Six states have legalized marriage for same gender couples. Many refer to this as “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” (SSM). But there are several problems with those terms. Calling it gender-segregated marriage (GSM) is more accurate and effective. Before we head into the 2012 election cycle, let’s rethink our terminology.
1. “Gay marriage” is misleading
Opposing gay marriage makes it sound as if we oppose gays. But that is a false assumption. We have friends, relatives, and neighbors dealing with same sex attraction. We’re not against them; we don’t oppose people. We oppose redefining marriage; we oppose bad policy.
2. Everyone can marry
Also, the term “gay marriage” implies that individuals with same sex attraction need their own type of marriage since they are excluded from traditional marriage. But they’re not. The truth is, they can already marry in all 50 states. There is no heterosexual question on the marriage license. There is simply a gender requirement. Everyone has a gender; everyone qualifies.
Just as there is no heterosexual litmus test for the marriage license, there is no homosexual question either, only gender. In six states, two men can marry each other for legal benefits even if they are straight. So why call it gay marriage?
3. “Same-sex marriage” is not the same sex
The term “same sex marriage” is also misleading. “Same sex” insinuates that what two guys do in their bedroom is identical to what a husband and wife do. But the sex is definitely not the same. It is different biologically, socially, and physically. Because it is so different, states that legalize GSM will need to revamp their sex education classes to ensure they teach public schoolchildren how unigender couples have sex. Otherwise they risk discrimination lawsuits.
4. “Straight marriage” or “different sex marriage”?
If we refer to two men as having a gay marriage, what do we call the other kind: straight marriage? As noted previously, that’s inaccurate since men with same-sex attraction can marry the opposite sex. So why call it straight marriage?
And what’s the counterpoint to same-sex marriage? Different-sex marriage? Sounds kinky.
5. The term gender-segregated marriage is scientific and accurate
Our sex is determined before birth, long before any orientation or attraction is developed. We are born male and female, and then we develop sexually and express our sexuality with our gendered bodies. This is not rocket science, people. However, it is science.
A crucial problem with GSM is the exclusion of the other gender. Calling it gender-segregated marriage takes the focus off homosexuality and highlights the gender issue. Instead of boxing in an individual’s sexual preferences, it bases marriage law on the biological sex of a person. Rather than stressing what the individual wants, it emphasizes who the person is.
Regardless of whether they have same-sex attraction or not, the problem with two men marrying each other is that any children they adopt will grow up lacking a mother. The core problem for this family is they purposely exclude women. Calling this gender segregation is clear and accurate.
6. Gender segregation is analogous to racial segregation
Another benefit to calling it gender-segregated marriage is that it puts gay rights advocates on the defense. What liberal wants to be known as an activist for gender segregation?
Gay rights activists frame their cause with the civil rights story to gain sympathy. They certainly don’t want to be on the side of segregation. “Separate but equal” didn’t work in schools; why do gay rights activists assume it will work in marriage? Next time they bring up Rosa Parks’ name, ask how much she’d like to get kicked off the bus not because she’s black but because she’s a woman. Think Rosa would prefer gender discrimination to racial discrimination?
7. Pro diversity
The term “gender-segregated marriage” is also beneficial since traditional or natural marriage could then be called gender-diverse marriage (or gender-integrated or gender-inclusive marriage.) Gender-segregated marriage denies the beauty, power, and importance of gender diversity. What self-respecting liberal activist wants to oppose gender diversity or gender integration?
8. Appeal to youth
Currently young Americans are trending in favor of homosexual rights. It is crucial for them to hear that so-called gay marriage is actually gender segregation. They need to know we are not discriminating against individuals with same-sex attraction. We are taking a stand against gender segregation in marriage. We need to state our case clearly so youth will want to join our team.
9. Kid-friendly
GSM solves the awkwardness of explaining what “gay” marriage is to youngsters. Little kids shouldn’t have to learn about homosexuality before they even know what sex is. Our job is to protect their innocence, not steal it from them.
The term gender-segregation is kid-friendly. Simply explain that segregation means separation and gender refers to male and female. Even preschoolers understand boys and girls.
10. Favored minority
People with same sex attraction are currently enjoying a favored status with liberals and the media. Taking a stand against “gay marriage” leads to discussions about homosexuality, which in turn can lead to getting investigated, bullied on Facebook, or fired. Precisely because they are a minority, people with same-sex attraction automatically get preferential treatment from many Americans. Folks naturally root for the underdog.
11. No minority
In contrast, referring to this phenomenon as gender-segregated marriage keeps the focus on gender, not the sexual attraction. It is scientific, objective, quantifiable.
Plus, everyone has a gender—there is no minority, no underdog. We are on equal footing. We can have intelligent conversations without name-calling: homophobic, gay, hate-filled, etc.
12. Lawsuits
As more and more gender-segregated couples sue gender-diverse couples for discrimination, this new terminology will be in the defendants’ favor. What jury wants to go on record for convicting a gender-integrated couple for taking a stand against gender segregation in marriage?
