Sean Penn Prop 8 Oscar Speech | Emotionality Running Wild and Disguised as Logic 4
February 23, 2009
Sean Penn Prop 8 Oscar Speech | I Voted for Prop 8 & I am not ashamed.
Sean Penn said during his acceptance speech:
“I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”
I guess Sean Penn did not have enough time to address how we deprive siblings of their equal right to marriage. Another example of Emotionality Running Wild and Disguised as Logic.
I do not feel ashamed. Prop 8 encourages children’s right to a mom and a dad.
Laura did an awesome post here
Entry Filed under: celebrities and marriage. .
1.
Laura | February 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Thanks for the props! I appreciate your comments on my blog too.
I think my new pet peeve is celebrities who think they know more than everyone else…
2.
rubyeliot | February 23, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Your post is awesome. I can’t really handle the celebrities and their public ignorance. I feel bad for the actually.
3.
Javier | February 23, 2009 at 10:10 pm
You might not ever live to be ashamed, but I can assure that my generation and upcoming generations will find your views on this topic extremely shameful. Many young Americans already do.
4.
rubyeliot | February 23, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Oh Javier, I’m not worried. It is an honor to speak logic and truth. Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. People can enter into whatever other contracts they want, but marriage is reserved for the kind of relationship that provides the best environment for children: a mom and a dad.
Many young Americans agree with this, and all children need it.
5.
Larry | February 23, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Dear Mr. Penn,
First let me congratulate you for capturing the Best Actor Award at the 81st Academy Awards. Time and time again you’ve proven that you are one of this era’s finest actors. Your past, present (and no doubt) future successes are validation to your incredible talent, and your willingness to take risks as you illuminate the big screen.
I do however want to take this opportunity to take issue with you on your provocative choice of words in your acceptance speech. In my opinion, support for Proposition 8 is not about hate, it is about the freedom of choice. The truth of the matter is even without Proposition 8, thanks to years of advocacy, many same sex couples already enjoy the benefits of heterosexual, married couples — it appears that trend will continue. If that is the case, then the real issue must be one of acceptance – or the fact that same sex advocates want acceptance of their lifestyle choices.
For many years same-sex advocates have tried to redefine the term tolerance and impose their views upon society. In case you are unaware Mr. Penn, the definition of tolerance is as follows:
Permissiveness: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior.
The act of tolerating something.
A willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.
Nowhere in that definition does the term acceptance appear. However it appears that in the view of the anti-Proposition 8 crowd, it is imperative that this definition be changed to validate their particular point of view.
As an African-American, I personally am offended whenever the issue of same-sex marriage is dovetailed with the historical significance of the Civil Rights Movement. I wake up every morning and look upon features that I am unable to change (not that I would want to for a moment). Those features define me and identify me to society. Yet, there are countless well-documented cases of previous homosexuals who have decided that they no longer want to engage in the lifestyle and choose to be heterosexual. Their decision is tantamount to me one day choosing to be Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, or any other ethnic group. I am sure an intelligent and socially-responsible individual like you can see the difference between those examples. Many African Americans marched and died in places like Selma and Birmingham because of the color of their skin – something that they could not alter by simply changing their minds.
Inflammatory rhetoric such as yours does nothing to create understanding or sympathy, but instead seeks to provoke deep-seeded emotions that ironically often do result in hateful behavior. Many times it seems that those who advocate “tolerance” appear to be the most intolerant.
In my opinion in addition to providing an escape from the often harsh realities of life, Hollywood also has the ability to inspire, educate, and in special cases, to bring people together. Your acceptance speech gives indication that you are well aware of leverage your celebrity has to influence others.
However, the fact that you are royalty in Tinsel town does not elevate your point of view above others who do not currently, and in all likelihood will never appear on the silver screen. Millions of the so-called “silent majority” who support your right to free speech, also understand the definition of Marriage to be between one man and one woman. In fact many of those people live in the state of California and have spoken in democratic fashion. Yet you and the rest of the anti-Proposition 8 advocates choose to disrespect that process, and in turn disrespect their freedom of choice — because you disagree.
