“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means to you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”
~Adam Cappa
I am one of those who are certainly happy with the approval of same-sex marriage in the United States. It’s very heartwarming to see that some people don’t need to be lonely anymore and can spend their lives with the people they love. It’s nice to see that two of my good friends can finally live happily under one roof and have their relationship legitimized.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
However, what I can not and will not accept from LGBT people in the United States, the Philippines or anywhere else in the world is the “like me or else” attitude. While I certainly champion both tolerance and acceptance of others, let it be known that I do not approve of people forcing themselves on others.
To give you better context that I have been a bachelor for much of my life. I don’t know, I guess I really am that creepy. Anyway, there’s this girl I want to impress. I know that the idea of her loving me is very unlikely so I was hoping that she could at least like me. Unfortunately, that probably won’t happen either because I’m just a little too creepy to be likable. But then, you can probably agree that she has every right not to like me after all. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and their own preferences as it should be. Remember that you can never force someone to love or like you no matter how much you love or like them.
There will be people in your life who will probably never agree with or even understand you and that is a reality that we all need to learn to live with regardless of ethnic identity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or lack thereof. That’s simply the way things are in this world and no amount of whining or violence can change that. To all LGBT members out there who are mad at religious leaders who refuse to wed you, businesses who won’t cater to you or people who can’t return your love for them, please learn to respect others as well. If they don’t like or accept you then the best thing to do is to simply shrug your shoulders and move on in hopes of finding better opportunities elsewhere.
Remember also that rape is also called “forcing yourself on someone” because, by raping another person, you’re making them have sex with you by force. While I am not accusing of LGBT people of rape, by forcing your will upon others, you are no different from the people who have been oppressing you all those years ago. By making unwilling people conform to your desires, you are essentially forcing yourself on them, albeit in a metaphoric fashion.
So please, people of the LGBT community, if you want people to accept you then you have to learn to accept others as well. When you meet people who don’t accept or agree with you, just walk away and find another way. Is that so hard to understand or do?
I HAVE RETURNED TO LAY WASTE TO OUR ENEMIES!
That is one of the big problems with the approval of same-sex “marriage” here in the USA. Gay activists are bullying those who do not wish to participate in their lifestyle through lawsuits. So much for tolerance . . . sigh.
This pushing for marriage licence is actually amusing me. If a person truly love someone then why do they need the state to validate their “love”? Its actually easier to live together without the government getting involved with more aspects of your life. It’s also easier to get divorced and not get hell of legal procedures. Just break up and move on.
It is for conjugal properties I guess, benefits same as heterosexual couples.
the problem with the US is that it is an I win – you lose society. never any gracious losers or gracious winners. play nice and we will all be okay.
why is it that we are so US-centric? Canada had gay marriage in 2005 and no one gave an s—.
Hi ice cube, I don’t agree that the US is an “I win – you lose soceity”, though certainly the recent SCOTUS ruling made it to be so. Original intent is for domestic issues such as marriage are decided at state level, that was affirmed in the Windsor decision by the same author, Justice Kennedy, who disaffirmed that with Obergefell a week ago. Ideally, the federal setup makes sure everyone gets to live and let live; people have differing values after all, and federalism accommodates just that. Remember, this is a 5-4 majority and until the districts and appeals courts intervened, a huge majority of the states, by referenda or legislatures did not agree with gay marriage compare that with Loving v. Virginia (anti-miscegenation laws) where SCOTUS ruled 9-0, and there were only a handful of states that blocked interracial marriages since majority of the states already recognized it via proper democratic process.
it is an i win you lose society. too much red v. blue.
i can see your states rights argument here (however, there were 36 states that allowed gay marriage before the decision) and if i were to dissent i would go with that.
it really should be up to the states to decide or to take it to a more extreme the state should have zero to do of what you do in your bed or how to raise a family. it’s simply none of their business.
it is however too late for that as many of the benefits people in the US enjoy are tied to marriage (earned income credit, food stamps, favorable tax treatment). i see no reason to deny gays these benefits based solely on being gay.
also aren’t people of faith also to blame for this erosion, if marriage were so good, why does it end up in divorce 50 percent of the time (in the US)?
still if the dividing line for discrimination is because a human is made through the union of a sperm and an egg, i find that unsatisfying as even hetero people who cant reproduce can get married. would you then deny marriage to them?
as for marriage being a traditional institution? i think i would find polygamy more traditional than heterosexual monogamy….but that is an issue for another.
and the american democratic experiment continues to turn and evolve… it’s fun just tiring at times.
Of the 37 (not just 36) “states that allowed gay marriage before the decision”, 26 we’re by court decision, that’s hardly democratic, it seems there were only 8 states that approved it by legislature and 3 by popular vote. Note also that Justice Kennedy, an Angelino, dissented (joined by Justice Sotomayor, interestingly) on Hollingsworth v. Perry strinking down California Proposition 8.