Born that way
We are born male and female. When two men “marry,” it is a gender-segregated marriage and when a man and woman marry, it’s diversity. The more we use the term gender-segregated marriage the more we can debate this topic clearly and accurately. If we start now, we have plenty of time to incorporate this terminology into the American lexicon. Folks need to understand the ramifications of this issue before they vote in the 2012 elections.
In conversation and online comments, use accurate terms. The next time someone asks your opinion about gay marriage, ask him how he feels about gender-segregated marriage.
Hoo boy... one hardly knows where to begin. I mean, the argumentation here is just so poor.
ReplyDeleteOne could find an easy analogy to point this out in, say, the case of miscegenation legislation now known to be unconstitutional. You see, allowing a white person to marry a black person DID NOT then prevent other white people from marrying white people, or other black people from marrying black people. Your position vis-à-vis gender, when applied to race, would argue that a marriage within one's own racial group is inherently inferior to a mixed-race marriage, since it would be a racially-segregated marriage.
You're missing the big point here by conflating the general with the specific (that is, mixing up marriage policy with specific marriages): marriage implies, even demands, segregation. That is, a marriage segregates that couple apart from everybody else. It is a unique relationship that neither partner shares with anyone outside the marriage.
Ultimately, your position is self-contradictory, and does more to discredit those on your side of the debate than to help them seem like rational folks instead of bigots.
Hellfire....whatever happened to just good old-fashioned "marriage" as a word? In the UK we call this political correctness, the bane of life and of all society. Redefining marriage just to suit a tiny minority of the world's population, so that their poor little feelings aren't hurt.
ReplyDeleteMixed race marriages between male and female are biologically natural, simply because it's male/female. But gays.....that's a different thing entirely. They can't "marry" biologically for obvious reasons. But the institution of marriage was ordained by God for men and women as a couple. Any physical pairing of same sex is sodomy, which is not only unnatural but pretty offensive too.
Now politicians want to fiddle with the wording so that "marriage" can come to mean anything. And here are people, calmly sitting back and not batting an eyelid. You fools. You poor fools.
I and millions of others object to the notion of gay marriage becoming "equal" to that of man and woman who have taken their vows before God. Any other arrangement is the Law of Man, not of God. Gays will never be truly married, it is impossible spiritually as well as biologically.
Anonymous March 9: CORRECT !!! One thing,-- throw away the term "same sex" What everybody who uses that term is referring to is "same-GENDER". The dictionary is smarter than a lot of people:--"gender...1. in grammar, the classification by which words are grouped as masculine, feminine, or neuter..." "same-sex" is what happens between a husband and wife, - i.e same sex partner for life !! comprene vous ??
Delete---Brer Bear
What the hell are you babbling about?
ReplyDeleteIt's just two dudes who want to marry each other. No need to campaign against it.
It's not just about two dudes. It impacts what children will be taught in school. It impacts our laws. A Catholic couple who supports pro-gender marriage has been sued for not celebrating a gender-segregated marriage at their inn. Other people have lost jobs over this issue. It is much bigger than just homosexuality. It is about gender and regardless of our sexual orientation, we all have genders.
DeleteTo Apr.9 anonymous:--"Babbling" huh ?? So WHO is your "god" (small g) ??
DeleteI suppose you would use the term "dude" to refer to a young lady who marries !!?? Your view of marriage is clearly very distorted !!
Anonymous wrote: A Catholic couple who supports pro-gender marriage has been sued for not celebrating a gender-segregated marriage at their inn.
DeletePropaganda alert ... Catholics are not in peril of being forced to violate their own beliefs or consciences. Nobody is at risk of being "forced" to celebrate anything! The reality of this example is that those who choose to operate places of public accommodation are subject to laws and regulations that are rightfully not trumped by whatever that business owner's religious beliefs might be.
Anonymous wrote: Other people have lost jobs over this issue.
Another distortion: people have lost jobs by refusing to do their jobs. In some cases, these individuals violated oaths they had taken prior to accepting the jobs they lost. Its no different than if an Orthodox Jew took a job at Red Lobster then refused to prepare or serve any of the shellfish!
Part 3 incorrectly interprets the use of the word "sex" in the context of same sex marriage. It is not referring to intercourse. Sex is a synonym for gender.
ReplyDeleteLike the rest of this article, it seeks to confuse and distort the conversation about same-sex marriage. It attempts to legitimize hatred and discrimination. Marriage is not a strictly religious phenomenon: it is also the domain of the state. In fact, public recognition of a marriage provides special benefits such as joint filing and healthcare coverage for the spouses of veterans.
This is why anti-gay marriage activists are discriminatory, because they seek to deny some Americans the rights afforded to others. I might remind all who would argue this point of the unambiguous language in the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Do you see anything in that making an exception for sexual orientation? Or race? Or gender for that matter? "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
The Constitution guarantees protection for all citizens. You can try and twist the words of the Bible to your purposes, but the Bible isn't the law of the United States.