I pose a rhetorical question to you — in addition to recognition of your craft, does receiving the Oscar also provide you with the ability to disregard the will of a majority of the people and override our nation’s democratic foundation of more than 230 years?
No rational person endorses hatred in any form. All people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual persuasion. However, in my opinion, neither is any person or group entitled to override the foundation of democracy that made this nation great because they disagree with its norms and statutes.
If true discrimination exists, then we must root it out and eradicate it wherever and whenever it occurs. However in doing so we must be very careful not to label disagreement, freedom of choice, and personal preference as discrimination or hateful behavior. When that happens we lose sight of the very principles you attempt to stand up for.
You have been given great privilege and with it greater responsibility. I believe it is your responsibility to understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance, between disagreement and hatred and use your platform circumspectly. Speak out if you must, our constitution affords you that right. You are entitled to use your moment of professional validation to wax provocatively about your beliefs. However, please provide the same dignity and respect that you speak of to those who do not share your beliefs. A refusal to accept a point of view does not equate to hate.
Respectfully,
Larry
6.
rubyeliot | February 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm
larry, i hope you really sent that letter. thank you for commenting!
7.
Larry | February 23, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Ruby,
Yes I did.
8.
rubyeliot | February 24, 2009 at 12:04 am
did you email it?
9.
johnbisceglia | February 24, 2009 at 2:13 am
Believe what you must – at this point, many of us do not care anymore.
We will just sit back and allow YOU folks to carry the federal tax burden.
That is PURE JUSTICE!
10.
rubyeliot | February 24, 2009 at 3:37 am
thanks john, happy to see you are putting a face to your comments these days.
11.
SoCalMommy | February 24, 2009 at 3:51 am
Awesome letter, Larry!
Unfortunately, it is the trend in Hollywood to be “pro-gay” and anti-Christian. It seems that to be a part of the “in” crowd, one must be supporting the gay agenda.
What these dopes don’t understand is that Prop 8 is simply putting a box around the legal definition of marriage. Plain and simple. It says nothing about hating LBGT people.
I think that it all boils down to their paycheck. The financial backers of Hollywood are likely pro-gay; if you want to appear in their movie, you will sell yourself out and tell everyone how “shameful” it is to have voted for Prop. 8.
Well, I am NOT ashamed that I voted for Prop 8. As a devout Catholic, I will not deny the teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage. I have a right to tell people what I believe.
’nuff said!!
12.
Anthony | February 24, 2009 at 4:22 am
Larry,
That was a very well written letter. It is pointed and very rational. I completely agree with you. Everyone has a choice to create their opinions and how they reach them is personal. However, sometimes a simple I disagree will do. In an attempt to educate Sean you showed a very limited view of your knowledge of the American LGBT experience.
I will make this short as at my age I have stopped arguing with people about defining who I am and the destiny I am living. For example, I have stopped debating with Black people on why i went to an HBCU. I am over the argument.
As an African American gay man, I see a number of parallels to the civil rights movements and the present day LGBT debates. In both cases, a group has been reduced to justifying their existence and worth to the privileged group.
The privileged group uses the Word of God to justify their behavior. The same group talked about keeping the true American dream alive and giving their children what they deserve – a world without the ills of Blacks in ‘64 and a world without the ills of Gays in ‘09. The victimized group is assaulted, mocked, beaten, and murdered without outrage by Believers. So where as the FACES have changed, the issues are the same. Hate has many looks and sometimes – they are more eloquent than others.
The sad part of this is the non-gays seem to have alot of information on the origin and struggles of gays. You talk alot about choice and lifestyles, desires and perversions. But actually much of what you say is wrong. I am often both proud and ashamed of my African American people just I am often proud and ashamed of my LGBT community. We have to look at entire spectrum of who a people are and not only see the blatant stereotypes broadcasted by those with different views.
Sean Penn has clearly spent much time immersed in the LGBT community. He clearly has an understanding of the nuances within gay culture. He understands that people are hurting and exhausted with justifying their existence to people who pay less taxes in the system then they do. Gays are tired of not being able to seen as equal while they are contributing to the society just as much as everyone else.