I would agree with you that “it really should be up to the states to decide or to take it to a more extreme the state should have zero to do of what you do in your bed or how to raise a family. It’s simply none of their business” but only as long as we have a limited government: Let me just keep my tax money and everyone can do as they please; this way, we will not be arguing over government benefits. But the question is why is the state in the business of marriage anyway, right? It seems actually, sexual relationships are never merely private affairs. Society, culture and law have an interest in promoting, maintaining, protecting and supporting relationships which are suitable for creating, sustaining and raising the next generation. This is the only substantive rationale for marriage.
I don’t think marriage laws “deny gays these benefits based solely on being gay” in the same way that it is rightly regulated against polyamorous/polygamous and incestuous relationships, the Chief Justice cites former Justice O’Connor in Lawrence, in writing that “the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples [might I add incestuous and polyamorous/polygamous couples] is rationally related to the States’ legitimate state interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage”, which is what I state above. It simply means we treat something unique in a unique way. The sexual relationship of one man and one woman is the only one capable of producing new citizens. People who cannot procreate (infertile and old people) seem to be discriminated in this reasoning but they still model the biologically complementary partnership, and when they adopt, they provide the same ideal environment for these new citizens. Also, there is no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally do so; It is a consistent basic biological fact that all children have a male father and a female mother.
I also agree that certainly no-fault divorce paved the way here and it has harmed children in many ways. In the Philippines, we may have a stronger case because even our proposed divorce bills aren’t the no-fault types. You are correct in that observation that marriage culture in the US has really weakened (that’s another reason why some argue that Obergefell is outdated, “utterly disconnected from the realities of America today” moving towards “a post-marriage future.” Others note it’s odd that all the same leftists who think marriage is an evil patriarchal institution want its “dignity” extended to LGBT”), but that does not mean, it’s the fault of “people of faith” and it also does not mean we cannot politically stop and turn around. Let’s see how it goes with the Philippines.
the philippines is a different story for the sake of population control (a legitimate government interest) i would allow gay marriage and go a step further and have government funded forced vasectomies and ligations….come on not even the size of california and with 100 million people.
Thaddeus, if there is no “Chemistry” (meeting of the minds), between you and the girl, you are courting; you are just losing your time. She will never love/want you…
I am a little bit “conservative”. So, I don’t agree, on marriage, between homosexuals. I believe in marriage between, a man and a woman. And, no one can take that belief from me.
However, since I cannot understand Homosexuality. If two people of the same sex, want to live together , as couple. Then, let them do it…it will help in the population control of our country.
i don’t agree with same-sex marriage because it does not benefit society. Their behavior is also not in conformity with morality. They argue that gender is not determined by one’s genitals and that gender is what you think you are, well then if i am a male elephant then is that my gender? if we adopt homosexuals’ mentality, then this will be beginning of human society.
Elephant is a species, not a gender.
Are you a cis-male, or a trans-male?
Are you sexually attracted to the same gender, the opposite gender, or sometimes-same-sometimes-different?
It’s not that difficult, really.
If you ask me, same sex marriage has the exact same benefits as any other marriage that does not fit the norm, regardless if it’s marriage despite the inability to procreate, or marriage despite one or both participants are already retired.
Just because you’re not forced to marry your rapist anymore (as per Bible), doesn’t mean changing the definition of marriage is bad. In fact, those behaviors you’re so worried about? Perhaps they’d tone down the moment they get tied down… like any other person might?
Why not conduct your own research on the ACTUAL effects of gay marriage? After all, the Netherlands was the first to legalize same sex marriage in 2001, and since it’s 2015 as of post time you have 14 years’ worth of data to see the effects of same sex marriage on their society.
it’s all in the packaging. flamboyant baklas and their fafas i have a problem with, i’ll admit that. but couples that look like nph and david burtka, they’re cool in my book. this reminds me of the time i watched gravitation (a lifetime ago), wherein i was reluctant because of the yaoi theme. In the end, it made me forget that the story was about two dudes in love… instead remember it simply was a love story between two people.
Oh you poor, untravelled, one-dimensional soul.
Grimwald, that quote from Adam Cappa though not only applies to the legalization of same-sex marriage but also applies to parenting and friendship. Some parents would not mind teaching their kids these lies through their orders (mga utos) because that is what “they think was right” and will not falter to implement such things. 🙁
I hope some parents who are reading this article will be alarmed by such big lies. 🙂
Nice quote pick there. 🙂
Yep. Parents can be really bad sometimes. I have first-hand experience.
Here is the US it’s getting out of control. Organizations like the American Federation of Teachers are pushing to have homosexuality and gay propaganda be exposed to children ages 6 to 12 in order for them to view gay and transgender culture as things that are normal and acceptable. This can be dangerous since kids at those ages are not sexually mature enough to handle such content. Worst of all, more schools are doing this without informing parents because it is their “civic duty” to do so.
