Without getting into a discussion of the merits of the underlying case, let me say that Jason is technically correct if the NY court said what he says it said in the above quoted passage.

If you read J.Scalia's dissent in Lawrence you'll note that his big point, as it related to the EP analysis, was that people like Jason are off their rockers in believing the underlying policy of singling out straight persons for preferential treatment over homosexual persons is "illegitimate." You'll also note that he ends the opinion by saying "Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a 'fundamental right' (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to ***what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest,*** nor denies the equal protection of the laws." Even he concedes that it is within the judicial power to determine the legitimacy - under the Constitution - of the underlying policy.

In sum, the underlying policy the government seeks to implement through the challenged legislation must be legitimate. (If it's not, the bar is higher.) On the other hand, under the rational basis test, any *discrimination* caused by laws implementing a legitimate policy need only have a rational relationship to the policy. It's here, on this second leg, that legislators get the bulk of the deference.

The bar is higher where the policies being pursued aren't legitimate - i.e. the disparate treatment of black and white persons - specifically *because* the Constitution doesn’t consider them legitimate ends. The court would be well within its power if it were to decide that a duly enacted law pursuing a policy of discriminating against black persons is illegitimate because our Constitution says so, so that the law is presumed invalid no matter how rational the relationship between the law and the underlying policy. Said another way, these laws require a "compelling interest" *because* the court has determined that they are presumptively illegitimate under the Constitution "we" agreed to.

Jason's point is very controversial, but it seems to be that the court should have concluded that discriminating between gay persons and straight persons is presumptively illegitimate, in the same way that discriminating on the basis of race is. J.Scalia would disagree, but not on the basis that it's not the court's role to make that decision. To the contrary, he's made it clear that the court *should* make the opposite determination.

I think you're reading too much into Scalia's opinion (which was also a dissent, and that's worth noting). Take a look at Justice Thomas' dissent in the same case. There he opines that he finds sodomy laws to be poor policy and illegitimate, but that they are nevertheless rational. Why would you look to a Scalia dissent to determine the rational basis test?

I'd urge you to look to Romer v. Evans (US 1996) which clearly and unequivocally stated that deference to the legislature must occur even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group. "Courts are
compelled under a rational basis review to accept a legislature's generalizations even
when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends." Heller v. Doe (US 1993). There is certainly an imperfect fit between means and ends with many of these laws, but the deference afforded to legislatures requires that courts accept this imperfect fit.

Jason's point is very controversial, but it seems to be that the court should have concluded that discriminating between gay persons and straight persons is presumptively illegitimate, in the same way that discriminating on the basis of race is.

Not quite. My main point was that the plurality opinion should at least have addressed whether the aim of the law was legitimate. It did no such thing, instead arguing -- at each point it had the opportunity -- that the aim of the law was rational.

The rational basis test is usually worded to the effect that laws must be rationally related to a legitimate government aim. For most people, there may only be a hairsbreadth of difference between legitimacy and rationality, but consider that there are many, many rational beliefs and activities throughout the realm of human action, but not all of them are legitimate government aims.

For a minarchist libertarian, the set of legitimate government actions will be far smaller than for most other people, but I am sure that most readers here could easily find rational activities in which the government has no business. Providing health care, for instance, is a rational action; it relies on scientific knowledge and the consistent application of human intelligence to the problems of survival -- a rational action by any standard whatsoever. But is it a legitimate government aim? I cannot believe it. And I feel that the same is true of making sure that kids have a mother and a father: It's a rational belief to think that this is the best situation, but it is not a legitimate aim of government.

"And I feel that the same is true of making sure that kids have a mother and a father: It's a rational belief to think that this is the best situation, but it is not a legitimate aim of government."

Except have you evaluated the statistics on how children without fathers impact society? Take a look at this for a good collection of statistics on the societal impact of children growing up without a father.

According to the US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census, 63% of youth suicides occur in fatherless homes. The US Dept. of Health & Human Services notes that 71% of all pregnant teenagers come from homes without a father. 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger are children of fatherless homes. Criminal Justice & Behavior, V14, pp. 403-26 (1978). How is controlling these factors not a legitimate aim of government?

No matter how loving or committed, two men cannot provide a child with a mother - they don't have the biological capabilities. Nor can two women, no matter how loving or committed, provide a child with a father. On ABC’s "Common Sense: with John Stossel", David Blankenhorn commented, "The best mom in the world cannot be a father." The reverse is just as true.

[BTW - David Blankenhorn is the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a private, nonpartisan organization devoted to contributing intellectually to the renewal of marriage and family life and the sources of competence, character, and citizenship in the United States.]

It's not just about role models, either, although there are many men and women out there who have filled the gaps left in children's lives because of the loss of a parent through death. It's about what a marriage between a child's biological parents does for the child's well-being.

If you've ever dealt at all with family court, you understand the standard "best interests of the child." Clearly, the government has a legitimate interest in upholding the best interests of the child. The research I've included in this comment - which is hardly exhaustive - demonstrates that the best interests of the child are served by having the child grow up with both biological parents who are married to each other.

The Center for Law and Social Policy reported, "Most researchers now agree that…studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married biological parents..." [Mary Parke, "Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?" Center for Law and Social Policy Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1].

And then there are these quotes from the Alliance of Non-Custodial Parents Rights: "Fathers have much to offer their adolescent children in many areas, including their career development, moral development, and sex role identification." [Dudley, Family Relations, 1991]. "Fathers who spend time with their children teach them values." [Seltzer, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1991]. "Fathers and children who maintain close touch through visiting communicate regularly in other ways as well." [Seltzer, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1991].

There is no question but that mothers and fathers relate differently to children, and that both types of interaction are necessary for healthy child development. [Tulananda, O.T, Roopnarine, J.L.: "Mothers' and Fathers' Interaction With Preschoolers in the Home in Northern Thailand: relationships to teachers' assessments of children's social skills," Journal of Family Psychology 15, 4 (2002): 676-678; Kerig, P.K.; Cowan, P.A. "Marital quality and gender differences in parent-child interaction," Developmental Psychology 29,6 (1993): 931-939.]

I think your claim that the government has no legitimate interest in making sure that kids have a mother and a father is not based on any research or on any reasoned understanding of the subject.

When you sift through all of the politically-based, agenda-driven crap floating around and look back to what actually is in the best interests of children, arguments that the government has no legitimate interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage fall fairly quickly.

BTW, I forgot to say "good paper", Josh. As I read it, though, I wondered whether the same-sex marriage/adoption issue will actually bring the Supreme Court to a reason to overturn Roe v Wade - the "best interests of the child" should trump an individual's right to rid herself of a child...

But that's just me!! ;)

Can I just point out that the whole issue isn't about homosexual marriage? It's about same-gender marriage. The law allows homosexuals to marry right now (and they often do).

The law doesn't allow people of the same gender, irrespective of whether they're hetero- or homosexual, to marry.

greg

Kind of a non sequiter, though, isn't it? Why would anyone marry someone of the same gender if they weren't homosexual?