Based on your comments, I assume you dont know this. There are a number of reasons why people are gay. Primarily by birth -that has been proven. However, there are many cases, due to issues like sexual molestation, emotional abuse and low self esteem can drive a person to engage in gay behavior. In many cases, there is healing needed but often not provided. My point here is that as a non -gay, please stop making inferences about how and under what conditions a person should “change,” – because remember – most diets fail.
Therefore, my suggestion to the heterosexual community – continue to work internally on fixing traditional marriage. With the divorce rate at 50%, there are enough issues to be resolved inside of your own community.
I also recommend that you do some true immersive research on a community before you tell someone who has been immersed how and when and what they should communicate.
Thanks,
Anthony
13.
Amit | February 24, 2009 at 4:59 am
Mr. Larry, it doesn’t matter how respectful you are tryinh hard to be, as change of color is not an option for you, by the same token sexuality is not an Option. Don’t go those curches who teach you hate and tell only christians are going to heavns.
If you inisist, sexuality is an option, I might say M. Jacson changed his skin, so can you It is as simple.
You are a very big typcial christain bigot who thrives on hate and tramples on other people’s happiness.
a non christian who belives in euality for all regardless of color and sexuality…
14.
Amit | February 24, 2009 at 5:06 am
Like in christianity is to hate gays. Its because of the church teaching, suicide rate among teens is so much higher than the national average.
So many gay people everyday suffer humiliation and some cases have to part with thier lifes from this hateful teaching of churches..
Its unbelievable how churches spread the hate, rememeber hwo they ysed to say its okay to have slaves because they dont have souls.
enough..
15.
rubyeliot | February 24, 2009 at 7:25 am
amit, your comments are badly spelled and poorly constructed. Larry did not once discuss religion.
The only hate I see is coming from your own comment.
16.
rubyeliot | February 24, 2009 at 7:27 am
The last time I checked, Christianity teaches peace and love. While Christ loves the sinner, he also does not tolerate the sin.
Please read your comments before you post and examine the hatred in your own heart before you accuse others (and make statements as fact with no data or experts to back you up.)
17.
rubyeliot | February 24, 2009 at 7:37 am
Anthony,
Thank you for your response. I agree that everyone needs to work and encourage stronger marriages, but neutering marriage altogether will not help the cause.
Also, if you are going to tell a commentator to shorten their comments with a simple, “I disagree,” you might also take that same advice. (and don’t assume people are not familiar with “gay culture, unless you can provide hard evidence of your assumption).
You cannot compare the civil rights movement with the gay marriage movement because race is immutable. Sexual orientation is expressed with behavior. Behavior is always a choice. We discriminate against choices all the time (ie: people who smoke).
Your response also shows emotionality running wild. People who experience same sex attraction have all the same rights as other people. They are even allowed to marry, as long as they follow the restriction given to everyone: they must marry someone of the opposite sex, and this person cannot be their sibling or parent.
Finally:
I also recommend that you do some true immersive research on a community before you tell someone who has been immersed how and when and what they should communicate.
Are you endorsing Sean Penn’s disrespectful/ rude comments?
Also, Larry never told Sean that he couldn’t speak. In fact, Larry said (quite eloquently and respectfully):
. Speak out if you must, our constitution affords you that right. You are entitled to use your moment of professional validation to wax provocatively about your beliefs. However, please provide the same dignity and respect that you speak of to those who do not share your beliefs. A refusal to accept a point of view does not equate to hate.
Antony, your condescending tone does not equal a logical argument.
18.
Secular Heretic | February 24, 2009 at 9:30 am
You make a good point here Ruby,
People who experience same sex attraction have all the same rights as other people. They are even allowed to marry, as long as they follow the restriction given to everyone: they must marry someone of the opposite sex, and this person cannot be their sibling or parent.
No rights are denied to people who have a same sex attraction. They are allowed to get married if they wish.
Amit, I don’t know what church you are talking about with regard to hating homosexual people but my church teaches this.