Gay advocacy groups have launched all sorts of anti-hate campaigns against churches, schools, hospitals, and businesses who differ in opinion towards the gay movement. People have been fired, sued, or publicly defamed as being “discriminatory” if they even dare criticize the homosexual agenda in the slightest bit. So the result? Our freedoms of speech and religion are slowly disappearing and real civil rights are now being eliminated. The public has been silenced, judges are now ruling in sentiment, and politicians have turned into cowards. In San Francisco there are naked old men parading in the streets wearing nothing but hats with children watching and nobody can speak out against it.
On top of that, the nationwide same sex marriage ruling was completely ILLEGAL. The US Supreme Court had absolutely NO business enacting legislation. They used the 14th Amendment, which only deals with giving citizenship rights to former black slaves. Where did they get the right to have same sex marriage from? Also, the 14th Amendment also says only Congress has the power to enforce the amendment, not the Supreme Court. Five unelected judges have NO right to create laws for 320 million Americans, that job belongs to the elected representatives in Congress. Everyone knows the ruling was illegal, but Americans went on and celebrated it anyway.
While everyone was being distracted and putting up their rainbow flags, President Obama signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership into law right under everybody’s noses, which is guaranteed to take even more jobs away from Americans and keep corporate activity a secret from the masses. Great job, you idiots. You gave 3% of the US population the right to “marry” in any state but you’re allowing the whole country to go further down the drain.
too much fox news is not good for you…please tell me you are white…
That’s all you have to say to me? I’m a Filipino studying and working here in the US. What does ‘being white’ have to do with this? I don’t even watch Fox News and everything I’ve said is unbiased fact. The fact that you failed to reply with any adequate argument and resort to baseless accusations proves to me you are either an ignoramus, a typical simpleminded Filipino, or both.
so because the gays have ruined america…are you leaving?
teacher (raises hand) i want to take a stab at making a good argument.
so as i understand the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment makes it illegal to deny people of equal protection under the law.
equal protection guarantees that when the government discriminates against a certain group by denying them a certain benefit, like getting married, that it should not be arbitrary.
what rational and non-arbitrary reason is there for the government to deny gay people the right to marry? and no you can’t use religious reasons because that would be against the establishment clause of the constitution. the same constitution that the unelected judges are suppose to interpret because of a decision called marbury v. madison.
you can’t really say marriage is for procreation only? seniors marry, baog heterosexual people marry
does this still make me a simpleminded Filipino teacher?
don’t deny that you love to watch fox? i won’t deny that I love watching the daily show with john stewart
Hi ice cube, using the equal protection and substantive due process clauses in the fourteenth amendment was the terrible gin and tonic trick by Justice Kennedy. Justice Roberts stated “the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State.” Also Justice Thomas: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” You see how it was turned on its head?
You also ask “what rational and non-arbitrary reason is there for the government to deny gay people the right to marry?” Justice Roberts (Alito addressed thia too) answers that “this universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” Sabi nga ni Vilma Santos sa “Anak” (LOL I just wrecked my credibility there) “Hindi tayo lahat magulang pero lahat tayo anak” (Hahaha, but the principle is correct) meaning, every child has a male father and a female mother, marriage was never meant to be a gender-blind institution, we are in effect depriving children a right to having their mothers and fathers around to nurture them, and they each bring unique, if I may say irreplaceable, benefits to their children this is why marriage is very unique. I am not saying we should ban same-sex unions, we can accommodate those too, along with certain benefits, but as public policy, we should understand that gay “marriage” is not equal to marriage (traditional/natural) as the best environment for new citizens to develop in. Otherwise, we risk bloating our beloved welfare state (that’s another issue, I do not want the Philippines to become a welfare state so we can have more personal freedoms and simply to agree to disagree on gay marriage, but in many aspects it already is a welfare state, haaay Juan Tamad and the proverbial guava fruit from the state’s tree).
Regarding the “concerns” stated in this:
1. Actually, children begin to become aware of gender as early as two years old, so teaching them about the LGBT community and encouraging children to look beyond gender is perfectly acceptable by ages 6-12.
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx
2. Considering how religious people and businesses have been discriminating since time in memorial, I’m not surprised that their “religious freedom” and “freedom of speech” are being curtailed. The right to free speech does not give you immunity to its repercussions nor its responsibilities.
3. Look up Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): “These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” With this in mind, if you seriously think that what the Supreme Court did is illegal, feel free to file a case against them.
1. This is not about learning of one’s gender, it’s about promoting all forms of sexual identities and lifestyles. Schools are doing this without parental consent. Does it not matter what parents and guardians think anymore? Schools don’t even expose kids to graphic images of heterosexual culture without informing parents, why should other sexual categories be exempt?
2. Learning tolerance and respect for others is one thing. But to the point that people lose their jobs or get fined thousands of dollars because they disagree with the politically correct agenda? This isn’t about promoting gradual tolerance anymore, it’s just radical forced acceptance and it’s wrong.
3. Yick Wo vs Hopkins dealt with an existing city ordinance that was written to be nondiscriminatory, but was enforced in a discriminating manner and therefore violated equal protection. It’s not the same at all. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that suggests that gay marriage is a right, because the federal government has no business enforcing what marriage is on a national level at all. That is up to the states.