And if I'm not mistaken, homosexual marriage is legal only in Massachusetts - eleven states have passed amendments to their State constitutions banning same-sex/same-gender marriages.

As of "24 minutes ago" (according to MSNBC.com), "A California appeals court in San Francisco will hear on Monday arguments on whether the state constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, while appeals against decisions upholding same-sex marriage bans are pending in Washington and New Jersey."

According to the same article, there is a scheduled vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts next week.

"Kind of a non sequiter, though, isn't it? Why would anyone marry someone of the same gender if they weren't homosexual?"

Isn't the idea that we choose our own partners a relatively new idea, historically speaking? And loveless, sexless marriages are certainly not new. Same goes for marriages of convenience.

You can have any of those three marriages in the united states right now, and the government doesn't make a distinction between any of them and a marriage borne from genuine love, so long as the two parties have different sex organs. In other words, it's long been possible for homosexuals to choose to marry even though they weren't heterosexual; I would assume the opposite might also occur. In any case, most threads about same-gender marriage include one opponent or another making an argument about the abuse of such marriages for convenience sake, so I would say that the distinction is not at all a non-sequitur.

On a note unrelated to my previous post, why aren't we seeing large pushes to restrict (or outright ban) divorce hand-in-hand with the push to make sure gay marriage never becomes legal?

I know this is mildly off-topic, though lawyerchik did raise the issue of the importance of traditional nuclear roles (ie, a father and mother both present) in the development of children and therefore also as legitimate government interests. Isn't divorce more of a threat to childhood development and lends more toward the destruction of the traditional family? And if not, how is same-gender marriage more destructive?

Lawyerchik: How, strictly speaking, do you extrapolate the effects of same-gender parents from statistics on fatherless households? It's an opinion, nothing more. Adoption experts agree that what studies have been done since the early '80s find NO significant difference in the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples. Despite President Bush's statement to the contrary, there is NO scientific evidence to dispute this. None. And while all the studies concerning the relationships between parents and their children are no doubt worthwhile, the fact is that our society does not enforce this ideal at the point of a gun. Nor should it, for obvious reasons that go beyond the benefits the "ideal" may provide.

If a widow and her sister can raise children without interference from the state, then a lesbian mom and her partner have every conceivable right to do the same thing.

Also, you cite Mary Parke's policy paper for the CLASP. Please read her section on same-sex marriage, toward the end:

http://www.clasp.org/publications/Marriage_Brief3.pdf

You cite Developmental Psychology, published by the APA. Here is their stance on gay parenting:

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Correction: Parke's paper refers to same-sex couples, but does not comment on the marriage issue.

Lawyerchik --

First of all, your extrapolation is entirely unwarranted, as Grover points out above. Why would you even think to use studies on one-parent households? Simple answer: It gives you the result that you want. But when you look at studies on two-parent same-sex households, that answer disappears. The kids turn out just fine, so far as anyone can tell.

Now, one may still rationally disbelieve the findings of these studies, but at least let's agree that they exist, okay?

Second, I disagree that it is a legitimate purpose of government to prevent bad parenting. This task should fall to communities, to churches, and to families. But not to government.

Wasn't it conservatives who got all worked up when Hillary Clinton suggested that it took a village (which means a government...) to raise a child? But when it's a matter of the social policies that you prefer, I guess it takes a village -- and a government -- after all.

Why would anyone marry someone of the same gender if they weren't homosexual?

Probate. Medical coverage. Survivorship benefits. Tax advantages. Dozens of reasons.

greg

Is this your moot court / LARC III paper?

"…why aren't we seeing large pushes to restrict (or outright ban) divorce hand-in-hand with the push to make sure gay marriage never becomes legal?"

That’s a good question. I think there should be such a push, principally because the statistics are coming in that no-fault divorce is not the blissful utopia it was touted to be. You’ve hit it right on the head: it is as much, if not more, of a threat to childhood development and lends more toward the destruction of the traditional family.

The problem is that too many people are so focused on their own objectives that, when they have children, they forget that their job as parents is to do what is best for their children.

"Why would you even think to use studies on one-parent households?"

Because the "studies" on same-sex households appear (IMO) to be fundamentally flawed from the inception. Their purpose is not to study what actually happens, but to provide "proof" that same-sex households are as good as, if not better than, a biological mother and father raising their children. Take a look at these articles and get back to me:

Cameron P & Cameron K Homosexual parents. Adolescence 1996; 31:757-776.

Golombok S, Tasker F Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Developmental Psychol 1996; 32:3-11.

Gottlieb AR Sons talk about their gay fathers: life curves. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press, 2003.

Cameron P Homosexual parents: testing common sense. Psychol Rpts 1999; 85:282-322.

Cameron P, Cameron K Homosexual parents: a comparative forensic study of character and harms to children. Psychol Rpts 1998; 82:1155-1191.

Schwartz MF, Masters WH The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. Amer J Psychiatry 1984; 141:173-181.

Cameron P Molestations by homosexual foster parents: newspaper accounts vs. official records. Psychol Rpts 2003; 93:793-802.

Cameron P Newspaper accounts of foster-parent molestations: 1980-2003. Psychol Rpts, in press.

"I disagree that it is a legitimate purpose of government to prevent bad parenting. This task should fall to communities, to churches, and to families. But not to government."

First, it is government's purpose to protect the best interests of the child, whether you agree with it or not. Because divorcing parents have put their own wants and needs ahead of their children, the Courts have had to stand in locus parentis to ensure that the children's interests were protected.

Aside from that, however, take a look at David’s post from yesterday about how disconnected people are. That’s part of the overall problem – the concept that there is someone available to “prevent bad parenting� completely ignores the lack of stability in our society as a whole.

The objection to Clinton’s postulate that it takes a village to raise a child had nothing to do with preventing bad parenting; it had to do with parents abdicating their roles to the state and not having the right to teach their children what they believe their children ought to learn. The conservative objection to that whole agenda was against state indoctrination into a system of moral values that were at odds with the parents’ – totally different issues.

"Probate. Medical coverage. Survivorship benefits. Tax advantages. Dozens of reasons."

Which can be (and already are being) amply covered by contract – trust agreements come most readily to mind.

Which can be (and already are being) amply covered by contract – trust agreements come most readily to mind.

That's a relief. Sounds like we can do away with marriage altogether (same or different gender), since the full benefits of marriage can be fungibly obtained without having to actually get married.

What say you, lawyerchik1? Should the government get out of marriage altogether (and annull all existing state-recognized marriages)?

greg

"Sounds like we can do away with marriage altogether (same or different gender), since the full benefits of marriage can be fungibly obtained without having to actually get married."

For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to pretend that the observation was made as hyperbole, in no small part because of the threadjacking that would result from proper treatment of this issue here.

"Should the government get out of marriage altogether (and annull [sic] all existing state-recognized marriages)?"

No.

"Why would you even think to use studies on one-parent households?"

Because the "studies" on same-sex households appear (IMO) to be fundamentally flawed from the inception.

Let's see... Studies that draw conclusions by looking at no gay or lesbian families -- are fine. No fundamental flaws in methodology there!