The Catholic Church teaches that while same sex attraction is not sinful, homosexual acts are. “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC 2357)
People suffering from a same sex attraction must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (CCC 2358)
I don’t see anything hateful with what the church says.
19.
mo | February 24, 2009 at 5:34 pm
If your argument is that the best environment for children is having both a mom and a dad, shouldnt we ban divorce? Whether children have a mom and dad, two dads, two moms, just one dad or just one mom, they will be just fine as long as their parent(s) love them unconditionally.
I urge you to open your mind.
20.
Larry | February 24, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Ruby,
I emailed that letter to the L.A. Times as an op/ed. Time will tell if they choose to run it. Also I find it interesting how gay-rights advocates continue to assert that homosexuality is immutable, yet science does not support that assertion. I’ve attached the following link that may shed light on the scientific debate. Thanks for the forum.
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
21.
rubyeliot | February 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Mo, unfortunately, there is no evidence to support your claim. All studies done on same parenting families are hopelessly flawed. I urge you to open your mind to the possibility that if takes a man and woman to make a child, then the absolute best environment to raise a child is with a mom and a dad.
Sources:
William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005)
“We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right.”
According to this source from a magazine devoted to same-gender parenting…no one knows what the outcomes are for same-gender parenting.
2. American college of Pediatricians:
Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.
3. Bonus Problems with the studies
“Numerous reviews of the literature on sexual orientation and parenting have been conducted. At least three such reviews have pointed to the serious scientific limitations of the social science literature on gay parenting.
Perhaps the most thorough review was prepared by Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.
Nock concluded:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that
1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal
flaw of design or execution;
2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research. Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:
a. No nationally representative sample. Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz, acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random, representative samples of [same-sex couple] families.”
b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists (perhaps because most of the researchers
are developmental psychologists, not sociologists).
c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother’s report of her
parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.
d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short-term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents to adulthood.”
22.
Tracy Simons | February 25, 2009 at 10:36 am
This is unbelievable.
All I can see is that gay people are trying to win the rights for themselves that we all enjoy. It is very close to the civil rights movement. From an Australian point of view we have indigenous people who suffered – and still do – from terrible racism. The basic message is trying to preach that we are all the same.
When I was very young I fought with my great-grandmother, trying to explain to her that black people were the same as us in all but skin color. Gay people are the same as us in all but who they fall in love with (I did not say “choose to fall in love with”).
Who am I to say that this is not right? That it is a sin? We cannot dictate to people according to YOUR god’s decree. It does not hurt anybody if a gay couple get married.
The argument of “well why don’t we marry siblings..animals..children etc” is also remarkably flawed. Consentual sex between adults of the same sex was once illegal. It is not illegal now and nobody is calling for changes to laws regarding sex between siblings..animals etc – there is no carry on effect. It does not snowball. You will probably look for some evidence of this now but if you did it would only be a lunatic fringe and you know it.
It is a civil right. People saying “Hey – we are the same as you won’t you accept that”.
Remember we are all atheists in our own way. There are gods too numerous to mention and most believers only believe in one. They are atheists to all other religions. Some people are atheists to all religions and inflicting the laws of your beliefs on others is like telling a Christian “You can’t do that because it is against Hindu belief”
You would reply “I am not a Hindu so I will do what I like”. Then let’s legislate against that….it would be a civil right.
23.
JS | February 25, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I would imagine, then, that you would be in favor of banning marriage where one person is infertile, or where the couple chooses not to have children.
24.
JS | February 25, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Sean Penn’s comments were no more disrespectful or rude than those that claim homosexuality is sinful/wrong, or those that claim that two women or two men cannot parent their children as well as one woman and one man.
You think homosexuality is sinful. I think your position is shameful. Neither of those positions, in and of themselves, are disrespectful or rude.
25.
JS | February 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“The absolute best” seems to be a rather nebulous and subjective standard. We can sit here and throw studies back and forth all day, but if we’re really reserving marriage for the “absolute best” circumstances, then shouldn’t we also be pulling up studies on whether “inter-faith” couples are worse parents than couples who share the same faith? What about smokers and non-smokers? Women who have jobs outside the home versus those who don’t? People who drink and those who abstain? By your logic, every time a study shows a statistical difference between these types of parents, we should narrow the definition of marriage even further to ensure that we are reserving it for the “absolute best.”