Give me a break staser, trying to sounds so brilliant and question the Supreme court of the USA, your host country that gives you an opportunity to be considered human being? TYpical pignoy.
1. Do you need parental consent when schools teach who Allah is? Who Jesus Christ is? Who Buddha is? What the differences between girls and boys are?
I can understand that there is more to discuss before we can actually have a proper curriculum that correctly discusses gender, but the fact is that if you are going to properly discuss with children what makes a girl a girl and a boy a boy, you will need to explain to them that there is more to genders than biology, without having to info dump on them the entire gender spectrum.
2. The same radical forced acceptance that Isis is enforcing on the populace under its control? People lose their jobs or get fined all the time for saying or doing “stupid” stuff. Including stuff that don’t seem so “stupid” at the time, like discrimination regardless if it’s gender-based or skin-based.
3. I won’t go into discussing US Law because I’m not a US lawyer, much less a member of SCOTUS. Again, if you actually have a case against the US Supreme Court justices, then file it; Otherwise, this is simply idle banter.
And until you file that case against SCOTUS and win said case, the point remains that there is no exclusivity by the blacks to equality, that the right to marry is not exclusively based on biological gender.
Your comparisons and reasonings are flawed. It’s not a simple matter of different views. Gay marriage is about human right and dignity. We can probably agree now that bigotry and any forms of it such as racism is wrong. If you turn someone away because of their race, we can probably agree it’s wrong and will likely face a backlash, unless you’re racist of course. When someone is open about their bigotry, you bet, that tree will not fall silently in the forest.
The most egregious of your comparisons is rape. The dynamics with rape is around power and it’s usually pretty clear who has the power. I’m not even sure how else to make it intuitive how different that is from demanding equal treatment regardless of sexual preference.
The last thing I wanted to mention is your “advice”. Things change because someone somewhere saw something wrong and decided to do something about it. That’s how you effect change, not by walking away and accepting the status quo. Obviously, there are many cases where that would be the right thing to do, but gay marriage and equality is too important for that.
Are you saying then that people who do not agree with the notion of “same sex marriage” are bigots?
Equal treatment is good, yes. But forcing your opinions on someone is NOT. What I am asking for is that we all learn to respect one another.
You’re welcome to disagree with me too, if you want to, which I think you do.
I’m not forcing you to agree with me. So please don’t force others to conform with you. It’s just not right to force people to do something against their will.
I’m not saying you should accept status quo. I am only saying that you should accept the fact that everyone can’t agree with you and that you can’t please everyone anyway. Just as you can’t say “yes” to everything people tell you or ask you.
I thank you anyway for sharing your perspective here.
I disagree Lito, gay marriage is not about human rights and dignity. Seriously? Governments do not confer human rights and as Justice Thomas rightly stated in his dissent, there is no “dignity clause” in the US Constitution. HUman rights are intrinsic. If marriage is about dignity, then people should’ve been hurrying to get married everywhere, but the reality is that most people today see marriage as remnant of an oppresive patriarchal system and rather not get involved. People who choose to be single and celibate have the same human rights and dignity as those who are married so what is Justice Kennedy saying? “Marriage equality” is really ironic, if not outright deceptive. It is wrong in its understanding of liberty, wrong on the state rationale for civil marriage and wrong on democracy. Frankly, it was a sloppy piece – “nine parts poetry and one part legal analysis” (if at all). Justice Scalia laments this in his dissent that SCOTUS “has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie… The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”
Just going to ask how you are so certain that “most people today see marriage as remnant of an oppresive patriarchal system and rather not get involved.” Was there a survey conducted? Did anyone run any polls? How can you properly assert this as “reality” with the lack of real data to back it up? Because if all you’re using as proof of this is the flooding of pro-single instagram and twitter content, I’m curious as to what the multi billion industry known as marriage has to say about that.
As for singles getting the same rights as married couples, the same basic rights maybe, but there are a couple of legal benefits to being married that only married couples get, last I checked.
But honestly, I feel that this issue isn’t just a legal one, but a societal one as well; we barely know or understand ourselves as human beings, much less other fellow humans. To use the standards of 10+ years ago to determine what we should be today and ten years from now seems a bit odd when we are different from who we were before.
As for lamenting on how the SCOTUS ruling has ruined society forever, two things:
1. Maybe you should have reacted in 2001 to the Netherlands when *they* legalized same sex marriage?
2. There are more than a handful of countries that legalized same sex marriage even before the US. If you’d like to prove that same sex marriage actually harms society — as opposed to merely armchair complaining about how it hurts your religious beliefs, which is a valid way to express yourself, but doesn’t do anything to support your position — maybe you could collect the data from these countries and actually show the harmful effects of same sex marriage on society?
Hi Lawrence! Thanks for your response. Look up Pew Social Trends. In 2014 they reported that a “Record Share of Americans Have Never Married: As Values, Economics and Gender Patterns Change”. In 1960, one in ten adults had never been married, today it is nearly one in five. Others note that “it’s odd that all the same leftists who think marriage is an evil patriarchal institution want its “dignity” extended to LGBT”. LOL, twitter and instagram for research? No need for insults, we are both adults here, we can discuss with maturity.
