prejudice of some people notwithstanding, in short, there can be a morally legitimate reason for maintaining the heterosexuality of marriage.

    Besides, how many advocates of gay marriage would argue for polygamous marriage as well? Some would, no doubt, but not many. Although we do not advocate polygamy, we also do not see anything inherently wrong with it.27 Because a good case could be made for it, following precisely the same logic as that of the case made for gay marriage (see claim 17), it would be dishonest for advocates of the latter to trivialize it due to political expediency.

  14. Chairm said,

    February 28, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    Beetlebabee said: “It’s not a gay/straight issue, it’s not a religious/secularist issue, it’s a family issue, and that crosses all borders, all divides. Everyone has a mom and a dad, as it should be.”

    Right on!

    * * *

    morsec0de said: “Show me in the laws where it states that, either, you must be married to have children or you must plan on having children to get married.”

    So you have just invoked two rules:

    1. If something can happen outside of marriage, then, it is not essential to marriage.

    2. If something is not made compulsory by a legal requirement, then, it is not essential to marriage.

    Right, morsec0de?

    Now, what is marriage, given those two rules?

    * * *

    By the way there are two legal requirements that are vigorously enforced. The man-woman criterion, which stands for sex integration, is prominent. The legal marital presumption of paternity is vigorously enforced. Both are entailed in the consent to marry lawfully.

    These requirements apply to all enter the social institution.

    Now, what are the legal requirements, enforced absolutely as per your remarks morsec0de, that define “gay marriage” anyplace where it has been imposed or enacted?

    What is compulsory, according to your undrstanding of the laws in those places?

    What happens within marriage that cannot happen outside of marriage, according to your underestanding?

    Thanks.

  15. FullWithFaith said,

    March 1, 2009 at 6:54 am

    I’ve enjoyed some of the absurdity of claims supporting gay marriage. I think # 11 is my favorite because I read it and I want to sarcastically say “Really?” Anyway…..Something to note when talking about children’s rights…in the United States, they don’t have any. In fact every country in the United Nations is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child EXCEPT for the United States and Somalia. I don’t wish to get into the hows and whys and global politics surrounding this particular international convention. I simply want to note that it exists and that the US is not a signatory to it.

    Chairm, when you talk about a legal marital presumption of paternity, are you speaking in the general sense or more specifically to individual state laws (i.e. a particular state’s family code)? I only ask because in CA the presumption of paternity carries equal weight in a marital dissolution as well as in a dissolution of a domestic partnership (both by statute and judicial decision)….it makes for interesting discussions with my colleagues who work in that field of law because it’s one thing to have a presumption “on paper” and it’s quite another to try to flush out factually why a presumption should or should not exist (if a child is the product of insemination, then by default the other party has no relation to the child by blood making “paternity” impossible to prove via DNA. So paternity cannot exist unless there is a presumption of it…)
    Hmmmm…..

  16. beetlebabee said,

    March 1, 2009 at 7:25 am

    Claim 11: The case for gay marriage is more “poignant” than the case against it:

    This argument was made on 5-9 November 2001 by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Halpern et al v. Canada (A.G.) et al. and Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto v. Canada (A.G.) et al. Judge Robert A. Blair supported gay marriage even after admitting that good arguments had been made against it. For him, emotion was more important for legal decisions than reason; how we feel is more important than what we think. “The evidence put forward by these participants,” he wrote, “does not reflect the same personal poignancy as that of the applicants.”28 This is hardly surprising in the age of Oprah Winfrey.

    Oh please. However on children’s rights, I have to disagree with you. They do have rights. Just because the United States has not ratified the UNCRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) doesn’t mean anything since the UN is not the giver of rights in this nation. In fact, it’s interesting that people think that signing this odious set of regulations into US law is good for children at all since it basically usurps the power of parents to protect and raise their children. I am very much against government interference in the family. There has to be more reason than just a good title for us to ratify that into law.

  17. { Lisa } said,

    March 1, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    Why do we have child advocacy lawyers and the CPS if there are no child rights?

  18. March 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Hi
    I stumbled across your blog on LDS BLOGS. I thought you mighe be interested in a site my wife and I just built called MormonsMadeSimple.com, which uses simple, explanatory videos to explain the Mormon faith. Feel free to feature any of these videos on your blog, or just share them with non-member friends. We’re hoping these videos will be missionary tools to help members share their beliefs. Anyway, sorry to spam your comments section. I couldn’t find any contact information for you on your blog.