26.
Chris | February 25, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I find it odd how he doesn’t make the connection betwee Obama’s victory and the passing of Prop 8 – majority of blacks were for a gay marriage ban
27.
rubyeliot | February 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Tracy, everyone already has the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.
Everyone can marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender and someone who is not a relative.
Sounds like equal protection to me.
But maybe if we extend the definition to same gender, then we should also extend it to people attracted to their sibling (or mother). Because that’s more equal. Actually we probably shouldn’t have any restrictions on marriage at all– that would be most equal.
Also, homosexuality is not a sin: participating in homosexual acts is immoral and physically dangerous.
28.
rubyeliot | February 25, 2009 at 6:26 pm
JS, nope. Do we stop calling a heart, a heart, just because it stops working?
29.
rubyeliot | February 25, 2009 at 6:32 pm
JS, nope. His comments were rude.
Also, I don’t think homosexuality is sinful. I believe that homosexual acts are immoral, but that is not the focus on my arguments on this blog.
I am more concerned with the shape and function of a family. Children need a mom and a dad. Marriage as it is currently defined in CA is the only social and legal contract that encourages children’s (if they are born or adopted) to a mom and a dad.
It’s that simple: kids need a mom and a dad.
You might want to read up here: 800lb gorilla in the room
30.
rubyeliot | February 25, 2009 at 6:34 pm
The thing, JS, is, that overall, having a mom and a dad in the home (no matter what faith, no matter if they smoke), is essential for the emotional and psychological development of a child. My logic is actually based on all the studies ever done, but also the history of the world.
No one’s been able to find a better model than a mom and a dad.
31.
Secular Heretic | February 25, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Not only do kids need a mother and father they have a right to a mother and father. How unfair to adopt a child into a family where there are two fathers. This specific situation is a direct attack on motherhood. It says that mothers don’t matter so we will deliberately exclude them from the arrangement. The same thing applies to lesbian couples who adopt. It becomes an attack on fatherhood.
32.
rubyeliot | February 25, 2009 at 11:34 pm
exactly! it is a marginalization of one parent– that’s why traditional marriage is so beautiful: it is inclusive of both genders. so gorgeous.
33.
JS | February 26, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Woah, now–that’s a totally different argument. Are you saying that having a mom and a dad in the house is “the absolute best” scenario, or that having a mom and a dad in the house is “essential for the emotional and psychological development of a child”–in essence, mandatory? Because I can point to many emotionally and psychologically developed people who were raised by single parents, one of whom is running our country at the moment.
Assuming that you did not intend to argue that a mom/dad model is *necessary* to raise a child at all, I think you missed my point. I believe that the divorce rate is higher for inter-faith couples and I think I may have even seen a study that states that couples who co-habitate prior to marriage are also more likely to get divorced. Since stable, non-divorced families are arguably better for child-rearing than unstable, divorced families, and since inter-faith couples and cohabitating couples are more likely to get divorced, should we prohibit them from marrying in order to preserve the “absolute best” environment for children?
34.
JS | February 26, 2009 at 2:34 pm
So single women (or men) should not be permitted to adopt children, because it is an attack on the necessity of the other gender?
Beyond that, I really don’t think that my ability to parent is based on the fact that I have ovaries. Seriously–what is it exactly that you think two fathers can’t provide? Are you saying that fathers can’t be nurturing? That mothers can’t provide strength and discipline? And you think *gay marriage* is what’s insulting to motherhood and fatherhood?
35.
JS | February 26, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Just because you disagree with them doesn’t make them rude. What, exactly, was rude about them?
Further, look at your argument here: marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples because that is the best and/or only way to raise a child. Essentially, you are saying that, without children, there is no marriage. So where is your support for constitutional amendments banning infertile couples from marrying? Should we demand that couples swear to have kids within X number of years of getting married, or their marriage is automatically dissolved? Your position simply isn’t logically consistant–if you were really concerned about limiting marriage to your definition of the best environment to raise kids, you would be targeting childless heterosexual couples as well.