You are correct about Part 3. They are referring to gender. So why not call it "same-gender marriage" to be clear?
DeleteThe point is "sex" has two meanings; it can refer to sexual intercourse or to gender. Thus it can lead to a double entendre. "Same sex" can be considered same sexual intercourse. But it isn't the same when it's between two men. Advocates of SSM could call it same-gender marriage but they choose not to. Why not? They choose the double entendre meaning; they are trying to blur the distinctions between sexual intercourse and what 2 men do.... they belittle the differences between men and women.
All citizens already have the right to marry in all 50 states. There is no discrimination against people with same-sex attraction. They have an equal right to marriage.
And what does this article have to do with the Bible? Why are you bringing that up?
-----------------------------------------------------------
DeleteOne final note. The above post should not be seen as a critique of religion at large, nor should it be construed as insulting or derogatory. However, it is an indictment of politically motivated religious interests that seek to spread their particular religious beliefs through fear and discrimination.
I look forward to the above poster's calm, intelligent response.
Reply #1 of June 26 -- correct . But again, you used the obsessive term "same-sex" attraction. Stick to what you're saying- e.g. the term "same-gender" attraction.
DeleteReply #2-June 26-- "final note" ?-- No. 1. "religion" isd man-made. Biblical belief is God-made. He created the genders. 2.The "above post" you referred to is not insulting, or derogatory, or fearful. It simply is fact. Those who call any debate those things are people who for some reason want to deny the truth.
For some reason, my two posts arrived out of order. Oops! The longer one should be read first.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your civil, rational response.
DeleteThis line of speculation is somewhat irrelevant. It is widely known that "sex" in this case refers to gender, and it would be false to assume that advocates of same sex marriage have any other purpose in mind, or that any member of the public is confused by this. This point, and the entirety of this article, are motivated by a desire to misdirect and obscure the debate regarding same sex marriage.
----------------------------------------------------------
"All citizens already have the right to marry in all 50 states. There is no discrimination against people with same-sex attraction. They have an equal right to marriage."
This quote obfuscates and confuses the whole issue at stake here, and I should have addressed this part of the argument in my first post.
The issue, as you and I both know, is that LGBT people in the United States wish to marry *each other.* They are denied this right by various governments without basis or cause, except ultimately that the Bible prohibits gay marriage (it similarly prohibits the consumption of shell fish.) This page attempts to mire that fact in convoluted logic and wishful thinking.
DeleteBy not allowing these people to have the relationships they desire, the federal and state governments in question are discriminating against the rights of same sex couples. Since there is no legal reason or precedent to deny same sex couples the right to marry, this is prohibited under the Constitution of the United States.
It is offensive to suggest that LGBT citizens are not denied the right to marry because they may engage in heterosexual matrimony. They do not wish to be involved in heterosexual marriage. They want to be married to their loving, committed partners, who happen to be of the same gender. *This* is the discrimination, and this article does not sufficiently address that grievance.
Alright, the Bible. You are correct to point out that this article, on the surface, has little to do with religion or the Bible. The final sentence of my first post was a bit out of place, and probably required more context than I gave it, so I will do that here.
DeleteThe case against same sex marriage is, ultimately, a religious one. There is only cursory evidence supporting the argument that same sex couples are harmful to the children they raise. In the vast majority of objective, scientific studies, analysts find that it is the love and care of a parent, not their gender, that makes a difference in the life of a child.
The apparent "debate" on this issue is politically motivated and charged with inbred intolerance and fear that has developed in western civilization. This phenomenon is not a natural creation, but one fueled by radically conservative religious furor. It is no coincidence that Catholic political groups are some of the most vehement actors in the fight against gay marriage. Fringe groups, such as the Westboro Baptist church, also use Christian rhetoric to ground their claims. Even ostensibly secular groups, such as the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are funded in part by the Mormon and Catholic churches. Websites such as True Tolerance, the site from which I linked to this page, often couch their platforms in religious language. The person who wrote the second comment on this very page used religion to justify his/her view.
DeleteThis is why I bring up the Bible. Opponents of same sex marriage inevitably fall back on their faith to explain their reasoning, after science has failed. This is the ultimate argument at the core of the issue, and it does not play well in much of America: as a result, it is often obscured by clever rhetoric as can be found on this page. By changing the discussion and attempting to manipulate the truth, powerful conservative interests seek to twist the conversation on same sex marriage and avoid their real qualms, which are rooted in an ancient, allegorical religious text that they take literally.
One final note. The above post should not be seen as a critique of religion at large, nor should it be construed as insulting or derogatory. However, it is an indictment of politically motivated religious interests that seek to spread their particular religious beliefs through fear and discrimination.
DeleteI look forward to the above poster's calm, intelligent response.
@Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your respectful and intelligent comments.
You bring up an interesting point about marriage when you say that LGBT people want to marry each other. They can, if they choose to. There is no hetero nor homo requirement.
There IS a gender requirement. That is the underlying issue of SSM. I consider SSM anti-gender. It basically says men and women are interchangeable when it comes to marriage, sex, motherhood, and fatherhood. I disagree. I believe gender is not only important, it is vital. And science and nature back this up.