But studies that look at some gay or lesbian families -- are fatally flawed.

Perhaps we should study apples, too, so we can learn about oranges?

As to your references, Paul Cameron is a fraud.

His methods include comparing longitudinal studies for heterosexuals with (I kid you not) obituary columns for homosexuals. He once used a data set on homosexual prison inmates to generalize about aberrant behavior in all homosexuals. Surprise, surprise... The prisoners turned out to be more criminal than the ordinary run of heterosexuals. He likewise classifies as "homosexual" any person who ever molested any child of the same sex, even if their overall sexual orientation was toward children, not toward adults of either gender.

Still other "studies" have no verifiable data to them at all; it seems he just made stuff up for those. Nothing he publishes can be trusted, and few of his publications were ever offered to peer-reviewed journals. They have gone instead to phony but official-sounding publications (like Psychological Reports) that will print anything that's sent to them -- for a fee, of course.

Here is an article about Cameron. And here are some excerpts:

The American Psychological Association quickly launched an investigation into Cameron's methodology after receiving complaints from some of its members. The association sent Cameron a letter in December 1983, saying it had decided to ''drop you from membership" because he had not cooperated with the investigation. (Asked if the association still has concerns about Cameron, a spokeswoman, Rhea Faberman, said: ''We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak.")

In 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement saying it ''formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron."

The American Sociological Association issued a resolution saying: ''Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

...Cameron's work is controversial even among conservative groups. For example, the Traditional Values Coalition claims to speak for 43,000 churches. For three years, the coalition has quoted Cameron's studies on its website in an article headlined, ''Report Shows Homosexual Foster Parents Apt To Molest Children," and has told its membership to ''read and distribute Dr. Cameron's report."

But when The Boston Globe asked the Traditional Values Coalition last week about Cameron, the group responded within minutes by removing all references to Cameron from its website. The group's spokeswoman, Daniella Lopez, said Cameron's research had been ''mistakenly" put on the website. She would not say why the group thought it was a mistake to publicize Cameron's research.

Methodological problems? Don't even get me started.

Lawyerchik: Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. There is no need to look at your new sources. Most of us have already seen them. Unfortunately, Paul Cameron's work has been thoroughly discredited and debunked on almost every point. No serious researcher will have any truck with his phony "statistics" and research methods. When you spoke of "politically-based, agenda-driven crap," I guess you weren't kidding.

"Because divorcing parents have put their own wants and needs ahead of their children, the Courts have had to stand in locus parentis to ensure that the children's interests were protected."

Talk about hyperbole. I suppose divorce courts do *nothing* to protect a parent's visitation rights. And clearly all people who divorce are being selfish--an alcoholic, abusive or otherwise disfunctional parent, without whom the children and custodial parent might be better off, never enters your equations.

"Which can be (and already are being) amply covered by contract--trust agreements come most readily to mind."

Jason can provide you with a provide you with a complete (and lengthy) list of benefits which cannot be conferred on gay couples short of a recognized, legal union. But to name a few:

Gay couples cannot apply for immigration status for a foreign-born partner.

Gay couples are not eligible for marriage tax breaks.

Gay couples are not automatically given visitation rights.

Gay couples only qualify for medical benefits at the whim of their employers.

A gay partner can be compelled to testify against his or her "spouse."

As your comments proceed, your veneer slips and reveals a studied hostility, bolstered by misinformation and condescending moralism. Your arguments are depressingly familiar. I for one have heard enough.

Lawyerchik1,

Could you clarify your position? In the first post you seemed to be asserting (correct me if I'm wrong) that the benefits of marriage were all available through mechanisms other than actual marriage -- hence the lack of need for two same-gendered persons to seek marriage in order to obtain marriage benefits.

Now you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to hold that marriage has benefits beyond those available via contract, civil union, etc. and that it would be a mistake to do away with (state-recognized) marriage because of the loss of those benefits.

These seem, to me, to be mutually incompatible viewpoints.

greg

Dr. Cameron's response to the critics is here, and I will leave it to him and his organization to address those claims.

This is a report - not from Dr. Cameron - of a studey that purportedly yielded the same results. Not sure how the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS from St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada, is also complicit in Dr. Cameron's work, but it must be if they reached the same results.

I'm sure that the Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology is similarly in cahoots by virture of its article by Cochran S. et al., titled "Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States." J Consult Clin Psychol 71:53-61 (2003).

And I can't imagine how the journal "Pediatrics" could have published the 2002 letter by SC Riggs, "Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents (Pediatrics. V 109: PP. 1193-4, 2002), unless they, too, were in on the conspiracy.

While I hesitate to bring up the work of George A. Rekers, Ph.D., since you will most certainly criticize him on the basis of his moral beliefs without evaluating his science, I'm also attaching a link to his 80-page report here, just for completeness.

Greg: "...the benefits of marriage were all available through mechanisms other than actual marriage -- hence the lack of need for two same-gendered persons to seek marriage in order to obtain marriage benefits. Now you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to hold that marriage has benefits beyond those available via contract, civil union, etc. and that it would be a mistake to do away with (state-recognized) marriage because of the loss of those benefits."

They are two separate issues because they are two separate questions posited by people pushing for gay marriage. On one hand, proponents claim that the benefits of marriage, like those suggested in your first paragraph, are all that matter.

On the other hand, when faced with the legal avenues already available to provide for those benefits, they claim that it's still not enough. I agree that they are mutually incompatible, but that's the problem of the activists - I just call them as I see them.

Grover: "As your comments proceed, your veneer slips and reveals a studied hostility, bolstered by misinformation and condescending moralism. Your arguments are depressingly familiar. I for one have heard enough."

Whatever happened to "loveable, furry old Grover"? Never mind. Back atcha, dude.

The real issue is one of morality - that's why there is such heated rhetoric on both sides. Like it or not, gay marriage violates deeply held beliefs and morals across the globe (not just in the U.S., although certain portions of the U.S. and Europe are a little more infected than others), because marriage is a legal relationship between two humans and a moral/spiritual relationship sanctioned by God.

If you don't believe in God and want to try to eradicate His will from life by baiting people on the "real" reason for their opposition, you kind of have to take your lumps.

I was trying to avoid this threadjack, in part because the issue has been adequately discussed elsewhere on ITA, but the short version is that the point and purpose of marriage is not only physical and legal but spiritual. Marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman - as they used to say - "'til death do us part." It's a joining of flesh and soul.

C.S. Lewis has been misquoted here on this subject before, but check the archives for the earlier discussion. Specifically, his book "The Four Loves" addresses the reality of the marriage relationship in a way that I can't do justice to here.

Follow up to Grover: "There is no need to look at your new sources."

Yes, of course. Why bring facts into the discussion? ;)

"because marriage is...a moral/spiritual relationship sanctioned by God."

You may be right. However, as an argument, it lost its value when clergy and laypersons used it as an argument against interracial marriage. No, I'm not trying to make the civil-rights analogy (which would take us far off-topic), but when you read Christian justifications for denying interracial marriage (or going farther back, defending slavery), you see that they maintain the same fervor and sincerity that we see now as against same-gender marriage. That being the case, I just don't see it as a worthwhile point to make.