It’s that simple.
36.
JS | February 26, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Ruby–
Would you support a law that states that, in order to vote in this country, all citizens must be able to bench-press 70 pounds? In this scenario, everyone could vote, as long as they met this requirement. The law would apply equally to all citizens, yet it would significantly burden women moreso than men based solely on their sex. That’s not equal protection, and neither is a law that burdens homosexuals more than heterosexuals based solely on their sexual orientation.
Or, let’s try a different scenario–say a law was passed stating that all citizens can only get married if they do so in a mosque (ignoring the Establishment Clause for this hypothetical). That law would apply to everyone–Jews, Christians and Athiests can marry, as long as they do so in a mosque–and hey, your religious preference is a choice, isn’t it? Equal protection?
37.
JS | February 26, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Sorry, I don’t understand what you are referring to here.
38.
Chairm | February 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm
JS it is good encounter someone who is pro-SSM and whose comments are calm and thoughtful.
* **
JS said (February 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm): “By your logic, every time a study shows a statistical difference between these types of parents, we should narrow the definition of marriage even further to ensure that we are reserving it for the “absolute best.”
Well, in addition to the emprical evidence on the optimal setting for best outcomes from children, there are principled differences, too.
By the time we measure the outcomes with longitudinal studies, a generation or two will have passed. It has taken us about three decades to form the wide and strong consensus that the intact, low-conflict, union of husband and wife provides the optimal setting.
This is the standard against all other variations have been measured and found to be sub-standard in significant ways.
And these variations are not all one-sexed, you know. Step-families and adoptive families, as meritorous as they may be, are more like single-parent scenarios than married households — in terms of outcomes for children.
Indeed, most children (by far) living in same-sex households migrated from the previously procreative relationships (typically marriages) of their parents. They have both moms and dads, it is just that one or the other parent is now non-resident.
About 90% of these children are thus children of divorced or estranged parents and have the same rights and protections as children in like circumstances. As a matter of fact, the legal marital presumption of paternity protects the child-parent relationship of the vast majority of these children in same-sex households.
What about the other 10% of the children in these households? Well, about 6% are adopted — and about half of those children were already related to one of the adults in the same-sex parenting duo. The other 4% or so may have been brought into this world via the use of donors — i.e. third party procreation — and sometimes the donors are known and sometimes anonymus. So these children have much in common with children of single parents where one sex is absent.
We know lots about these variations of family and they all do not measure up to the standard.
What is it about the sexualized aspect of a one-sexed arrangement that is gay or lesbian — what is it about the sexual behavior that could possibly make a huge difference in the outcomes for children in such households?
Or would you agree that a mother-daughter duo could provide the same level of care and childrearing as the two lesbian household? Or how about two divorced brothers raising their children together? These arrangements lack the other sex and also come out sub-standard.
39.
rubyeliot | February 26, 2009 at 7:56 pm
JS, are you saying that men and women are exactly the same? That their gender provides no inherent differences or benefits to children?
40.
rubyeliot | February 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm
He told ALL supporters of prop 8 that they should be ashamed for believing that marriage is between an man and a woman. He told ALL supporters of prop 8 that their grandchildren will be ashamed of them. He said this at an event celebrating movies. It was out of context, and did more than just express his own disagreement with the proposition– his purpose was to insult (and change people’s minds through insult which is especially rude. maybe if he had addressed the audience with a reason other than “shame”).
essentially, you are saying that, without children, there is no marriage.
No, I actually said, that marriage provides the only legal and social contract that encourages children to have a mom and a dad. I didn’t say couples have to have kids, or infertile couples are excluded. If children result, with marriage, they are born into the best situation possible.
If you remove the gender requirement, you also remove children’s right to a mom and a dad.
41.
rubyeliot | February 26, 2009 at 8:22 pm
JS, not to distract from Chairm’s comments, but what is your justification for removing the gender requirement?
42.