The debate (and the name-calling!) has focused too much on homosexuality. We need to also discuss gender. Gender is the more fundamental issue. Do you believe gender is important or not? Is gender-integration important in society? In marriage? Are children better off without gender-diverse parents, or not?
I would like to thank you too, Fran, for your input. It is only through intelligent, respectful dialogue that real progress can be made on an issue like this.
Delete------------------------------------------------------------------
"You bring up an interesting point about marriage when you say that LGBT people want to marry each other. They can, if they choose to. There is no hetero nor homo requirement. "
Again, as with the original poster and others who have written this point, there is a fundamental misunderstanding inherent in this argument that must be addressed. You, and several of the above posters, are arguing that gay men could marry lesbian women and that this somehow means that they have entirely equal rights.
As I said before, this is parsing, and is a misdirection from the real substance of the debate. Gay men (who wish to be married) want to marry other gay men. Lesbians wish to marry lesbians. Many states, and the federal government, discriminate against these people by mandating marriage as being between a man and a woman.
DeleteBut same sex marriage does not discriminate against straight couples. It is not "anti-gender." It is broadly construed by some alarmist quarters of the conservative movement as a threat to traditional gender roles, but this is disingenuous and not rooted in fact.
Furthermore, as I stated earlier, I question your underlying assumption that gender is assigned such importance in scientific studies related to families. As I said before, conservative groups such as NOM often cite outdated or poorly conducted research. They deliberately misinterpret news articles, peer-reviewed scientific documents and public opinion polling to create the results they wish to see.
This is counter to the scientific method. As we all learned in high school science classes, actual researchers do not seek to support a specific hypothesis at the outset of their studies. Instead, they objectively gather the information and then analyze it to determine a pattern empirically.
When you discount non-empirical research, evidence that the gender of the parent affects the growth of a child is very weak. Essentially, a child with two mothers (or two fathers) is not at disadvantage per se when compared to a child with a mother and a father. Other factors, such as the stability of a home or the instances of physical abuse are better indicators for the success of a child, and there is little research to support that children from same sex households are at more risk for these factors.
I contest your assertion that gender is the more fundamental issue. It simply isn't proven in the research. If anything, it has been more or less discredited by the consensus opinion in the scientific community. The debate on same sex marriage *is* a debate about homosexuality, and as I stated before, this is primarily driven by the religious right. This side note about gender is a smoke screen cleverly developed to mask the religious overtones of the debate and make it more palatable to average Americans.
In sum, it perhaps apt to say that the ideas prescribed in the original post are a solution without a problem. There is no gender conflict in the same sex marriage debate. There is, however, a social and religious conflict and the debate should be represented as such.
DeleteThanks for your patience.
ReplyDeleteSSM is definitely about gender. Which comes first--your biological gender, or your sexual orientation? When a baby is born, the doctor doesn't say, "It's gay!" or "It's straight!" Rather the doc says "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!"
Gender comes first and is foundational. For most people it leads naturally toward a sexual orientation toward the complementary gender. In addition, gender is immutable, whereas sexual desires and orientations are more fluid. Therefore doesn't it make sense to base our laws on reality (a person's gender) rather than on wishes (who I am attracted to)?
Here in Vermont we have the challenging case of Lisa Miller who "married" Janet Jenkins, had a child via sperm donation, then decided to leave Janet, leave the homosexual lifestyle, became a Christian, and now the state of Vermont is telling her she needs to give her child to Jenkins. Rather than do so, she fled the country. Surely this is not what is best for any of the 3 parties, least of all to Lisa's young child.
As this example shows, it is much easier to change your orientation than your gender.
People with and without same-sex attraction are equal in worth and should be treated with respect and dignity. But telling folks that 2 men are the social, sexual, biological equivalent of a man and a woman in marriage is a lie. People with same-sex attraction not only deserve our love, they deserve the truth.
I hesitate to respond to this post, because your argument is beginning to veer from the generalized, objective truth into more specific, subjective opinions. It is your opinion that gender is immutable, that sexual desires and orientations are fluid. Objective science does not back your claims, and provides a more nuanced view of the issue. In many states, Transgender people are considered by law to be the gender that they have chosen, rather than the one they were born into, and it is only your opinion that would have it otherwise. I'm afraid to say that you are repeating arguments that I have refuted earlier without introducing new and different complications. You are simply rephrasing the talking points I have already disproved.
DeleteMoreover, you subtly imply that a person's sexual orientation is somehow less of a reality than their gender. Why do you assume this? On what basis can you prove this? How do you define reality?
Part of the difficulty in your position is that ultimately, you are claiming that certain social values that you hold are true and natural and that different social values held by others are untrue. This is simply false. Anthropologists, sociologists, historians and other experts will tell you that all cultures and worldviews are equal and must be treated as such. There is nothing inherent about your worldview that makes it better or worse than those of LGBT Americans. The only way to compare opinions is by objective, scientific research and analysis. Science will not prove your opinions to be more correct.