Marriage is a unique institution and affording it unique benefits is tied to legitimate state interest. You see, if there was no intrinsic link between sex, procreation and family there would simply be no need for society to promote and protect faithful, permanent, lifelong sexual relationships. Put another way, the traditional view of marriage recognises the basic facts of life: that sex is not merely for pleasure, affection and romance. We cannot escape the fact that sex aims at procreation. Therefore, society has encouraged and protected sexual relationships which are suitable for procreation. That’s the point of marriage.
I don’t think marriage laws deny gays marriage benefits based solely on being gay (as the majority opinion likes so much to imagine) in the same way that marriage is rightly regulated against polyamorous/polygamous and incestuous relationships. The sexual relationship of one man and one woman is the only one capable of producing new citizens. People who cannot procreate (infertile and old people) seem to be discriminated in this reasoning, but they still model the biologically complementary partnership, and when they adopt, they provide the same ideal environment for these new citizens. There is also no guarantee that a man and a woman cannot have children, while there is a guarantee that a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot naturally do so; It is a consistent basic biological fact that all children have a male father and a female mother.
I did not say anything about “lamenting on how the SCOTUS ruling has ruined society forever” Huh? Where did you get that idea from my comment? If there’s anything I’d be lamenting on, it’s how sloppy and undemocratic the majority opinion is, that’s all, it’s a legal opinion. So what’s Netherlands 2001 got to do with it? I have this feeling that you never really read my comment and so you misread your ideas into my comment. To answer 2. though, here’s a few to start with:
(1) 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than cohabiting heterosexual couples.
(2) Another study by Loren Marks claims that on previous studies, “Not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 “American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting” compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.” Marks’s study casts significant doubt upon the older evidence on which the APA brief, and thus the “no differences” paradigm, rests.
(3) Gunnar Andersson’s et al “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden.” – 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages, such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Sociologists Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. Academy, acknowledge that “preliminary data hint that their [gay/lesbian] relationships may prove less durable.”
(4) Daniel Potter of American Institutes for Research has “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement”. This study finds that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these baseline differences can probably be attributed in part to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together.
(5) Of Course, the famed, Mark Regnerus’s study. The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) suggests notable differences on many outcomes do, in fact, exist [between same-sex, intact-married, and biological homes]. This is inconsistent with claims of ‘no differences’ generated by studies that have commonly employed far narrower samples than this one.
Finally, here’ President Obama in 2008 citing research: “We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”
Thanks for the response Pepe Rep 🙂 After checking the research you mentioned, the statement “most people today see marriage as remnant of an oppressive patriarchal system and rather not get involved” doesn’t seem to have any support from said research. In fact, this is explicitly stated in the article:
“Despite these mixed views about the role of marriage in society, Roughly half of all adults (47%) believe that this is very important, and an additional 21% consider it somewhat important.”
This is in complete contradiction to your statement, as the combined total of 68% of adults still consider marriage as important. Perhaps there’s a decline, given the trends, and maybe in the future people will mostly disagree about marriage. But as of 2014 at least I can’t really agree that “most” people don’t want to get married for any reason, much less because of the nature of marriage “as remnant of an oppressive patriarchal system”.
If you *really* want to emphasize the traditional nature of marriage, you may want to triple-check your facts. Because marriage was never originally about “sex, procreation and family”; that is a relatively recent development as even during St. Augustine’s time sex in any form was considered evil, and marriage was only made one of the sacraments in 1274 (nowhere near the time of Jesus mind you).
Hi again Lawrence! The survey results still reflect the waning desire of people to get legally married. “The share of never-married Americans has risen dramatically in the past five decades. Today, one-in-five Americans ages 25 and older have never been married, compared with just 9% in 1960…If current trends continue, 25% of young adults in the most recent cohort (ages 25 to 34 in 2010) will have never married by 2030. That would be the highest share in modern history.” It is clear we are headed towards a post-marriage culture. You asked for the survey/trends and I gave it to you. Now, when I said “the reality is that most people today see marriage as remnant of an oppressive patriarchal system and rather not get involved” it also includes criticisms of marriage in our century, such as the leftist feminist movement in 1970s: Feminist activists often point to historical, legal and social inequalities of wedding, family life and divorce in their criticism of marriage. Sheila Cronan claimed that the freedom for women “cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” Marlene Dixon said “the institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained”. Claudia Card, wrote that “the legal rights of access that married partners have to each other’s persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse… Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem.” Other books such as “The Need to Abolish Marriage. Feminism & Psychology” and “Feminism Liberalism and Marriage” argue that it gives the state an undue power and control over the private lives of the citizens. The statutes governing marriage are drafted by the state, and not by the couples who marry under those laws. The terms derived from the principles of institutionalized marriage represent the interests of the governments. It is also consistent in Europe where major social changes in Western countries have led to changes in the demographics of marriage, with the age of first marriage increasing, fewer people marrying, and more couples choosing to cohabit rather than marry. For example, the number of marriages in Europe decreased by 30% from 1975 to 2005. There’s more than these to support my claim. I think this disillusionment with the institution is not by mere stretch of my imagination and so I disagree that “this is in complete contradiction” to my statement. To which I added that it’s odd that all the same leftists who think marriage is an evil patriarchal institution want its “dignity” extended to LGBT.