"Yes, of course. Why bring facts into the discussion?"

No facts in Cameron's work. But it doesn't matter. I know you'll choose ignore the facts about Cameron himself.

"Whatever happened to 'loveable, furry old Grover'?"

I'm not a cartoon character.

"On the other hand, when faced with the legal avenues already available to provide for those benefits, they claim that it's still not enough."

You really don't read what other people write, do you?

"This is a report - not from Dr. Cameron - of a study that purportedly yielded the same results."

No. This is a study about the impact of HIV/AIDS on the life expectancy of its victims, between 1987 and 1992. It's part of a larger study measuring the impact of HIV/AIDS on the global population. Cameron proposed that gay men *in general* had a lower life expectancy. There's nothing comparable about the two studies or the conclusions they reach.

"I'm sure that the Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology is similarly in cahoots..."

No, this seems like honest research. But my sister-in-law suffers from mild bi-polar disorder. No one prevented her from marrying and having a child.

"And I can't imagine how the journal 'Pediatrics' could have published the 2002 letter by SC Riggs..."

Riggs wrote a letter disagreeing with a statement by the AAP. They responded. So?

Do you really read this stuff, or just grab at the headline because you think it supports your point?

As for the rest, I'm not interested in a religious discussion. As far as our government is concerned, marriage is a civil matter. The only marriages the government recognizes are those sanctioned by the government. The moral issues are important, but they are not based on your beliefs alone.

Something doesn't lose its value "as an argument" just because it has been misused - not with people of any degree of intellectual ability, anyway.

Further, the issue of interracial marriage as it was argued in the United States, read with the rest of Scripture, was a bad argument to begin with, much like the claim that homosexual "marriage" should be endorsed and supported by the government, society and whoever else.

Looking at the whole of Scripture, the point of the ban on interracial marriage in Scripture was that the Jewish people were not to intermarry with non-Jews for maintenance of the Abrahamic line because Messiah would be a direct descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David; for health reasons, particularly since there wasn't any precedent for food safety, etc.; for transfer of property in the land God promised to give to His people, etc.

God chose to set apart for Himself a chosen covenant people - the terms of the covenant were obedience based on faith in God's promises. However, even at that, if you look through the Scripture, particularly the book of Ruth (Old Testament), it wasn't so much a racial problem as a faith problem. The dangers with interracial marriage were spiritual, and when the Jews married outside their own ethnic group, the danger was spiritual corruption. [Cf. Samson, et al.]

Although those promises were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the spiritual danger is still there. Even though Peter's vision of the unclean animals in Acts chapter 10 made (IMO) a fairly clear statement about whether Jews should associate with non-Jews, Paul maintains 1) the standard that homosexual behavior is sinful, and 2) that even marriage between a man and a woman can present spiritual dangers that may warrant remaining unmarried. [Cf. I Corinthians].

Briefly on the issue of the Bible and homosexuality - that's been addressed in comments in the past on ITA, but it may be worthwhile to revisit the topic. If you read what the Bible has to say about sin of any type, the problem is not the thought/impulse (other than the mental giving in to such thoughts/impulses - i.e., dwelling on them), but in the actions.

Lust - whether it's homosexual or heterosexual - is sin. Period. Acting on sinful thoughts or impulses is sin. Period. Whether someone is or is not "born" homosexual or heterosexual or whatever is not the problem; the problem is behavior, and such behavior is sin whether one is an unmarried heterosexual who just hasn't found "the one," or a person who is attracted to someone of the same sex/gender.

You can claim that it's a circular argument that because homosexuals cannot marry, there is no legal outlet for their sexual urges and so the laws must be changed. The problem with that is that legalization of homosexual marriage/ union/whatever you want to call it is bad for society as a whole - just like heterosexual marriage is better for society as a whole.

No one said that either situation is "perfect." It is certainly better to be contentedly single than unhappily married. But this goes back to whether the pursuit of individual at the expense of others is really a Constitutional right, and I think we addressed that earlier here as well (not in this thread but in others).

BTW, from Susan D. Cochran's web page:

"By training, I'm both a psychologist and an epidemiologist. Reflecting that, my interests lie in understanding how psychological and social factors influence health. In particular, my work focuses on understanding the role of social stigma and discrimination in health care access, health behaviors, mental health, and health outcomes."

"The problem with that is that legalization of homosexual marriage/ union/whatever you want to call it is bad for society as a whole - just like heterosexual marriage is better for society as a whole."

You've said next to nothing to support this statement.

"Do you really read this stuff, or just grab at the headline because you think it supports your point?"

I actually do read things, but no matter what I say, it won't matter to you because we disagree on the ultimate conclusion.

"As for the rest, I'm not interested in a religious discussion. As far as our government is concerned, marriage is a civil matter. The only marriages the government recognizes are those sanctioned by the government. The moral issues are important, but they are not based on your beliefs alone."

Like it or not, government derives its authority from moral law - to the extent that government decides to abrogate moral law, it does so at its peril:

"Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." [Attributed to Alexis de Toqueville by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his final campaign address in Boston, Massachusetts, November 3, 1952. Unverified. Bartleby.com].

I know this, too, will be something to just brush aside as just another bit of conservative rhetoric, but it has value and meaning because it is true.

""By training, I'm both a psychologist and an epidemiologist. Reflecting that, my interests lie in understanding how psychological and social factors influence health. In particular, my work focuses on understanding the role of social stigma and discrimination in health care access, health behaviors, mental health, and health outcomes."

And this is relevant to the discussion how?

""The problem with that is that legalization of homosexual marriage/ union/whatever you want to call it is bad for society as a whole - just like heterosexual marriage is better for society as a whole."

You've said next to nothing to support this statement."

[Hint: that's because it's an opinion.....]

"This is a study about the impact of HIV/AIDS on the life expectancy of its victims, between 1987 and 1992. It's part of a larger study measuring the impact of HIV/AIDS on the global population. Cameron proposed that gay men *in general* had a lower life expectancy. There's nothing comparable about the two studies or the conclusions they reach."

Again, goes to the issue of conclusions to be drawn from the data.

"Again, goes to the issue of conclusions to be drawn from the data."

That gay men with HIV/AIDS don't live as long as gay men without it?

I know what you *want* the conclusion to be--that gay men in general are sick and irresponsible and can't be trusted to raise children.

"And this is relevant to the discussion how?"

You cited a study by Cochran et all in support of your position that gay people are sicker than straight people. This study can be found on numerous gay/lesbian sites, for the reason that the thrust of Dr. Cochran's work argues against you--to wit, that gay people aren't inherently or biologically inclined toward mental disorders, but are so because of social stigmas and discrimination.

"Something doesn't lose its value "as an argument" just because it has been misused - not with people of any degree of intellectual ability, anyway."

It's not that it was misused (though it certainly was). I'm saying that, then and now, it is the SAME argument, used in the SAME way, by more or less the SAME people, and with the SAME level of fervor and sincerity.