This is what I meant in my first paragraph with regards to objective truth vs subjective opinions. You are stating your opinions, not truth. As you said, law should be based on reality rather than wishes, truth rather than opinions. By representing your opinions as fact, you are not staying faithful to your own stated principles.
------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, your current line of reasoning does not provide a reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry people of the same gender. What is your justification?
With all due respect, Fran, please allow me to point out a few of the shortcomings of your thesis.
DeleteFran wrote: When a baby is born, the doctor doesn't say, "It's gay!" or "It's straight!" Rather the doc says "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!"
A person's sex manifests outwardly in a visibly identifiable way. One's sexual orientation does not. This does not make it any less "real".
Fran wrote: Gender comes first and is foundational.
In point of fact, the brain is the first organ to appear during fetal development. It takes about 11 weeks of gestation before a doctor can tell whether the child is a girl or a boy. Among the things that come before *gender*: brain, heart, lungs, hands and feet, brainwave activity, facial expressions, thumb sucking ... so many aspects to our humanity that come before our sexual anatomy.
And not to split hairs, but gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. (according to the world health organization). I think you mean "sex" when you write "gender".
Also noteworthy: the doc ALSO doesn't announce "its a Catholic", or "its a Muslim", or "its a Jew", or "its an Atheist". These, too, are foundational characteristics with no outward manifestation at birth.
Fran wrote: For most people it leads naturally toward a sexual orientation toward the complementary gender.
And it is the exact same natural process that those with same-sex orientation toward a member of the same sex.
Fran wrote: In addition, gender is immutable, whereas sexual desires and orientations are more fluid.
Certainly you have heard of Chaz Bono? Or Dr. Rene Richards?
Fran wrote: Therefore doesn't it make sense to base our laws on reality (a person's gender) rather than on wishes (who I am attracted to)?
Sexual orientation does not equal "wishes".
Fran wrote: it is much easier to change your orientation than your gender
You make the mistake of assuming that somebody who has changed their behavior has changed their orientation.
The number of gender reassignment procedures conducted in the United States each year is estimated at between 100 and 500. The number worldwide is estimated to be two to five times larger.
In contrast, best evidence is that efforts to change one's sexual orientation are ineffective, and do more psychological harm than good.
Fran wrote: telling folks that 2 men are the social, sexual, biological equivalent of a man and a woman in marriage is a lie
You do understand that two things need not be identical in order to be treated equally, correct? A rose is not identical to a daisy, but they are both flowers - both equally at place in gardens or bouquets. Telling children that the rose alone belongs in the garden is the lie you try to perpetuate.
Telling kids that a mutually supportive, loving, and beneficial relationship has dignity and merits our respect is a wholly American value. Teaching kids that people who are different from ourselves are equally deserving of rights and status is a wholly american value.
Search Cz, thank you for taking the time to comment and keeping your remarks civil. Although we disagree about the importance of gender-integration in marriage and for children, I appreciate the respect you show in this debate.
DeleteCorrection: Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins did not marry. Back when they connected, Vermont did not yet offer same-gender marriage. Rather they committed to each other in a Civil Union. This further complicated the legal parentage of the child. Since Jenkins wasn't married to Miller and never adopted Miller's daughter, and is not the biological mom (or dad!), on what grounds did the state of Vermont determine that Jenkins was the child's mother?
ReplyDeleteSorry, my bad.
Here are some of the anti-gender consequences of legalizing same-gender marriage:
ReplyDeleteExcluding the complementary gender from marriage sends a message to children and society at large that gender segregation and discrimination is a social good; is that the message we truly want to pass on to our children?
States that have passed same-sex marriage end up changing their gov't forms and wording. They change beautiful words such as "bride and groom" and "mother and father" into the colorless and gender-neutral terms: Spouse A and Spouse B and Parent A and Parent B.
What's next? Will gender-specific restrooms be banned? Will we outlaw Mother's Day because it offends children who have 2 dads and no mom?
Instead of belittling gender differences, our culture will thrive more if we accept and love our masculinity and femininity.
Fran- June 28, 5:28am:--
DeleteFrom anonymous June 27, 1:43pm--"Moreover, you that a person's sexual orientation is somehow less of a reality than their gender. Why do you assume this?" "subtly imply"-?? HARDLY ! It is a fact. "sexual orientation"-(so-called) is a delusion NO doctor ever said "It's a lesbian" !! No matter what goes on in his head, a man is a MAN - and he has convincing evidence !! Any sort of infatuation (or imagined reality) has any bearing on gender.
100% Fran !! --B
"Moreover, you (..) that a person's sexual orientation is somehow less of a reality than their gender. Why do you assume this?" (..)-- For some reason, the words "subtly imply" got missed in the above quote, in my previous reply.
Delete--B
Oh my !! Mistake !-- " Any sort of infatuation (or imagined reality) has (any) bearing on gender."--My last sentence,(11:26am)- I meant to put no bearing.. (I'll go for a walk !!)-B
Delete"What's next? Will gender-specific restrooms be banned?"