    – Doug & Laurel

  19. March 4, 2009 at 1:07 am

    Thanks for the info!! I think it’s so interesting that homosexual marriage advocates just carry on, ignoring the fallout of SSM should it become legalized. They have made it very clear that they don’t care about children, about society or about anyone but themselves.

  20. Dave Crea said,

    March 4, 2009 at 1:29 am

    If you give homosexuals an inch on this issue, then they will take a mile. We’ve seen it before. They will use government backed homosexual marriage to take away the freedom of religion from those that oppose homosexuality in their churches. We have already seen the effect on Catholic Adoption Services being shut down because of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. We also have seen that unfortunately someone’s perceived civil rights often win in court over the majorities religious rights and freedoms. Look at the photographer that would not photograph a homosexual wedding because of his religion. The homosexuals sued him out of business. This is all about religious freedom and the constitutional rights of the people in this country. Homosexuals have all the same rights and protections as everyone else. They have additional special rights even in some states. This is absurd. Homosexuals can have relationships and engage in sodomy if they so choose, but they should not try and change the definition of a time honored tradition to force others to accept them and to take away everyone’s rights and freedoms. Homosexuality is a choice and a bad choice according to the majority.

  21. Dave Crea said,

    March 4, 2009 at 1:37 am

    Read about the powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques that the homosexual movement has used to manipulate the public in the media. The perverse agenda of homosexuals to hide all of the horrible qualities of their lifestyles and desensitize the populace until the populace accepts them. After acceptance by society homosexuals will quit hiding their perversions in secret.

    http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm

    Here is another one about examples of homosexuals forcing their ideas on society through education.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

    The agenda of homosexual activists is now in the light. I only hope that the majority recognizes this before it is too late and society self destructs.

  22. Fitz said,

    March 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    { Lisa } Asks

    “Why do we have child advocacy lawyers and the CPS if there are no child rights?”

    There are child rights…multiple child rights.. They are just not codified under a ratified U.N. treaty. They exist in statute and common law.

    However: The greatest protector of children are the laws that encourage & reward proper family formation.

  23. beetlebabee said,

    March 5, 2009 at 2:39 am

    I agree with you 100% there. Nature has built in protectors for it’s progeny, and it’s not the paid bureaucrats at the government!

  24. Chairm said,

    March 5, 2009 at 9:08 am

    FullWithFaith asked: “Chairm, when you talk about a legal marital presumption of paternity, are you speaking in the general sense or more specifically to individual state laws (i.e. a particular state’s family code)?”

    The universal legal presumption is that the husband is the father of the children born to he and his wife in marriage.

    It is based on the conjugal relationship being a sexualized relationship, as a type of relationship at law. Fatherhood and motherhood are united in marriage.

    Approximately one-half of one percent of married women have used IVF / ARTs to conceive children with “donated” sperm and/or ova.

    For all one-sexed scenarios, the inverse is so — both in paractice and in principle. That is to say, since there no such thing as a fertile individual — without the other sex — 100% of such scenarios rely on “donated” sperm and/or ova.

    So 0.5% vs 100%.

    The practice is extramarital procreation even when married people partake of it.

    And it parts with the first principle of responsible procreation: each of us is directly responsible for, and responsible to, the children we bring into this word (barring dire circumanstances or tragedy). This is a legal principle that is vigorously enforced. It is expressed clearly in the marriage presumption of paternity.

    Now, the presumption is rebuttable. The criterion for challenging the presumption are focussed on the opportunity of the husband to have impregnated his wife. This can be by the usual methods in conjugal relations. It can also be through the use of medical interventions. About 90% of women who use such interventions use the sperm of their husbands and their own ova.

    There is enabling legislation which carves out an exception to the first principle of responsible procreation. If a married woman uses a “donation”, her husband must give express consent. But, before that happens, the “donor” must pre-emptively relinquish parental status for any children that might result from the medical intervention. The husband would then become the father of his wife’s child, under the extended cover of the marital presumption of paternity.

    These application is usually kept private so as to protect the marriage and the children. That’s because, typically, it is highly plausible that the husband appeared to have impregnated his wife. In fact, about half of women who use “donations” will have the lab mixed that sperm with her husband’s sperm.

    Still, the use of third party procreation is extramarital procreation and that’s why the special exception has been carved out to enable the practice.

    But this cannot apply to any one-sexed scenario in the basic sense that 1) it is not plausible that a woman had been impregnated by another woman (and in fact would not be), 2) it is not plausible that a man had been impregnated by another man (and in fact would not be), 3) so no exception is required because no presumption can apply.