It was an argument used for evil ends and therefore of no value to me; it maintains its lost value here because the argument is no different.

"I know what you *want* the conclusion to be--that gay men in general are sick and irresponsible and can't be trusted to raise children. ... in support of your position that gay people are sicker than straight people."

At the risk of being guilty of troll-baiting, first, you have completely mischaracterized my position - if you can't figure out how, re-read the comments here and in the archives on this topic in past discussions.

Second, the conclusions drawn from a variety of studies, which I *have* cited, go to the issue of the recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals denying a state constitutional right to same sex marriage, namely, whether the government has any interest in the issue of same-sex marriage. Where we got a little off-topic (only to be completely thrown off track) was on Jason's comment: "And I feel that the same is true of making sure that kids have a mother and a father: It's a rational belief to think that this is the best situation, but it is not a legitimate aim of government."

Like it or not, the government has a documented and legally supported legitimate interest in making sure the best interests of children are served. The studies that have been proffered in support of the proposition that same-sex couples are not the best parents for children are what they are. You don't agree with those conclusions, and that's your prerogative, but you're re-inventing the discussion to a topic that a) wasn't raised by me, and b) even in your mischaracterization isn't supported by the other things I've said - which you've obviously chosen to ignore.

BTW - "loveable, furry old Grover" is a muppet. Not a cartoon character.

That is all.

"Like it or not, the government has a documented and legally supported legitimate interest in making sure the best interests of children are served."

But *not* to the exclusion of others' interests. And there are plenty of arguments to be made in favor of gay adoption and gay parenthood, as well as arguments in favor of gay marriage from the POV of societal coherence and well-being.

The thrust of your arguments and citations have been that gay people are inherently disordered and unworthy of the benefits conferred upon straight people regarding their choice of partner, their desire to have families and the resulting legal status of those families. It is highly germaine to the fundamental discussion of "rational" bases for denying gay people the same social status that straight people enjoy.

Lawyerchik1,

I guess to me is that I see a heirarchy of parenting, and it seems odd to me that the government privileges a supposed top tier of parenting at the cost of privileging several lesser tiers, the combination of which causes something of an arbitrary line drawn. I'll try to explain what I mean by this.

To (extremely) generalize, there are two categories of parenting we're looking at in this discussion: gender roles and quality of support. As such, you can have (assuming as many as 2 parents) the following gender roles:

Mother/Father
Mother
Father
Mother/Mother
Father/Father
Wards of the State

...and the following qualities of support (I mean these to be general but intuitive titles), or combinations thereof:

Physically supportive
Mentally supportive
Phsyically neutral
Mentally neutral
Physically distressing
Mentally distressing

Obviously, I think you would place the "Physically and Mentally supportive Mother/Father" archetype at the top of the heirarchy. If this is, exclusive of all else, the absolute best situation for a child, then it makes sense for the government to privilege it.

How you rank the rest of the combinations, however, becomes vitally important, because the government only rarely evaluates the supportive/unsupportive category of individual combinations, and certainly makes no demands of said category before a couple bears a child.

Unless you're ready to say that even abusive parenting by a mother/father is preferable to supportive parenting by a mother/mother or father/father, it seems that by denying same-gender marriage (a marriage being one cornerstone of the family unit), the government is handing privileges to lesser quality family situations soley on the basis of gender combination.

Should read "the legal status that straight people enjoy."

And Jason was not "sidetracking" the issue. I think it's perfectly valid to ask: if society promotes the ideal but tolerates and even supports, to a significant extent, the "less-than-ideal," then where does that tolerance stop, and why?

I said, "Obviously, I think you would place the "Physically and Mentally supportive Mother/Father" archetype at the top of the heirarchy."

I think this would be intuitive to many people, myself included.

I guess it just occurs to me that if we let the government take part in this rather arbitrary line drawing, it can draw the line however it wants; I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with that.

...in other words, what Michael said, only he said it better.

My comment ("And I feel that the same is true of making sure that kids have a mother and a father: It's a rational belief to think that this is the best situation, but it is not a legitimate aim of government.") was not throwing us off track.

Quite on the contrary, it's part of what started the discussion, as it appeared in the original commentary that Josh linked to in the main post. If that's not "on topic," then I don't know what is.

Look, I think it's completely rational to find that the bio-mother bio-father family is the ideal. Completely rational.

I don't think, though, that bogus or irrelevant statistics do much to establish that rationality. Nor do I think that the proposed remedy -- hurting kids in sub-optimal families -- is a good fit to that end.

But fundamentally, I don't think that the state should be declaring that, because they are sub-optimal, certain families should never be recognized or protected. I don't think it's a legitimate state interest to pick and choose among family types, even if the consequences of certain family types are sometimes bad (straight people, you're all a bunch of sick deviants, because you get divorced so much... Just be glad there isn't a majority-gay government. We might forbid you to get married at all...) See, government doesn't exist to hold all our hands and make everything okay for us. If it did, we would soon be faced with a tyranny.

Government does exist, though, to protect the rights and interests of children. And I think it is remarkably naive of some people on this thread to insinuate that no children will ever have it in their achievable best interests to be raised by a same-sex couple. I also think it is obvious that these couples should, for the sake of the children, enjoy the legal protections of marriage, protections that, as was pointed out, often cannot be obtained through other means.

Whether any of this satisfies the rational basis test, as was discussed in Josh's paper, in his post, and in mine, is quite another question. I am inclined to think that New York got the test entirely wrong, in that they asked whether the government's aim was "rational" rather than "legitimate." The latter is the accepted wording as I understand it, and this wording was not applied in the plurality. Even by their own words, they did not apply the test correctly, and -- as someone who supports judicial restraint -- I find this troubling. Don't you?