I don’t “*really* want to emphasize the traditional nature of marriage”, I wanted to point out the essence of civil marriage. But then, if we do historical reading, marriages in Judaism, Hinduism predate Christianity and of other cultures developed it independently of Judaeo-Christian tradition. To Confucian China, marriage is of important significance both in the family and in society. In the perspective of family, marriage can bring families of different clans together, and continue the family life of the concerned clans. Therefore, only the benefits and demerits of the clans, instead of the individual couples, are concerned in a marriage. Socially, a married couple is the basic unit of the population. Marilyn Yalom claims that in Athens, 500 BCE, “marriage was respected as an institution that provided progeny and good housekeeping; it was not expected to fulfill one’s longing for a soul mate.” Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophanes, Musonius Rufus, and Plutarch all accepted definitions of marriage that excluded same-sex relationships. They did so in societies that tolerated and even promoted same-sex relationships (so their arguments cannot be attributed to “homophobia” or dismissed as the products of religious bigotry). In fact, Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, borne of ancient societies’ need to secure a safe environment in which to breed, handle the granting of property rights, and protect bloodlines. Marriage throughout history has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. Based on this, it seems marriage is, while, “originally about sex, procreation and family” realted to a wider societal purpose and not a “relatively recent development” at all. Even Justice Kennedy in Obergefell agrees: “The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together.” So does Chief Justice Roberts when he said “This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”
Now, for your odd comments that follow: Certainly, “sex in any form” isn’t “considered evil” during and even way before St. Agustine’s time? That was a weird comment and irrelevant to our discussion. How can humans “be fruitful, and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein” without sex? Also “marriage was only made one of the sacraments in 1274” is both inaccurate (1184 Council of Verona) and again, irrelevant in light of earlier history, such as in the Torah, (long before “the time of Jesus mind you”) to which Jesus references the one flesh union of one man and one woman in Genesis. I’ll end here. Thanks for the engaging my views and asking for clarifications, really appreciate it. Now, it’s your turn to “triple-check your facts”.
A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.
@ Thaddeus Grimwald, why are you so hard on yourself? Why not just walk right up to the young Lady, smile, say ‘Hi,my name is Thaddeus, and would you like to go to the movies tonight? You see, I think you are just a lovely young Lady and I would be thrilled with your company.”,yes? Give it a shot.I bet she says: ‘Yes,I’d like that Thaddeus.”….Strike up the band !
IDK you, but I bet your not half as hideous as you imagine others think you are. Remember, people only see what you show them. Go for it ,dude. If you don’t, someone else will.
Hi Grimwald, I’m not sure if your characterization of gay marriage is accurate when you said you’re “certainly happy with the approval of same-sex marriage in the United States…people don’t need to be lonely anymore and can spend their lives with the people they love…can finally live happily under one roof and have their relationship legitimized” (that’s as mushy as the SCOTUS ruling), when it has already been legitimized in civil unions and afforded similar benefits. The questions really are (1) why government is in the marriage business in the first place, and (2) why does civil marriage discriminate against not only same-sex relationships, but against incestuous, adulterous and polyamorous ones as well. Calrity lies in the answers to these. I agree with you on liberty, that no one should force their ideas on others. Sadly, it seems the people who cry victims of bullying before are now the bullies to those who do not agree with their ideas. El Filibusterismo: The slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow.
I don’t understand why people get so worked up on this issue. Marriage is a private matter even for straight or heterosexual and if they decided to divorce, annul, open marriage is no one’s business but the couple.
Whether the world like it or not, gay relationship is existing, living in one roof, doing what some people thought they shouldn’t be doing. Why do you care so much about these gays getting married if it doesn’t affect you? Who gave someone the right to be morally police? Some religious people call it sin, but if they are real Christians they are also sinning by being judgmental.
Being that said, I agree with the author. Gays should’t be shoving their lifestyle to other people’s throat either. Live and let live.
Thank you for your comment.
Before same-sex marriage, let it be known first that there is third gender. Same-sex marriage won’t be a conflict if the society accepts the existence of third gender. Now if third gender is accepted, then they should also be entitled to the right of the male and female. But third gender should also function like the men or women in terms of productivity and upholding peace, dignity and order in the society. Also, nobody should cause gender confusion to a growing child. Everybody is born a male or a female. Let that kid grow as they are (a male or a female) until such time that they can decide for their own good. The parents and the society have the responsibility to look after the child’s welfare. They should be treated aptly according to their gender. Third gender should not be encouraged or imposed to young people as this will go against their natural orientation at birth. Nobody should put upon a kid the toll of having an identity crisis because the people around him or her or the society dictate him or her to act differently according to his or her gender or sexual orientation. People should also respect ethical belief of other people. If nobody can decide what’s right or wrong, good or evil, and everybody will keep imposing on their right as a person or minority, that would be the cause to loosen boundaries. That may cause chaos.
Now I have a lot of question to gay couple. The kids are actually my concern. Personally, I grew up in a normal family meaning there are a mother and father, a brother and sister. Mother and sister are female through and through. Father and brother are male through and through. I am a female through and through (through and through meaning we don’t get attracted to same gender and we don’t wish to be another gender or feel we are another gender trap to our body). If there’s same-sex marriage, this also means the same-sex couples will build a family (eventually for those who want a family). So there will be three groups of parents now and this should be taught in school or added to educational materials so children with gay parents won’t think it abnormal that they have gay parents and other kids, too, won’t think that children with gay parents have abnormal family. So then we have three parents; gay parents father-father (both male), mother-mother (both female), and mother-father. Now how will gay parents produce offspring? We have artificial insemination for gay female (or being impregnated by a male – the kid would be created outside marriage then), and for the gay male the use of surrogate moms (the kid would be created outside marriage then), or they could adopt. Where’s the sanctity of marriage then?
Also, my question is for the same-sex couples. Once you have a child, would you tell your child right away that it’s okay to be attracted or fall in love with the same gender, it’s okay to have a relationship with same gender, it’s okay to dress and act like a boy (for a girl) and to dress and act like a girl (for a boy)? And if your child asks you, why don’t I have a mother or a father, why do I have two fathers or two mothers instead? Then the birds and bees question: where did I come from, how did the two of you created me? How would you respond to it?
While your set of questions is best answered by actual same sex couples, I have the following opinions to share, based on how I would answer if I were part of a nontraditional marriage:
1. What makes nonbiological gender not “normal”?
2. There would only be one set of parents: two people in love who decided to settle down together and raise a family. Why the need to segregate parents and families based on their biology?
3. The sanctity of marriage stays with the religion of the participants. Never force atheists or buddhists or any other person to conform to your religious beliefs, out of tolerance and respect.
4. Gender confusion doesn’t arise from saying that it’s okay for someone to like whoever they like. It starts when someone says it’s wrong to like someone because they’re the same gender as you.
5. Biological gender is just as natural as gender identity. It’s the assignment of gender roles that is unnatural, as it is society tbat defines the purpose of being a man or woman or whatever.
6. The only time I can think of that a question like “why do I have two dads/moms?” is worth asking from the perspective of a child is if he or she thinks that such a relationship is wrong. If I had to answer that, this is my response: “because your other dad is an awesome person and I wouldn’t replace him for any woman in the world”.
As for the birds and the bees question, the hard question isn’t “how was I made?”, because I’ll use biology to answer that (“you were formed when an egg and a sperm came together”). The hard questions are “Why did the people who made me abandon me?”, and “Don’t the people who made me love me?” Because discussing anatomical facts is easy, but trying to explain why people even think of putting children up for adoption is another.
Of course, if artificial insemination and cloning become a thing, then it’s a perfect excuse to show my child some cool sci-fi movies and tell him or her, “back when I was a kid, I never dreamed that was possible. Now that amazing fantasy is part of your reality, and things can only get more amazing from this point.”
And that would be awesome, no question about it.
Lawrence,
You said the term “nontraditional marriage” for same-sex marriage. I think that would be apt and also non-Christian and non-Muslim marriage.
“1. What makes nonbiological gender not “normal”?”
I guess it’s in your answer. The third gender is nonbiological, or not relating to birth. There’s only two sexes. Male and Female. Third gender arise when there’s been a “mistake” on assignment of gender roles (I think we have different meaning on “assignment”) meaning a female (mind) was born on a male body and a male was born in a female body. That’s what I understand with our psychology today on why third gender isn’t an abnormality as was claimed before.
“2. There would only be one set of parents: two people in love who decided to settle down together and raise a family. Why the need to segregate parents and families based on their biology?”
Not really segregate. It’s just that naturally, a coupling of a female (egg) and a male (sperm) is what will produce an offspring. Thus, these two are the most likely parents.
“3. The sanctity of marriage stays with the religion of the participants. Never force atheists or buddhists or any other person to conform to your religious beliefs, out of tolerance and respect.”
Yes. And vice versa. If the issue is when same-sex couples wants to be married in a church where the belief does not accept same-sex coupling, is it not forcing the church or religion to conform to their beliefs?
“4. Gender confusion doesn’t arise from saying that it’s okay for someone to like whoever they like. It starts when someone says it’s wrong to like someone because they’re the same gender as you.”
Well, yes. For third gender. I don’t see why a female will fall for a female and a male will fall for a male when they are straight people so when you tell them it’s okay to like the same gender, that’ll be just liking somebody because it is permissible.
“5. Biological gender is just as natural as gender identity. It’s the assignment of gender roles that is unnatural, as it is society tbat defines the purpose of being a man or woman or whatever.”
I don’t seem to get this.
“6. The only time I can think of that a question like “why do I have two dads/moms?” is worth asking from the perspective of a child is if he or she thinks that such a relationship is wrong. If I had to answer that, this is my response: “because your other dad is an awesome person and I wouldn’t replace him for any woman in the world”.”
Not really wrong. But of course a child would see other parents being a mother or a father. The differences they see around them is one reason why they will question about it.
“As for the birds and the bees question, the hard question isn’t “how was I made?”, because I’ll use biology to answer that (“you were formed when an egg and a sperm came together”). The hard questions are “Why did the people who made me abandon me?”, and “Don’t the people who made me love me?” Because discussing anatomical facts is easy, but trying to explain why people even think of putting children up for adoption is another.
Of course, if artificial insemination and cloning become a thing, then it’s a perfect excuse to show my child some cool sci-fi movies and tell him or her, “back when I was a kid, I never dreamed that was possible. Now that amazing fantasy is part of your reality, and things can only get more amazing from this point.
And that would be awesome, no question about it.”
Yes. But let’s use it for the purpose it was made. Artificial insemination is actually invented for couple who have difficulty conceiving. Cloning is for aid in new treatments of disease.
It is the abuse of “Human Rights”……if it is their right, then it is also the right of other groups to express themselves, contrariwise to their own self opinions. It seems like they’ve gone over the edge emphasizing and brandishing their rights to the extent that they get violent. What is it” Force Makes Might?” It is Human Rights gone berserk. My Pastor said that those Judges just made America another Sodom & Gomorrah and he’s not far from the truth. That is his opinion and I quite agree with him. That is our right to express too, so they shouldn’t be angry when we state this. They defend themselves by whatever rationale they can think of in a very civilized, peaceful way. That is how people in a civilized society act, and they should also be mindful of their behavior, like not going naked parading in the streets. I think we have to observe proper decorum and good manners so as not to offend other people too.
I’d just like to say that this is the first time EVER that I’ve commented on any blog sites (I don’t think FB posts from friends count, so yeah FIRST TIME EVER), so yeah. I’m leaving myself open to bashers.
My mother (bless her amazing self) taught my 2 brothers and I that in life you can do anything you want as long as it doesn’t violate two rules: 1. Don’t hurt yourself and 2. Don’t hurt others. It’s very black and white I know, but it does eliminate ALOT of things (murder, theft, rape, bullying, discrimination, cheating, etc. etc. etc.)
I honestly don’t see how letting gay people marry hurts another person. I mean does one get physically hurt if two dudes decide to gay it up in the privacy of their marital bed? (guess you can use your imagination on that, but you know what I mean)
Seriously, who are getting hurt here? Conservatives who love to quote the Bible? (Old Testament Bible to be precise, Leviticus, Leviticus everywhere) Now on a side note I DID NOT appreciate what those gay people did insulting the images of Christianity to rub it in people’s faces, cause frankly, it was offending(again circling back to hurting others) but all I hear from arguments against gay marriage is “Bible says this and Bible says that”
And it makes me kinda sad that, while there are conservatives who do not agree but are okay with you being gay coz they respect you, there are also those who accuse gay marriage of being the destruction of everything sane and holy and just in the world.
Circling back to my mom’s teaching, are we getting physically hurt by two gay men/women getting married? Are they going out of their way to induce some sort of harm on others by getting married?
Can’t we just let them be happy? Disagree but let them be happy? What’s the harm in that? Crack down on them if they’re making up a secret society of married gays for a hostile take over of the world. But other than that, just let them be happy. Everyone deserves it right?
In closing, there are some gay people who are just as bad as extremist conservatives in their views (hence the bastardization of images held dear to people). But seriously, are you going to let the actions of these people generalize the whole population? Like how Fox News basically brands all Muslims terrorists?
I just don’t understand and I do hope that I will soon..
Yes, as I mentioned above, I am very happy that gay people are given a right to be happy with each other. I am, in fact, very happy with two of my friends who are gay and living together.
However, I am not happy about certain LGBT extremists who are forcing others to conform to their wishes. For instance, they get mad and make a fuss when certain clergymen won’t wed them or when some businesses won’t cater to them.
While I am fully FOR gay marriage, I still believe that people still have the right to say “no”. I know it’s sad and it hurts when people turn you down but that’s simply the way the world works. You can’t say “yes” to everyone.
Besides, think about it. Businesses who turn down gays will just ruin themselves in the long run. You know, disgruntled customers are never good for business. They can talk about you and ruin you in the end.
What I’m saying is simply “live and let live”.
I hope this comment helped.
The world is at the brink of (already at) WORLD WAR III, not trying to be righteous nor shoving my thoughts on anyone…..but I haven’t seen any effort from the general humanity in even trying to shove any sense to the drivers of this human catastrophe…….should anyone wait till this is at your doorsteps? Peace everyone….just my paranoias out loud.