JS | February 26, 2009 at 9:02 pm
It’s getting a bit difficult to keep track of all the different threads here the way that this comments field is structured, so if I miss something, I apologize.
Ruby:
As I’ve interpreted your posts, your argument is that gay marriage should be banned because it does not provide the optimal environment for raising children. That argument first assumes that the only reason for legal marriage is to procreate. And this is where I get confused, because if the only reason to marry was to procreate, then we wouldn’t let infertile couples marry, either, but I don’t see a lot of octogenarian marriage bans. People get married — and more importantly, we let people get married — for reasons other than procreation, so to say that gay people shouldn’t marry because they can’t procreate makes no sense.
Your argument also assumes that, not only is marriage solely for procreating, but its only purpose should be to provide the best possible environment (as you define it) for child-rearing–this, I imagine, is why you would not support gay marriage where the spouses would adopt or would conceive artificially. However, there are all sorts of circumstances that create the “optimal” environment for child-rearing that we don’t exclude from marriage: salary, location, religious differences, etc. In other words, we let coked-out, broke prostitutes marry violent felons as long as they are heterosexual, but gay couples cannot marry because they wouldn’t provide the “optimal” environment for child-rearing? That seems disingenuous to me.
You also asked what my justification is for removing the gender requirement (I’m assuming you mean the requirement that people marry people of the opposite gender). I believe that, in a free society, the government needs a justification for removing individual rights. For example, the question isn’t why should women vote, but why shouldn’t women vote? In some cases, restrictions on individual rights make sense (i.e., a 12-year-old shouldn’t be permitted to drive because we have a clearly demonstrated, logically consistent reason for doing so: they don’t have the mental/physical abilities to do so safely yet). However, I have yet to hear a single reason that is logically consistent and legally supportable (in other words, not just because the Bible says X) for restricting the right to marry in this manner.
We are talking about voting, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens who want to make decisions about their own personal lives that have nothing to do with me. As discussed above, I can’t see how gay marriage would cause any harm that our society isn’t condoning already. What right do I have — does anyone have — to tell them what they can and cannot do?
Finally, Sean Penn received an Oscar for his work in a movie about gay rights in a state that just passed a gay marriage ban. I think it was completely in context. What you feel about his use of the word “shame” is not unlike your use of the word “immoral.” He believes (as I do) that supporters of gay marriage bans will come to regret and be ashamed of their support, just like those who supported Jim Crow laws or interracial marriage bans. You may disagree with his position, just as I disagree that homosexual activity is immoral. But it’s not rude.
Chairm:
And these variations are not all one-sexed, you know. Step-families and adoptive families, as meritorous as they may be, are more like single-parent scenarios than married households — in terms of outcomes for children.
I appreciate your thoughtful post, and you make a lot of good points. The one above, however, stood out: you argue that step-families and adoptive families are sub-optimal for child-rearing. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with that point, but, again, we don’t ban adoptive couples from marrying, and step-families come about purely because they’ve gotten married, despite creating what you have argued is a sub-optimal environment for children.
43.
Chairm | February 26, 2009 at 10:04 pm
JS, the optimal setting arises from the core meaning of marriage.
1. Integration of man and woman. This is far more than having sex, of course. There are private aspects of this public relationship type and those aspects are protected from government intrusions.
2. Contingency for responsible procreation, the first principle of which is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is directly responsible for, and responsible to, the children we bring into this world. Barring dire circumstances or tragedy, this is the basis for procreative justice.
3. These profound aspects of civilization form a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution) which is foundational to civil society. This really is not about Government forcing people to do this or that; it is about society, through the limited powers delegated to the governing authority, to show preference for an indispensable and aspirational ideal for a thriving society.
If not for marriage, we would have to invent some relatively non-coercive means by which our culture might promote the healthy unity of man and woman both at the familial level — where we are all the most vulnerable — and at the public level where social cohesion benefits all individuals.
The nature of human community is both-sexed and the family, founded on marriage, is the first pre-governmental — nongovernmental — organic unit of civilization. This is a remarkable human achievement, considering the generally centrifugal forces that provide the tension for human progress.
if not for marriage we’d need to invent some means by which children are bonded to their fathers — and fathers bonded to the mothers of their children — again in a relatively noncoercive way. All things being equal, it is a proven recipe for success when children are raised by the man and woman whose sexual union created them. It is these adults, bound to each other and to their children, who stand between society and the most vulnerable amongst us. And so we need some means by which to protect these parents and their children against the heavy hand of the state — whether that be a dictator or a benign welfare state.
We have the legal marital presumption of paternity which ensures that the husbands is the father of the children born to his marriage — to his wife. This is not just a social convention or an casual assumption. When people enter marrige, they say “I do” to the legal obligations that arise with this vigorously enforced presumption.
That’s the meaning of sex integration and responsible procreation combined as a coherent whole.
The optimal is definitional, as well. If we drop this core, then marriage becomes less, not more. That is why a merger with SSM would create a substitute for the real thing. It would necessarily lower our sights.
The optimal is very common even if it is very difficult to sustain day-to-day.
Adoption is a related social institution. The focus is on children in need, not on needy adults. Adoption does not bestow marital status. But marial status is a legitimate criterion for prioritizing prospective adoptors. And it makes sense to model adoption on the optimal, rather than a sub-optimal target, given the difficulties inherent with adoption.
Step-families depend on official adoption. If a mother divorces and then remarries, her new husband is not automatically the father of her children. The first husband would have to relinquish is parental status completely. The mother’s new husband woudl step-in as the father, not as a genderless replacement for a genderless parental ‘role model’. Again, this is modelled on the optimal and we still promote the aspirational ideal — which is very achievable.
Adoptors and step-parents — and single parents — are real heroes. Noting the evidence that these are sub-optimal arrangements is not to disparage people doing the best that they can. They often overcome obstacles and do exceedingly well.
But, if I’ve explained myself well enough, surely you can see that we should keep our standards higher — especially in a society with those centirfugal forces that have already strained the family bonds in our society. The nonmarital trends are not positive trends — not for parents and not for children.
So the empirical and the principled basis for recognizing the core meaning of marrige remains.
Same-sex scenarios attain children by going outside of the relationship. Adoption and third party procreation are not at the core of marriage. Certainly, the use of “donors” is extramarital procreation even when married people use. So partaking of third party procreation is hardly the basis for eligibility to marry — much less the basis for defining marrige downard.
There is far more to marriage than SSM arugmentation presents.
This clearly is not a homo- versus hetero-sexual dichotomy. The actual dichotmy is marrige versus nonmarriage.
And Mr. Penn does not seem to get that, to his everlasting shame.
44.
JS | February 26, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I’m sorry that I don’t have time to respond more fully (on my way out the door) but I’m still confused about your position:
1) I *think* you are agreeing that there are non-procreative reasons for marriage. To the extent that you are, why don’t those reasons apply to same sex couples? If not, why not ban straight couples who choose not to have children from marrying? Or senior citizens?
2) I’m still not clear on how including what you call “sub-optimal” same sex marriages affects your own heterosexual marriage. Is your marriage weakened by a marriage of convenience? By a shotgun wedding? By someone else’s divorce? If so, why?
3) Again, if you believe that adopters and step-parents are sub-optimal, why do you condone those marriages but not same sex marriage? I would imagine that you would believe that two crack addicts will not produce the optimal child-rearing scenario–should we ban drug addicts from marrying? I understand your argument (although I don’t agree that homosexual parents cannot provide an optimal environment for children, but setting that aside for the moment…), I just don’t see that it is internally consistent, as I set forth in my reply to Ruby above.
4) “And so we need some means by which to protect these parents and their children against the heavy hand of the state.” Are you arguing that we need to ban same sex marriage because otherwise, married heterosexuals will be forced to divorce and marry same-sex partners? You know we’re not talking about mandatory gay marriage, right?
I’d also point out that step-families absolutely do not depend on adoption. In fact, they are exclusive of adoption by definition. If a child has been legally adopted by his step-father, then his step-father becomes his father. A stepchild is still the legal child of his birth parents.