    What domestic partnership does provide for the one-sexed arrangement is a sort of spill-over from the bonafide marital presumption.

    Still, the “donor” must pre-emptively relinquish parental status. If that is not done, the child will be recognized as the child of both a mom and a dad. There is no need to rebut this presumption based on whatever kind of sexual behavior two women or two men might engage in.

    The second adult would need to give express consent, sure, but this is not based on protecting the privacy of the relationship. The fact of a pregnancy would make public the fact of extramarital procreation — in 100% of one-sexed scenarios.

    So the difference is that for the marital presumption of paternity, the conjugal relationship is considered a sexualized type of relationship.

    But the domestic partnership presumption of paternity, as applied to the one-sexed kind of relationship, is not based on sexual behavior of the partners. It is based on intentionality and only on intentionality. It is more closely analogous with adoption.

    This difference is often used by lesbian couples, for example, who use known “donors”. They include the fathers as a sort of part-time “male role model”. If they make an agreement with the known “donor”, such a couple can limit his parental status. However, in two recent court cases, one in Canada and another in the USA, judges decided that a child can have three parents each with full parental status. That is, the mother, her female partner, and the father.

    In one of those cases the father was married and had other children with his wife; but the wife was not presumed to the mother of his children with the lesbian — because the marital presumption is not one of maternity but of paternity.

    In the second case, the lesbian mother dropped her female partner and married the “donor” — the father.

    The courts in both cases had to zig-zag and create glaring contradicitons to the marital presumption of paternity.

    * * *

    Marriage is a social institution that arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind; from the opposite-sexed nature of human generativity; and from the both-sexed nature of human community. The sexes complete each other.

    The marital presumption of paternity is based on that and is not something plucked from the air and attached to the license to marry.

    As such, it cannot logically be applied to the one-sexed scenario. Such a scenario — whether a lone individual or a roomful of individuals of the same sex — is never fertile (not without the other sex) and is, by its very nature, always non-fertile.

    Human fertility, as recognized with the marital presumption, is variable in many ways. But the one-sexed arrangement’s non-fertility is not a matter of degree but of kind.

    Even if such an arrangement is sexualized, it cannot be fertile. And it cannot be presumed to have created a child.

    I hope that covers most of what you question intended to cover.

    –Chairm Ohn

  25. Delirious said,

    March 5, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Those in favor of same sex marriage can list all of the reasons they want for why they should be allowed to marry, but in my mind that isn’t why the hearing is being held. The Supreme court judges should focus on the legality of the vote. Was it, or was it not a legal and binding vote? I hope that they can separate the emotionality of the homosexuals from their task at hand. There are many things we don’t allow in our society because of their effect on society. Those who are prohibited could probably make similar emotional pleas to the courts, but it is really up to the people to decide what should or shouldn’t be allowed. I hope the judges will keep this in mind when hearing the arguments today.

  26. beetlebabee said,

    March 5, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Delirious, I totally agree that people have the right to self govern. If the people were taking away a human right, that would be cause for intervention. For instance, if the majority of people ever decide that religion should end at the chapel door and be barred from public discourse, then I would be appealing to the ninth circuit against the majority rule squashing freedom of religion.

    In this case though, the majority is not seeking to deprive anyone of any rights. Marriage is an institution like you said, not a right. If it were a right, all other groups would demand it.

  27. Nathan said,

    March 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    Procreation is NOT a requirement of marriage. Sorry. Never has been.

    Richard Ramirez killed 14 people and while on death row married a woman. Marriage is a right that can not be taken away (if you’re haterosexual) even if you are a serial killer but your right to vote can be. Marriage has been established by law to be a RIGHT. That is why heterosexuals like you amend state constitutions to take away gay people’s right to seek that right.

    Cut the “traditional” marriage bs. Its HATEROSEXUAL-ONLY marriage. Nothing more and nothing less that you want.

    This whole website was created to propogate hatred against gay people and to further inequality. I know the vast majority of heterosexuals believe they are better than gay people, want more rights than gay people and want a playing field that always benefits themselves. That’s the real reason why they voted to ban gay couples from marrying. Heterosexuals want a pedestal.

  28. beetlebabee said,

    March 24, 2009 at 8:07 am

    Nathan, calling names never gets you very far. If you want to talk issues, let’s talk issues, but good grief, leave the “hate” rants home.

  29. March 24, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    Nathan, marriage laws have nothing to do with a person’s sexual orientation. Everyone is allowed to get married regardless. No one is excluded. There are some rules that need to be followed though. You can’t marry your sister for example, or another person of the same sex, or a person who is underage.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: