matrixmanne0 (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} matrixmanne0) wrote,@ 2008-12-31 12:29:00 |
|
Because I'm Proud of Myself
I just sent the following e-mail and thought I'd throw it here.
I'd like to take the time to respond to the following article: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_mar
The problem with the article is that it automatically assumes that marriage is a religious institution. It's not. People of different theologies get married all the time. When the article says "[a]s the account of Genesis shows, marriage and sexuality were created by God and given to mankind as gifts for our benefit," I object because the presuppositions (that God created marriage, that God created sexuality, that Genesis accurately represents God's viewpoints, that God exists, etc.) have yet to be established.
When the author states, "[s]ince the Church sees marriage as holy, it believes it must be treated with reverence," the same rejection applies. Solely because one group of people views marriage as holy does not mean all groups of people must view marriage as holy.
Pairing these two weaknesses with the notion that "prohibition of homosexual marriage is not [...] requir[ing] anyone to "force religious dogma" down anyone else's throat" is a contradiction in and of itself.
I do agree with the article's objections against the word "homophobic". It is becoming more of a buzz word in today's society to end all rational argument about the topic. The notion that one can disagree with "homosexual acts" is perfectly fine in my viewpoint, but one's own opinion has nothing to do with legal matters.
To conclude the first part, we must be very wary when we talk about marriage. Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a legal institution, and we can tell that marriage is a legal institution because married couples get financial and social benefits as provided by the law.
- - - - - - - - - -
The evidence presented for marriage extending longevity of life is interesting, but again has no place in legal matters.
The argument that "[t]here is no data showing similar benefits for same-sex couples" is evidence that we should be -cautious- when we look into same-sex marriages, not that we should stop change altogether.
I was unable to locate where the original source for the argument that men do stupid things and women don't do stupid things came from, but the argument is (1) more than twenty years old; (2) unapplicable to all men and women; and (3) irrelevant. That the article is so dated is a strike against its credibility. That the article is unapplicable to all men and women means that denying them same-sex marriages might be considered cruel. Should these innocent men and women be prohibited from marrying simply because some other men and women act differently from them? The article is irrelevant because no connection has been drawn between men being stupid and this having any bearing on legal recourse. Stupid men are not forced to be married. Why should stupid men be barred from marrying another man? There is no evidence to prove that they shouldn't, thus we should treat the situation with caution, but not with total fear.
When the article states that "the biggest reason for the health advantage of marriage-a reason that benefits both men and women-is the emotional satisfaction of a happy and fulfilling marriage," it provides no evidence that one man can't provide emotional satisfaction for another man, or one woman can't provide emotional satisfaction for another woman.
When the article states that "[t]here were studies in the 1970s that suggested that marriage benefits men but hurts women, but those studies have long since been repudiated," it follows my line of logic that outdated articles may relay inaccurate information.
The rest of the article that discusses how marriage "makes a couple happier" could be seen as a proponent of same-sex marriage, then. With same-sex marriages, we could assume that more marriages would be created, because more people would be willing to get married, therefore more people would be "happier" than before.
When the article states, "We can get there only through profound loving union with one other person-and only one other person. The deepest relationship can involve only two people," it shows no relevance for this claim, but merely draws upon speculation that people would get jealous within the relationship. Polyamory is another area of marriage that should be approached -with caution- and not totally feared to the point of stagnation.
When the article states that "[t]here is also a fourth quality needed for long-term success. It also is dictated by the nature of the human person. That feature is sexual complementarity. For the deepest unity, you need one man and one woman," again, it provides no evidence that this should have any legal standing. Indeed, should a person be denied a marriage license because they can't (or don't wish to) have sex? Arguing that same-sex couples somehow pervert the "sanctity of sex" as it were assumes that couples need sex in the first place and that sex has a purpose, and that, if it has a purpose, we should follow it. Note that the evidence given for couples "needing sex" is shoddy at best and backed up with no real evidence, arguing from "spiritual" viewpoints (which are never clearly defined in the article). Arguing that a "man compliments a woman" or vice versa draws no logical conclusion as to why the law should reflect such a notion. It is not the law's place to make the individual better. It is the law's place to uphold rights.
In conclusion, the second part of this argument is laden with the idea that the law should uphold mental and physical health, and that only a woman can compliment a man. This notion is entirely false and not backed up with good research or logic. The law is put in place to protect the rights of individuals.
- - - - - - - - - -
This third part discusses whether same-sex marriages will be detrimental to the meaning of "marriage".
The idea that "[i]f the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce" is not backed up by psychological evidence, assumes that divorce is "bad", and assumes that the law should prevent what is "bad." Would a divorce in a failing relationship be "bad"? Would a divorce with an abusive spouse be "bad"?
When the article states, "Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized," and says that "[t]he divorce rate skyrocketed," it argues against statutes that make it easier to divorce, not statutes that make it easier to marry. The "no-fault" divorce removes stigma away from divorcing. It doesn't devalue the concept of marriage.
The argument that "[homosexual] relationships would still lack the orientation to procreation, the openness to life, that marriage is all about" is invalid, because marriage is not solely about procreation. Is not marriage about happiness as described in the previous section? Or perhaps about society? Or maybe the devotion and trust that was discussed in the second part? To say that people shouldn't get married -because of their thoughts- is ridiculous, because not only would that be a breach of privacy, but it would also be ... well, impossible.
Concluding the third part, the article has provided no reason why the law should deny what is "bad", and the parallel it has drawn between the "no-fault" divorce and same-sex marriages is shaky at best. "No-fault" divorce is about ending marriages and removing the stigma from divorce. Same-sex marriage is about beginning marriages. That a couple shouldn't marry because they don't have "openness to life" is incredibly faulty, because it assumes that people who don't wish to procreate aren't "open to life".
- - - - - - - - - -
The fourth part seems to direct its attention at same-sex marriages directly.
When the article states that "[h]omosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully," it attributes such suicides to things as "interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care." The article also argues that, because homosexuality is no longer considered a "disorder" by the scientific community, it is no longer a stigma. This notion is entirely false, and we can see this through the US Census Bureau's statistics on hate-crimes on the basis of sexual orientation. Were homosexuality not a stigma, why would there be consistently over 1200 hate crimes (for sexual orientation) in the US alone since 1995 (and probably earlier, because the US Census Bureau has not provided statistics for earlier years)? Thirty years after it was no longer considered a "disorder", people are still attacking others for sexual orientation. And that has nothing to say regarding words like "gay" and "fag" in today's society.
The article continues by talking about promiscuity, and saying that homosexuals should be denied marriage because of promiscuity, because they'll never be able to commit. Yet, the article doesn't say that heterosexuals should be denied marriage because of promiscuity, even though it does give the concession that heterosexuals might have a hard time committing as well. And would not the perfect solution for homosexuals be to give them marriage rights anyway? The article has not explored -why- homosexuals don't "commit", as it were. Perhaps it's because homosexuals -can't- commit. Perhaps it's because society has banned homosexuals from marriage, the ultimate form of commitment.
Whether or not same-sex relationships are "life giving" is irrelevant to the law. That marriage should be banned from various individuals simply because other individuals are promiscuous is a ridiculous notion. If heterosexual couples became more promiscuous in the future, should we revoke the rights of heterosexual couples to marry?
On the question of adoption and artificial insemination, the article states it best: "There is almost no good data to answer this question." A reason for caution, not fear.
When the article states, "[t]he statistics make it very clear that homosexuals are not at peace with themselves. No one who is at peace seeks sex with hundreds of strangers," it misses the point. Homosexuals are "not at peace with themselves" because of societal stigmas, not because of promiscuity. No, same-sex marriages are a symbol of tolerance, freedom, and clear-headedness.
I have no disagreement with polyamory, but when the article states, "And if groups can marry, then why not humans and animals? Why not a nerd and his computer? Brother and sister? Mother and son? A boy and his dog?" it misses very obvious legal objections. In the cases of "humans and animals" or "nerd and computer" or "mother and son" or "boy and dog," one party is always lacking consent. I have also seen no evidence that incest should be illegalized by courts, which, again, means we should approach the situation with -caution-.
To conclude this fourth part, homosexuals might display such "bizarre" behavior because of societal stigmas. Furthermore, that homosexuals might be promiscuous can be remedied by marriage. The notion that homosexuals are not in a "life giving" relationship is irrelevant and has no standing in a legal setting. The argument that we'll fall down a "slippery slope" is based off of a misunderstanding of "consent" and "marriage licenses" which can only be issued to consenting adults.
- - - - - - - - - -
Same-sex marriages should be enacted because they do grant the most important aspects of marriage: commitment and happiness.
I just sent the following e-mail and thought I'd throw it here.
I'd like to take the time to respond to the following article: http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_mar
The problem with the article is that it automatically assumes that marriage is a religious institution. It's not. People of different theologies get married all the time. When the article says "[a]s the account of Genesis shows, marriage and sexuality were created by God and given to mankind as gifts for our benefit," I object because the presuppositions (that God created marriage, that God created sexuality, that Genesis accurately represents God's viewpoints, that God exists, etc.) have yet to be established.
When the author states, "[s]ince the Church sees marriage as holy, it believes it must be treated with reverence," the same rejection applies. Solely because one group of people views marriage as holy does not mean all groups of people must view marriage as holy.
Pairing these two weaknesses with the notion that "prohibition of homosexual marriage is not [...] requir[ing] anyone to "force religious dogma" down anyone else's throat" is a contradiction in and of itself.
I do agree with the article's objections against the word "homophobic". It is becoming more of a buzz word in today's society to end all rational argument about the topic. The notion that one can disagree with "homosexual acts" is perfectly fine in my viewpoint, but one's own opinion has nothing to do with legal matters.
To conclude the first part, we must be very wary when we talk about marriage. Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a legal institution, and we can tell that marriage is a legal institution because married couples get financial and social benefits as provided by the law.
- - - - - - - - - -
The evidence presented for marriage extending longevity of life is interesting, but again has no place in legal matters.
The argument that "[t]here is no data showing similar benefits for same-sex couples" is evidence that we should be -cautious- when we look into same-sex marriages, not that we should stop change altogether.
I was unable to locate where the original source for the argument that men do stupid things and women don't do stupid things came from, but the argument is (1) more than twenty years old; (2) unapplicable to all men and women; and (3) irrelevant. That the article is so dated is a strike against its credibility. That the article is unapplicable to all men and women means that denying them same-sex marriages might be considered cruel. Should these innocent men and women be prohibited from marrying simply because some other men and women act differently from them? The article is irrelevant because no connection has been drawn between men being stupid and this having any bearing on legal recourse. Stupid men are not forced to be married. Why should stupid men be barred from marrying another man? There is no evidence to prove that they shouldn't, thus we should treat the situation with caution, but not with total fear.
When the article states that "the biggest reason for the health advantage of marriage-a reason that benefits both men and women-is the emotional satisfaction of a happy and fulfilling marriage," it provides no evidence that one man can't provide emotional satisfaction for another man, or one woman can't provide emotional satisfaction for another woman.
When the article states that "[t]here were studies in the 1970s that suggested that marriage benefits men but hurts women, but those studies have long since been repudiated," it follows my line of logic that outdated articles may relay inaccurate information.
The rest of the article that discusses how marriage "makes a couple happier" could be seen as a proponent of same-sex marriage, then. With same-sex marriages, we could assume that more marriages would be created, because more people would be willing to get married, therefore more people would be "happier" than before.
When the article states, "We can get there only through profound loving union with one other person-and only one other person. The deepest relationship can involve only two people," it shows no relevance for this claim, but merely draws upon speculation that people would get jealous within the relationship. Polyamory is another area of marriage that should be approached -with caution- and not totally feared to the point of stagnation.
When the article states that "[t]here is also a fourth quality needed for long-term success. It also is dictated by the nature of the human person. That feature is sexual complementarity. For the deepest unity, you need one man and one woman," again, it provides no evidence that this should have any legal standing. Indeed, should a person be denied a marriage license because they can't (or don't wish to) have sex? Arguing that same-sex couples somehow pervert the "sanctity of sex" as it were assumes that couples need sex in the first place and that sex has a purpose, and that, if it has a purpose, we should follow it. Note that the evidence given for couples "needing sex" is shoddy at best and backed up with no real evidence, arguing from "spiritual" viewpoints (which are never clearly defined in the article). Arguing that a "man compliments a woman" or vice versa draws no logical conclusion as to why the law should reflect such a notion. It is not the law's place to make the individual better. It is the law's place to uphold rights.
In conclusion, the second part of this argument is laden with the idea that the law should uphold mental and physical health, and that only a woman can compliment a man. This notion is entirely false and not backed up with good research or logic. The law is put in place to protect the rights of individuals.
- - - - - - - - - -
This third part discusses whether same-sex marriages will be detrimental to the meaning of "marriage".
The idea that "[i]f the meaning of marriage is weakened, it will be psychologically easier for even more people to divorce" is not backed up by psychological evidence, assumes that divorce is "bad", and assumes that the law should prevent what is "bad." Would a divorce in a failing relationship be "bad"? Would a divorce with an abusive spouse be "bad"?
When the article states, "Look at what happened when "no-fault" divorce was legalized," and says that "[t]he divorce rate skyrocketed," it argues against statutes that make it easier to divorce, not statutes that make it easier to marry. The "no-fault" divorce removes stigma away from divorcing. It doesn't devalue the concept of marriage.
The argument that "[homosexual] relationships would still lack the orientation to procreation, the openness to life, that marriage is all about" is invalid, because marriage is not solely about procreation. Is not marriage about happiness as described in the previous section? Or perhaps about society? Or maybe the devotion and trust that was discussed in the second part? To say that people shouldn't get married -because of their thoughts- is ridiculous, because not only would that be a breach of privacy, but it would also be ... well, impossible.
Concluding the third part, the article has provided no reason why the law should deny what is "bad", and the parallel it has drawn between the "no-fault" divorce and same-sex marriages is shaky at best. "No-fault" divorce is about ending marriages and removing the stigma from divorce. Same-sex marriage is about beginning marriages. That a couple shouldn't marry because they don't have "openness to life" is incredibly faulty, because it assumes that people who don't wish to procreate aren't "open to life".
- - - - - - - - - -
The fourth part seems to direct its attention at same-sex marriages directly.
When the article states that "[h]omosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully," it attributes such suicides to things as "interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care." The article also argues that, because homosexuality is no longer considered a "disorder" by the scientific community, it is no longer a stigma. This notion is entirely false, and we can see this through the US Census Bureau's statistics on hate-crimes on the basis of sexual orientation. Were homosexuality not a stigma, why would there be consistently over 1200 hate crimes (for sexual orientation) in the US alone since 1995 (and probably earlier, because the US Census Bureau has not provided statistics for earlier years)? Thirty years after it was no longer considered a "disorder", people are still attacking others for sexual orientation. And that has nothing to say regarding words like "gay" and "fag" in today's society.
The article continues by talking about promiscuity, and saying that homosexuals should be denied marriage because of promiscuity, because they'll never be able to commit. Yet, the article doesn't say that heterosexuals should be denied marriage because of promiscuity, even though it does give the concession that heterosexuals might have a hard time committing as well. And would not the perfect solution for homosexuals be to give them marriage rights anyway? The article has not explored -why- homosexuals don't "commit", as it were. Perhaps it's because homosexuals -can't- commit. Perhaps it's because society has banned homosexuals from marriage, the ultimate form of commitment.
Whether or not same-sex relationships are "life giving" is irrelevant to the law. That marriage should be banned from various individuals simply because other individuals are promiscuous is a ridiculous notion. If heterosexual couples became more promiscuous in the future, should we revoke the rights of heterosexual couples to marry?
On the question of adoption and artificial insemination, the article states it best: "There is almost no good data to answer this question." A reason for caution, not fear.
When the article states, "[t]he statistics make it very clear that homosexuals are not at peace with themselves. No one who is at peace seeks sex with hundreds of strangers," it misses the point. Homosexuals are "not at peace with themselves" because of societal stigmas, not because of promiscuity. No, same-sex marriages are a symbol of tolerance, freedom, and clear-headedness.
I have no disagreement with polyamory, but when the article states, "And if groups can marry, then why not humans and animals? Why not a nerd and his computer? Brother and sister? Mother and son? A boy and his dog?" it misses very obvious legal objections. In the cases of "humans and animals" or "nerd and computer" or "mother and son" or "boy and dog," one party is always lacking consent. I have also seen no evidence that incest should be illegalized by courts, which, again, means we should approach the situation with -caution-.
To conclude this fourth part, homosexuals might display such "bizarre" behavior because of societal stigmas. Furthermore, that homosexuals might be promiscuous can be remedied by marriage. The notion that homosexuals are not in a "life giving" relationship is irrelevant and has no standing in a legal setting. The argument that we'll fall down a "slippery slope" is based off of a misunderstanding of "consent" and "marriage licenses" which can only be issued to consenting adults.
- - - - - - - - - -
Same-sex marriages should be enacted because they do grant the most important aspects of marriage: commitment and happiness.