I will probably regret this, but:
“But *not* to the exclusion of others' interests� – except that children’s interests are supposed to be enforced when those who are charged with looking out for them abdicate their responsibilities. That’s what people do: they look out for those in society who are not able to look out for themselves.
“It is highly germaine to the fundamental discussion of "rational" bases for denying gay people the same social legal status that straight people enjoy.�
You’re talking about two different and separate issues here. The basic tenet of your argument is that because some gay people can be better parents than some straight people, all gay people should be able to get married and have families and have those relationships afforded legal rights and status. The two are not related, and none of the “studies� you rely on overcome that problem.
“it seems that by denying same-gender marriage (a marriage being one cornerstone of the family unit), the government is handing privileges to lesser quality family situations soley on the basis of gender combination.�
Except that the government is only endorsing what has already been a part of society – again, based on divine law – for millennia.
“My comment ("And I feel that the same is true of making sure that kids have a mother and a father: It's a rational belief to think that this is the best situation, but it is not a legitimate aim of government.") was not throwing us off track.�
It wasn’t your comment, Jason; it was who took it to (what I consider to be) an illogical extremist position for the sole purpose of knocking it down.
“Bogus or irrelevant statistics� being in the eye of the beholder, I’ll leave that for another day. Fatherless children studies do have an impact on whether or not gay couples should be permitted the same legal status as straight couples and whether they should be permitted to adopt children, as do studies on the tendencies of homosexual males to target young children for their own sexual needs. If you don’t understand the relevance or importance of those factors, then I’ve wasted my time.
However, I’m more concerned with the proposition that “the state should (not) be declaring that, because they are sub-optimal, certain families should never be recognized or protected.� If you have the chance to prevent damage and harm to a number of children, wouldn’t you take it? And wouldn’t you expect to be called to account if you failed to take such protective measures before the harm was effected?
From a foreseeability standpoint, where there are studies – legitimate studies, whether you agree with the conclusions drawn or not – demonstrating actual danger to children, especially in light of the significant danger and death that occurred in what you’ve termed “sub-optimal� family situations, how is it not a rational and legitimate interest of government to prevent adoptions in those situations?
It’s not like we’re talking about women (lesbians or straight single women) who can get artificially inseminated and have biological children where even though there is no biological father in the picture, there is at least a historical and legal presumption that the biological parent will do what is in the best interests of the child (which IMO is not appropriate either).
We’re talking about adoptions of existing children – and the demand for legal status equivalent to that of a heterosexual couple to further that objective, for which I think the government certainly has a rational and legitimate interest.
I agree that government doesn't exist to hold all our hands and make everything okay for us. However, when we fail to uphold our own responsibilities and we abdicate those responsibilities to others, we are stuck with the government we get.
I have not insinuated that “no children will ever have it in their achievable best interests to be raised by a same-sex couple�; however, just because there are those who can be successfully raised in such a setting does not mean that all such couples should be able to enforce the legal protections of marriage riding on the coat-tails of a few that have gotten it right. Just as I would rather have a good atheist plumber than a poor Christian one, I understand and agree that there are those homosexuals who are better parents than even some Christian heterosexual couples.
However, just because there are some, doesn’t mean that all are equally apt or effective, or that all should have the same rights and privileges. Under the same analogy, just because some murderers or pedophiles are rehabilitated, all murderers and pedophiles should be released from prison – it’s the same flawed reasoning.
As far as your opinion of the court’s opinion, I see it as they reached the right result, even if you believe they reached it for the wrong reason. Higher courts generally tend to uphold decisions that reach the right results even if the way they got there was a little botched. Like meatball surgery, it’s not pretty but it works.

The basic tenet of your argument is that because some gay people can be better parents than some straight people, all gay people should be able to get married and have families and have those relationships afforded legal rights and status.

No. I only argue that gay people -- and gay families -- should have the same range of choices as straight people and straight families. Notice that no straight people ever have to prove themselves before they get married. I ask for exactly the same.

Adopting is a different matter, of course, but here all I ask is for equal treatment. Which most states already give, except in the matter of second-parent adoption. I would just regularize a situation that already exists. And allow the parents to marry, both for the children and for their own protection.

Fatherless children studies do have an impact on whether or not gay couples should be permitted the same legal status as straight couples...

Let's grant this for the sake of argument.

Now, if fatherless children studies are useful for studying same-sex couples as parents, then they are also useful to show what's so very wrong with heterosexual families: Each heterosexual family is exactly like a mother-only family. Why? Because each heterosexual family only has one mom. It's tragic, and it's got to stop.

Using your methodology, I therefore conclude that all of the problems suffered in single-parent households are also going to happen in heterosexual households. Sadly, each of these hetero households is cursed with only one mom, and only one dad. Just like single-parent families. They can therefore be expected to have all the same problems.

Not a fair comparison? Then stop making it for gay families, too. You're ignoring a key difference, in that same-sex couples have two people to do the parenting. I could ignore that difference, too, but I choose not to do so, because it would make me look silly. It does the same for you, so please, stop.

Meanwhile, it's frankly absurd to dismiss the studies showing that same-sex parents do a decent job. No methodological flaw could possibly be so grave as the substitution of one-parent for two-parent households. And no methodological flaw could ever be so systematic as to include every one of the many different studies that have been conducted in this area. (And on top of all of that, you've never once shown a specific practice or procedure in these studies that you think is to blame. Which, incidentally, I've already done for much of Paul Cameron's work.)

studies on the tendencies of homosexual males to target young children for their own sexual needs.

Paul Cameron labeled people with no adult sexual interest as "homosexual" if they ever molested a child of the same sex. His work proved only that pedophiles like to molest kids, not that gay men tend to be pedophiles. It was atrociously shoddy research.

If you have the chance to prevent damage and harm to a number of children, wouldn’t you take it?

Certainly. But this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, as it already is in family law. A blanket "no gay people" rule would do much harm to the kids who are being raised by stable same-sex couples. It would also close off stable same-sex couples from taking kids out of the notoriously unstable foster care system. This is not in the best interests of children. (It is also not in the best interests of children to prevent their parents from marrying. How this helps any children is beyond me.)

Do you think gay people should not be allowed to adopt -- because they are too likely to be pedophiles, or have AIDS, or use drugs? This just shows how little you know about the adoption process, which is in all states quite rigorous about excluding pedophiles, people who can't be expected to care for their children, or those who have a drug problem. Before you adopt, there are background checks, medical exams, numerous and detailed interviews, home visits, psychological evaluations, financial evaluations, and close monitoring of all prospective adopting parents during the entire process, which commonly takes one to three years.

I should know, because I'm going through it right now. And for anyone, gay or straight, this should be enough. Weeding out people because they are gay will deny many parents who would otherwise do a great job. It will catch almost no irresponsible parents who would not be caught by the existing safeguards.

I understand and agree that there are those homosexuals who are better parents than even some Christian heterosexual couples.

However, just because there are some, doesn’t mean that all are equally apt or effective, or that all should have the same rights and privileges. Under the same analogy, just because some murderers or pedophiles are rehabilitated, all murderers and pedophiles should be released from prison – it’s the same flawed reasoning.

So we are guilty until proven innocent. Under these conditions, how will we ever satisfy you? I mean reall, how could we even potentially get a chance? You've already decided that we're just like pedophiles and murderers, and no amount of convincing will change your mind. How sad.

Err, the second to last paragraph should be italicized, since it is not mine.

Well, at least we finally get to the real issue - you want what you want, and hang everyone else. Because you are (or at least purport to be on this limited record) a good person who would do well as an adoptive parent, everyone should have the same choice.

The trouble is that what you choose to do and seek to force society to accept is not in society's best interests, nor is it in keeping with what the Bible has to say about the lifestyle that goes along with it. Regardless of what you want, there will continue to be those who will oppose you because the choice you want to force society to accept is wrong, no matter how well-meaning you are. I'm sorry for your personal struggles, but that doesn't change the immorality of your decision.

Well, at least we finally get to the real issue - you want what you want, and hang everyone else. Because you are (or at least purport to be on this limited record) a good person who would do well as an adoptive parent, everyone should have the same choice...

I'm sorry for your personal struggles, but that doesn't change the immorality of your decision.

This is a false characterization, and I daresay you know it. Did I not mention all of the safeguards that go into selecting adoptive parents? Or did you just not read them?

Immorality, indeed.

"Immorality, indeed."

Maybe I misunderstood - I assumed by your comments that you were pursuing adoption as a gay individual or part of a couple, and the immorality comment had to do with that, rather than any other aspect of your comments. If I misunderstood that, I apologize.

I am indeed pursuing adoption as part of a same-sex couple.

I find it immoral that you characterize my position as "you want what you want, and hang everyone else." I clearly explained the limits placed on would-be adoptive parents, and, to make me look bad, you brushed right past them. That is dishonest. And it is immoral.

"...and, to make me look bad, you brushed right past them."

First, I don't try to make people look bad. If they do, they do so on their own. It works quite well for me and I am no more talented than anyone else.

Second, as far as dishonesty goes, it is dishonest to ignore legitimate morality and push your own version of it onto society and others by brushing past legitimate objections and decrying studies of documented problems a homosexual lifestyle creates for children - sacrificing children's best interests to serve one's own needs is selfish.

Third, the issues you raised were addressed earlier in the discussion. I assumed you were attempting to rebut those earlier points and I thought the earlier points spoke quite well for themselves without the need for further rebuttal directed at someone who is clearly not interested in the underlying merits of a discussion but is more focused on "scoring" imaginary points.

I KNEW I was giving this more attention than it deserved, but as my grandmother used to say, "too soon old, too late smart."

That is all.

it is dishonest to ignore legitimate morality and push your own version of it onto society

This is playground-level argument. I have not been dishonest about my belief that homosexuality is of no serious moral importance. I have openly avowed that the quality, sincerity, and enduring nature of a human love is what matters -- rather than the genitalia of the participants. I've not lied to anyone about my beliefs.

You, on the other hand, have consistently mischaracterized what I believe. "Hang everyone else," you write, as though I did not care whether the state acted in the children's best interest. This is dishonesty of the highest order.

I fail to see how I have brushed past any relevant or legitimate studies regarding gay parenting. I have disagreed with you about the validity of some, and about the relevance of others, but I did not ignore or misrepresent what you wrote.

I have nothing to add here, except to marvel that anyone could carry on about "the best interests of children" and then mention George Rekers in practically the same breath.

Also, I believe there is a sub-clause of Godwin's Law which states that, in discussions of same-sex marriage, the first person who mentions Paul Cameron loses.

However, I’m more concerned with the proposition that “the state should (not) be declaring that, because they are sub-optimal, certain families should never be recognized or protected.� If you have the chance to prevent damage and harm to a number of children, wouldn’t you take it? And wouldn’t you expect to be called to account if you failed to take such protective measures before the harm was effected?

So why not have the gov't evaluate all couples and weed out the heterosexual ones that would be bad? Why not prevent single people from becoming parents? We have the chance to prevent damage and harm to a number of children; shouldn't we take it? Should you be called to account if you don't?

"I have not been dishonest about my belief that homosexuality is of no serious moral importance."

The only problem is that your belief is not based on fact. Historically, societal acceptance of homosexuality leads (inevitably) to the destruction of said society. You can on a plane that is headed for Los Angeles and believe in all sincerity that you're going to New York - what you may believe is irrelevant.

While the old saying that you don’t want to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person doesn’t apply to you, Jason, your positions show that while you are, in fact, armed, you insist on destroying the ground underfoot, to the end that if you win the battle, you ultimately lose what you are fighting for. If that's your goal, good luck with that.

""Hang everyone else," you write, as though I did not care whether the state acted in the children's best interest. This is dishonesty of the highest order."

It is no more dishonest than your failure to recognize the ultimate end to your stated goal, which is that regardless of the good character of your relationship, the relationships of others are not.

Further, verbal bullying about the conclusions of researchers whose premises you dispute is no more honest than failing to disclose your own personal bias - it goes to credibility of the witness, and it is a factor in evaluating the strength of the person's representations.

"So why not have the gov't evaluate all couples and weed out the heterosexual ones that would be bad? Why not prevent single people from becoming parents? We have the chance to prevent damage and harm to a number of children; shouldn't we take it? Should you be called to account if you don't?"

That's part of the point of David's comments on community - the government's job is not to flyspeck each and every couple about their parenting. If individuals who are close to them notice something that poses a danger to children, they need to intervene - and there is a process that should be gone through on how to do that.

As far as single people becoming parents, I've already said I think it's a bad idea. I wouldn't choose that for any child myself, and it bothers me that some single people (men and women) are so focused on their own lives that they fail to take into account what being a single parent requires to properly care for a child.

One thing at a time, though, for one thing, and for another, just because there are identifiable bad situations that are going on, doesn't mean it's a smart, right or appropriate thing to do to exacerbate the problem.

That was my comment above (in case you didn't figure it out). For some reason, my "remember me" stuff didn't get saved.

Your claim that Dr. Cochran's work "argues against (me) --to wit, that gay people aren't inherently or biologically inclined toward mental disorders, but are so because of social stigmas and discrimination" goes to the conclusion drawn from the data accumulated - not to the validity of the data itself.

The data shows what it shows. Her conclusion is a failed attempt to mitigate the problems with her data, but that's it. "It's not that they're bad people - society made them that way" is a whiner's conclusion.

""The problem with that is that legalization of homosexual marriage/ union/whatever you want to call it is bad for society as a whole - just like heterosexual marriage is better for society as a whole."

You've said next to nothing to support this statement."

Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. J.D. Unwin, author of “Sex and Culture� (London: Humphrey Milford: Oxford University Press, 1934), documented the results of his extensive evaluation of every known culture and found that where cultures placed restrictions on sexual activity, they thrived. Once a culture abandoned monogamy in favor of unrestricted sexual behavior, it was doomed.

Unwin's conclusion: “Any human society is free either to display great energy, or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that they cannot do both for more than one generation.� See also, J.D. Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior (London: Williams & Norgate, 1933).

Backing up to something Jason said, the argument in favor of same-sex marriage because a good same-sex couple would be better than a bad heterosexual couple only compares the worst of one situation (abusive heterosexual parenting) with the best of another (loving same-sex parenting). If we’re going to argue apples and oranges, let’s do that, but let’s be honest about it in the process.

"Historically, societal acceptance of homosexuality leads (inevitably) to the destruction of said society."

What nonsense. The Greeks practiced and extolled the virtues of pederasty and male beauty throughout their most glorious periods. The same is true of the Roman Empire. Greece and Rome did not fall because of homosexuality. Please retire your 19th century history books to the back shelf and do some real reading on the subject.

"Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy."

That was his theory, yes. Unwin makes the same point. Do you see anyone here arguing against marriage and monogamy?

The fact remains that during their most robust periods, both the Greeks and the Romans tolerated pederasty and homosexual behavior, while simultaneously maintaining a firm grip on marriage, heterosexual morality and gender roles.

You've cited two sources out of literally thousands of historians who offer numerous theories on the decline of ancient Greece and Rome. Like so many Christian apologists, you're trying to equate tolerance for homosexuality with collapse of morality and family life.

That fact is, lawyerchik, the ancient Greeks and Romans would probably not approve of gay marriage. Masculinity was an important and highly codified concept. What to their minds constituted a weakening of the state was any sort of feminization of the male parent and warrior.

It's useless to look to ancient models for the current debate. Would you, for instance, advocate a return to customs which forbade women to work or leave their homes unaccompanied? If you are a single woman above the age of 20, you would be in a vary bad way according to "traditional" values going back "millenia." What, may I ask, was the role of women in the societies Unwin studied? Assuming from your handle that you are a in fact a lawyer or attorney, yours is an exceptionally privileged position compared to even American culture a scant hundred years ago. So while you benefit from the social advances and liberalized attitudes of the past 30 years, you would deny those benefits to anyone else.

The concept of legal, same-sex marriage is largely unprecedented in human history. Like so many things in America since its inception, it's a social experiment. We really don't know what the effects will be, despite attempts to draw parallels with some European countries using disputable methodologies.

Interesting that you should mention Unwin. I did quite a bit of searching and found that this citation and "summary" of his thesis is parroted on dozens of Christian and anti-gay websites. A bit more research reveals some intersting facts. His "notable" book is so rare that the single copy available at Alibris lists for $824.32. Therefore we can assume, as this writer logically does,

http://www.ilv.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=224

that few people who cite him have actually read him. A search of Amazon.com reveals only two or three references to Unwin, including a book by Pat Buchanan. This article:

http://www.nzarh.org.nz/journal/2004v77n1aut.pdf

goes into more detail about Unwin's strange and unwarranted authority amongst the anti-gay-marriage crowd.

Here's a synopisis of the work from a paper about, of all things, Chinese foot binding:

"Argument: Unwin’s main argument is that sexual freedom is a key part of the intellectual, and therefore scientific, advancement of knowledge within any culture. He argues that it leads to “the general intellectual freedom out of which modern science arose.”

"Methodology: Unwin sites many different historical examples in which sexual freedom has led to some sort of net benefit for society. His appeals are more logical than emotional, as he wants to convey that women are intellectual, not just emotional.

"Evaluation: The essay was written a really long time ago, but the scope of the argument allows for application to any culture, from Ancient China to America. The paper mainly applies to intellectual benefits of sexual freedom, and not necessarily the morality of it all. I think this would help create a more logical argument in opposition to Botox."

Presumably the author of this paper has no "agenda" to pursue regarding the gay marriage debate.

Ah! Now I must correct myself. The work Lawyerchik cites is actually a 1935 (?) address to the British Psychological Society in which he announced that he was forced to reverse his thesis from his earlier book, "Sex and Culture."

"The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior...

"Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous...

"If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases... If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn.

"It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation."

It's worth noting again that not a single reference to the work of this "notable anthropologist" turns up anywhere else that I can find, save the parrotted references on Christian web sites. I wonder who troubled to dig up this obscure fellow's pronouncement. I wonder what the story his behind his abrupt "revision." And I wonder what Unwin thought of the great polyandrous Islamic empires who rescued Aristotle from oblivion and gave us so many advances in science and philosophy...

Sorry to go on, but it's kind of interesting. Unwin's address apprently was dug up and privately reprinted by one Frank M. Darrow, in 1969. This republication is cited in books by James Dobson and Timothy Dailey. Darrow apparently wrote a series of self-published pamphlets on various social issues, including "Sex Ethics and Survival." I cannot find any other reference to him or his work. Why Unwin is such an "authority" is beyond me.

...and now I see that Lawyerchik cites *both* of Unwin's works, the earlier and the later, so she'll have to reconcile that for us. That's all, I'll stop now. :-)

Am I the only one who finds the whole thing about "societies that tolerate homosexuals will tend to suffer" reminiscent of antisemitism? And what, may I ask, are you going to do with us? It's not like we're going to disappear.

Now, as to your latest assertions about monogamy and homosexuality, nt only is Grover correct about ancient Greece and Rome, but Islamic civilization flourished while allowing polygamy, so it's kind of ridiculous to say that only monogamous societies succeed. (Even given that, I'm all in favor of monogamy, and I think society would be better off if it were more monogamous. Just if you're going to settle down with one person, it should really be someone you can sincerely love, whatever gender they may end up being.)

As to the research you have mentioned, I can't say I've read it. But that Grover and I could think of a couple of very serious counterexamples right off the top of our heads suggests that it wouldn't be worth my time.

Doing a little more searching, I found that Philip Yancy called attention to Unwin's "Sex and Culture" in a 1994 article in Christianity Today called "The Lost Sex Study." It's now a bit clearer to me that Unwin's speech referred to his interest in Freud's theories about sexual freedom and society, which prompted his study and the resulting book, which in turn caused him to revise his thinking about the issue.

At any rate, I find nothing extraordinary about Sorokin's and Unwin's theories about monogamy and the regulation of sexual behavior outside of marriage. Having read Will Durant, I'm very familiar with this theme. What puzzles me is how this gets twisted into a condemnation of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. It is unclear to me whether Sorokin ever wrote specifically about homosexuality. The work most widely referred to was written in the mid-1950's. But here's a typical statement from an article quoting Sorokin:

"The words homosexual and marriage are inherently contradictory. The very fact that these terms are in public conflict demonstrates the radical character of the social revolutionaries that now demand the legalization of homosexual marriage."

I do not understand how this can be so. Do homosexuals break up marriages? Are straight men and women lured away from marriage by the irresistible charms of "the gay life"? By condoning homosexual behavior are we going to create *more* homosexuals? (I assume that's the real fear.) No, it seems clear that, somehow, it just *is*. Again, I look in vain for some kind of rational or statistical proof to the effect that homosexual behavior interferes with heterosexual marriage--beyond the vague "feeling" that recognizing gay couples leads to a "destruction" of public morality.

Are straight men and women lured away from marriage by the irresistible charms of "the gay life"?

Paul Cameron said as much at one time. He likened gay sex to heroin, saying that it was just intrinsically more arousing than straight sex.

Which caused a lot of snickering over on my side of the fence.

What's interesting to me is that institutional pederasty, as practiced in ancient Greece and older Islamic cultures, is associated with highly-regulated relations between the sexes, such as the delaying of marriage for men of certain classes and the seclusion of women in these same classes. Since marriage is, in fact, nowhere near as highly regulated as it was in older cultures, and women in the West are no longer isolated and hidden away, there is no longer a need for such "outlets." There's really no comparison between the gay marriage issue and the promotion and institutionalization of pederasty. Such equivalencies don't really help us understand the issues involved. And America has *never* regulated marriage to the extent dictated by older cultures.

Who's to say Freud wasn't right after all, in arguing that sexual liberation is the key to success? It wouldn't surprise me if, as I have seen suggested, Unwin's research was colored by the prejudices of his day. The fact is, at present, anyway, that America has come out on top in the superpower wars, and we are still the dominant military and economic force in the world. If we lose our influence and power, I strongly doubt it will be due to our views on marriage. But I could be wrong.