Delete--In fact, it has now been banned in Canada (Bill C-33) If a man "feels" that '..inside he really is female..' he may enter a ladies rest-room !!! So goes the extreme fallacies concerning gender or the so-called "orientation"- a word that generally applies to a person getting acquainted with the duties of a new job !! (gay used to be a good word ! Now a person has to be careful to say "happy" instead !!)
Fran wrote: Excluding the complementary gender from marriage sends a message to children and society at large that gender segregation and discrimination is a social good; is that the message we truly want to pass on to our children?
DeleteNo Fran. It send the message that freedom, choice, and equality are social goods. It sends the message that human dignity is not predicated on conformance to some social norm. It reinforces the American expectation that we can and should live peacefully in the community of others who may be different from ourselves.
Also, it is quite Orwellian of you to mis-label marriage equality as "excluding" anyone from marriage !
Now we have come to the fundamental mistake in your line of argument.
ReplyDelete"What's next? Will gender-specific restrooms be banned? Will we outlaw Mother's Day because it offends children who have 2 dads and no mom?"
You are, quite simply, wrong. Your argument about the wording is opinionated and presents your personal beliefs rather than legal or scientific norms. What exactly is the practical effect of changing the wording of a government form? There is none, of course.
There is also no reason to suggest that gender-specific bathrooms or mothers day would be affected. This is wild speculation and would be dismissed in a court of law or a scientific analysis as such. There is simply no evidence for this.
"Gender discrimination" is a false creation of the anti-gay movement. Same sex marriage advocates don't want or advocate it. In fact, it's a bit egocentric to believe that same sex marriage has anything to do with straight couples or what you construe to be gender roles.
LGBT advocates of same sex marriage want to marry people of the same gender. They don't want to prevent you from marrying someone of a different gender. They don't want to change societal norms or gender roles. All they want is to *marry people of the same gender.* There are no hidden or harmful effects of this. There is not a secret agenda behind it. I'm not sure how else to phrase this, since we've pretty much distilled this argument down to it's basic tenants.
By using words like gender segregation, you are creating an argument where there is none. You are noting a problem that does not exist, and your solution discriminates against the LGBT community. You are connecting causes with unrelated and speculative effects. This is an irrational, fear-based response promoted by the religious right to shroud their real objections to same sex marriage.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The final and perhaps most important point of my argument is that *none of your claims provide a legal basis for denying same sex couples the right to marry.* Even if your values were widely accepted by a majority of Americans this would *not* constitute a legitimate basis to discriminate against the rights of any American citizen. The civil rights movement, and specifically the interracial marriage laws that were overturned officially in 1967 by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virgina, prove this. Southern states, although they held that their cultural values prohibited interracial marriage, were not allowed to continue outlawing the practice because to do so would violate the 14th Amendment. It is only a matter of time before a similar case reaches the Supreme Court with regards to same sex marriage, at which point they will likely find the same to be true.
Changing words on gov't forms proves that in the push to redefine marriage, other things get redefined as well. As noted, bride and groom become spouse A and B. This is the slow death of gender. (Witness the "abolition of gender" movement). Instead of celebrating gender differences ("vive la difference" as the French would say) same-gender marriage belittles gender.
DeleteYou say SSM advocates don't want or advocate gender discrimination. But isn't that precisely what they do in their most important relationship? Doesn't the union of 2 men intentionally exclude the complementary gender, female? Do you not see any difference between 2 men and the gender-integrated union of a man and a woman?
"Changing words on gov't forms proves that in the push to redefine marriage, other things get redefined as well. As noted, bride and groom become spouse A and B."
DeleteYou haven't actually noted a concrete way in which this will affect you (or anyone else) yet. Does this prevent you from marrying someone of the opposite gender? Of course not. Spouse A and Spouse B are technically correct terms that could apply either to a gay couple or a straight couple, and since they equally apply in both instances, they are not discriminatory.
"You say SSM advocates don't want or advocate gender discrimination. But isn't that precisely what they do in their most important relationship?"
In fact, no. Again, you are incorrect here. You can still choose to marry a man (I'm assuming you are a woman based on your name and I apologize if you are not) if you so please. In order for this to be "gender discrimination" it would actually have to prevent you from marrying who *you* choose to marry (or doing anything else, for that matter) based solely on your gender.
If women had to sit at the back of the bus simply because they were women, that would be gender discrimination. If men were not allowed into certain buildings based solely on their gender, that would be gender discrimination. Moreover, if men were required to marry men based solely on a gender requirement, *that* would be gender discrimination. But every reasonable person knows that is not the case.
-----------------------------------------------------------
DeleteIn order to actually refute my argument, you're going to have to define gender discrimination, and then prove that same sex marriage qualifies as such. Although you have been trying to relate the two, you have yet to do either step adequately, so I'm going to try my hand at it.
----------------------------------------------------------
Gender:
1. sex
2. the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
(Merriam-Webster Medical definition of gender, http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/gender)
This definition is from a trusted, non-political and relatively unbiased source, the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Note that gender is defined as behavioral, cultural or psychological. This runs counter to your argument that gender is inherent or natural. Note also that it is defined using the medically correct term "sex", which you and the original poster seem so averse to using.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discrimination:
"Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on his or her membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category."
(Wikipedia - Discrimination, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination)
This one is a bit simpler, since it's from Wikipedia. There are wordier definitions that you could find from other sources, but this one is concise and accessible so I will choose to use it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
DeleteIn order for there to be "gender discrimination" under these definitions, an individual would have to treated with prejudice based on the behavioral, psychological or cultural they associate with their personal sex.
In other words, an individual needs to be denied a right, service or dignity based on their sex in order for there to be gender discrimination. So again, I ask, how does granting two lesbians the right to marriage deny you any right, service or dignity? How does their choice impede some other woman from marrying a man?
In fact, the government is discriminating against same sex couples by denying them *their* right to marry.
Sexual orientation is defined as such:
"The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses."
(The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sexual+Orientation)
Thus, the LGBT community is a group of people, or perhaps a category of people defined as having a "...sexual interest toward members of the same... sex."
Whatever your stated motivations are, the practical effect of preventing them from marrying other people of a similar sexual orientation is that you are assigning prejudicial treatment to them based on their membership in the LGBT category. Under the definition of discrimination I noted earlier, *this is discrimination and it is illegal under the 14th amendment.* You have not responded to this most important criticism. If gender discrimination does not exist (and you have yet to prove that it does), and if it is discriminatory to prevent LGBT people from marrying based on their sexual orientation, where is your legal basis for denying same sex couples the right to marry?
Where is your legal basis for denying children the right to live in a gender-integrated household with both a mother and a father?
DeleteI'm sorry, you didn't answer my question. Your question doesn't undermine the validity of mine, either, so it doesn't help to disprove it. Can you find a legal basis for your claims? I would infer that you cannot.
DeleteBefore I answer your question, I would need you to define the terms involved, and then prove to me that discrimination actually occurs.
The legal basis to deny same gender couples a marriage license is that they don't qualify. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
DeleteAs for the terms involved in my question...a gender-integrated household with a mother and a father is a family that includes both genders: male and female. As opposed to a gender-exclusive couple where one of the complementary genders is excluded. I hope this makes the distinctions more clear.
btw, thank you for discussing this. Interesting.
Fran wrote: Where is your legal basis for denying children the right to live in a gender-integrated household with both a mother and a father?
DeleteCome on Fran, straight folks have been and will continue to be the primary force responsible for children being raised in a household without both mother and father present! Y'all have ben at it for generations in fact, producing offspring you have no intention of raising, or having kids in an attempt to "save" a marriage that will shortly thereafter end in divorce.
By contrast, same-sex couples who are raising children together typically have gone to great lengths either to produce or to secure custody of the child(ren) they are raising. And as such, studies indicate that the children in these households to as well or better than their counterparts in "traditional" households.
If you were rallying against divorce, or against unplanned pregnancies, your concern over children's rights might be believable. But as it stands, your rhetoric has no legs.
You might be interested in this article that discusses studies about children raised in same-sex families.
Deletehttp://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_loss_that_may_not_speak_its_name
You're right, the children of unwed mothers face many barriers and are more at-risk for many problems. Do you think our welfare system enables that?
As for rallying against divorce and unplanned pregnancies, although those are important issues, that is not the focus of this blog. I believe divorce is over used and is harmful to children, but sometimes it is the best option: I know instances where it is safer for the children for the parents to divorce.
Yes, many pregnancies are unplanned, but children are not a disease. I encourage couples to wait to have sex until after marriage so children have a mother and a father. Hope this clears things up.
Fran,
DeleteI think some of the criticism of the APA studies of same-sex parenting are reasonable, and as with any study it is goor practice to look carefully at what was measured and how it was measured. Yet the overwhelming consensus among professional organizations dealing with child welfare is that gay parenting is non-problematic for kids.
As Gregory M Herek put it: If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.
As for the Regenerus study mentioned in the article you linked to, its main problem is that it is comparing families that stayed together with families that broke up - telling us nothing of value about comparative parenting results between homosexual vs heterosexual parents. It does, however, tell us something about the impact of instability in a household. And about the impact of marital infidelity, and of divorce.
And I agree that children are not a disease. I consider them a blessing, planned or otherwise. Irresponsible procreation, on the other hand, in which the *adults* in question are either unwilling or unable to handle the responsibilities of parenting, is another matter.
Important note: my same-sex marriage is not an impediment to any child knowing and being raised by their biological parents.
You did not define the terms that I think are at stake here. You need to concretely prove that there is actual, tangible discrimination going on in same sex marriage, and that this has a negative effect.
ReplyDelete"The legal basis to deny same gender couples a marriage license is that they don't qualify. Marriage is between one man and one woman."
This is wrong. A number of states do not recognize this definition and allow same sex marriages. Moreover, because of what I noted before, the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman could (and at some point in the near future, will be) construed as unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment.
Also, I should probably add that a Federal Court recently ruled that the provision of DOMA preventing same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits was unconstitutional, because it was discriminatory and thus not allowed under the 14th amendment.
DeleteWhy do I have to "subscribe" to post a comment ?? Subscribe to what ???? Anonymous Brer Bear
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to subscribe. You can post a comment under "Anonymous." I'm interested in what you have to say.
DeleteI came across this article via Google, because I recently followed a very similar line of thinking, and wanted to see whether anyone else had discussed similar ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe basic logic is pretty simple: Humanity is divided into male and female genders, with different biology etc. While heterosexual relationships bridge that divide and require the sexes to integrate, same-gender relationships reinforce the divide and allow the sexes to segregate.
The point made by Latter-day Guy about whether mixed-race marriages are inherently better than same-race marriages is a fair one. Obviously we don't need to ban same-race marriages! But maybe that's because race isn't really all that important. Skin color isn't part of who we are. Gender, on the other hand, is vitally important - and heterosexual and homosexual individuals alike recognize that. Both groups are attracted to a specific gender, and not the other one. Gender is central to this whole debate. The question of whether or not 'marriage' means a union of the genders is therefore also central.
According to dictionary.com, the word 'marriage' means "a close or intimate union, relationship, etc". A relationship that joins the two genders is not the same level of unity as one that joins only two individuals. It is appropriate to give them two different names.
On a side note, if it is true that homosexual individuals are hardwired to be attracted only to their own gender, then that would mean that humanity is divided into three incompatible groups - heterosexuals, gay men, and lesbian women - with no intermarriage possible. According to this theory, either your genes are heterosexual, so you're compatible only with heterosexual partners, or you're a gay man, so you're compatible only with other gay men, or you're a lesbian woman, so you're compatible only with other lesbian women.
Is that really how same-gender marriage advocates view the human race? Do they really believe that our DNA demands a three-way segregation? What have I missed here?
Thrawn
Thrawn writes: "According to dictionary.com, the word 'marriage' means "a close or intimate union, relationship, etc". A relationship that joins the two genders is not the same level of unity as one that joins only two individuals."
DeleteYou are mistaken, Thrawn. The capability of forming a close or intimate union/relationship is not exclusive to opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples have the same potential for intimacy and close union, if not for the same range of sexual activity. But do you really mean to hinge your definition of marriage on a sexual activity, particularly one that takes place between married and unmarried alike?
Also, Thrawn, you should remember that marriage imposes no requirement that the couple to engage in this sexual activity, and that marriage is available to couples who have no chance of doing so. People do not become ineligible for marriage if they are unable to complete any particular variety of consummation. Dick and Jane, having no potential for coital consummation, may marry. Tom and Harry have the exact same potential in that regard, but they cannot marry? Doesn't make sense.
Thrawn writes: "On a side note, if it is true that homosexual individuals are hardwired to be attracted only to their own gender, then that would mean that humanity is divided into three incompatible groups. [...] Is that really how same-gender marriage advocates view the human race? Do they really believe that our DNA demands a three-way segregation? What have I missed here?"
Why would people need to be segregated from people who are different from themselves? I think diversity and respectful coexistence are more exemplary of the American ideal, and something more worth believing in.
And where do you get the notion that heterosexuals, gay men and lesbians are incompatible? We live in the same neighborhoods, work side by side, go to school and church and movies and everything else alongside one another. We've even been known to share the hospitality of our homes with one another. Surely you don't mean to suggest that people are only compatible with people that they might consider marrying, do you?
@SearchCz: I'm afraid you have misunderstood; perhaps the inclusion of the word 'intimate' was misleading. I was not at all referring to sexual activity. I was talking about the nature of marriage, as a relationship that brings together male and female, yin-yang style.
DeleteA same-gender relationship could be said to unite the two individuals involved. But an opposite-gender relationship brings together more than that; it includes the two biological halves of the human race, male and female. It bridges the gender divide, requiring Mars and Venus to work through their differences. Surely this is a different degree of union, and deserves to be recognised as something special.
Re DNA demanding segregation: I agree that peaceful co-existence is good. But if the law said, "Black and white people can live in the same community, work and socialise together, but they are forbidden to marry each other", then that would be segregation. Do you really believe that our DNA is imposing that kind of system on us? I don't.
I don't believe that humanity is meant to be divided up into groups that are genetically hardwired not to mix, only marrying within their own group. Humanity *is* divided into two groups, male and female, but I believe in a system that says, "In every marriage, the two genders must come back together and integrate. You have to mix. You have to learn to live and work with someone who is very different to you, mentally and emotionally and physically. And you need to learn to love them for who they are, and appreciate, even celebrate, your differences." That is what I believe marriage is meant to be. Anything less than that is...less. A union of two people, but not the same as the special relationship that we have labelled 'marriage'.
Thrawn