Tag Archives: gay marriage

What about civil unions?

A friend on Facebook pointed out the following in a disussion on a recent post of mine:

You point out that there is nothing to stop homosexuals from “drawing up contracts” and calling that a marriage; but their legal position on many issues would be quite different from actually legally married couples – eg inheritance rights, being forced to testify against eachother, tax issues etc.

Here’s my response:

I would be all for discussing legislation that discusses specific changes like those. In fact, I think a big help in regards to taxes would be the adoption of a flat tax system (paper here).

I’d be all for allowing the creation of contracts wherein both parties voluntarily agree to enter into agreements which provide things like testimonial coverage, (tax free) inheritance guarantees, and guaranteed access to one another in crisis situations (ie hospitalization). However none of that necessitates that we redefine the fundamental institution of marriage nor that we create a rival institution like “civil unions”. All of that can and should be accomplished through strengthening existing private party agreements.

Do you hear that? I think I just heard the minds’ of my liberal friends being blown.

Share/Bookmark

Only the gay die young?

In late March, 2007, a spate of articles and news releases were released from Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron purporting to demonstrate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years lower than that of straights. Behind this flurry of activity was a poster session presented at the March, 2007 Eastern Psychological Association convention in Philadelphia.

This is part of the introduction of “An exchange between Warren Throckmorton, Morten Frisch, Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron
regarding the lifespan of homosexuals.”

In it, the often criticized methods of Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron are discussed. Specifically the objection given by Morten Frisch:

Since, as noted, age is a strong determinant of openness about homosexuality, the study groups of deceased homosexuals in Cameron and Cameronís report were severely skewed towards younger people. Consequently, the much younger average age at death of these openly homosexual people as compared with the average age at death in the unselected general population tells nothing about possible differences between life expectancies in gays and non-gays in general. All it reflects is the skewed age distribution towards younger people among those who are openly homosexual.

Paul Cameron responds with a couple of points:

  • it has been shown that homosexuals are more likely to respond to surveys

    Further, in that study, analysis of the patterns of missing answers among respondents showed that those with homosexual interests were more, and not less, likely than those with only heterosexual interests to respond to questions about sexually non-conforming behavior.

  • no one, on either side of the issue,

    knows for sure how often people deliberately lie when they respond to sex surveys, or how many individuals simply refuse to respond in order to hide their sexual preferences. We also donít know whether refusals of that particular sort are more common among the older. All we know is that several well-funded research teams have not found many differences along behavioral dimensions ó including items about sexuality between the first responders and those who eventually responded after repeated visits or call-backs.

  • the death of older homosexuals would be difficult to simply cover up. But even so, no one can know this with any certainty either.

    It was partly because of the uncertainties in self-report that we decided to examine other kinds of data. Obviously, obituaries depend upon human reporting but are not ‘self-reports.’ To keep oneís past sexual behavior secret after death can be difficult unless no one else knows, presumably even oneís own partners. As Ben Franklin wisely said, ìthree can keep a secret, but only if two of them are dead.î Again, neither Dr. Frisch nor anyone else knows whether in fact the older are disproportionately less often represented than the young among obituaries in gay newspapers.

  • the report also used data from public records

    That is why it is of more than passing scientific interest that three rather different sources and kinds of data ó sex surveys, obituaries, death registries all indicate fairly similar declines in homosexual prevalence with age.

Its interesting to also note that Dr Frisch apparently mentioned “in an email that no more than 5% of Danish gays take advantage of the marriage laws there.”

In his response, Warren Throckmorton cites the following report

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. (Hogg et al, 1997, from the abstract)

There is a lot more in the paper, and I highly encourage anyone interested in engaging others in a rational discussion regarding homosexuality to read it. One thing to note, however, is that all sides agree “that there may some difference in life span”. The only difference seems to be that those who are sympathetic towards the homosexual agenda are unwilling to speculate on how much that difference is.

How to defeat the gay and lesbian movement in one generation

The gay and lesbian movement has been slowly gathering steam every since the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s. As such, many have been tempted to look at this movement as a culprit to the breakdown of the institution of marriage.

The gay and lesbian movement, however, is more like a vulture than it is like a hawk.

Where hawks actively seek out prey they can swoop in and kill. Vultures are content to feed off of the dead flesh of animals that have already died, either at the hands/claws of others, from disease, or simply from old age.

The sexual revolution, with it’s emphasis on sexual hedonism, is more like the hawk of marriage. It swooped in and fed on men from families by wounding them with the lie that they were aggressors and no longer needed.

It separated mothers from children by feeding them the feminist line that they were not “real women” unless they sought to become just like the men they were taught to despise.

And it picked off the children by condemning them to broken homes and permissive parenting. This had the unfortunate effect of producing weaker future parents and only perpetuated the downward spiral.

So how can we defeat the gay and lesbian movement in one generation?

Simple. We just refuse to provide any more dead flesh for them to feed on.

The simple truth is that the gay and lesbian movement cannot grow by producing their own offspring. Their plan of growth is limited exclusively to recruiting the products of heterosexual unions.

Why don’t we just get the government out of the marriage business?

The most popular argument from the left regarding marriage seems to be that we should just “get the government out of any marriage decision between two (or more) consenting adults.

This, they argue, is more in keeping with a limited view of government that many aspire to (but precious few actually vote for).

Well here’s my take on the matter.

It is unrealistic to expect the government to not be involved in the institution of marriage. It would be great if we lived in a perfect society where no one ever cheated on their spouse, abused them, ran off leaving one to fend for themselves, etc.

But if all we had to contend with were the contractual issues between two or more partners which may or may not be sexual in nature we wouldn’t need to consider marriage to be any different than any other institution and thus it could be handled by existing contract law.

However marriage is not like any other institution because it carries with it the possibility of bringing new life into the world.

Sure, new life can come into the world outside of a marriage, but in those cases we have good data which shows that government has to step in and grow bigger to take care of the breakdowns marriage is designed to handle on it’s own. This is something we know thanks to years of liberal (including feminist) policies either explicitly designed to damage marriage or at the least disincentive it heavily.

So while it is impossible and wholly undesirable to “get the government out of marriage”, mostly for the sake of the children who are the unfortunate casualties of the “progressive” sexual liberation movement, it is definitely worthwhile to render the government idle by promoting strong healthy families. It would be great of all the government ended up having to do is record the names of married couples in a book. That is how we lesson the involvement of government in marriage. Not by requiring government to grow by disincentivizing marriage and promoting all kinds of things that etch away at the foundations of the building block to society, expecting the state to step in and take care of the wreckage left behind.

A secular case for government involvement in the institution of marriage

There is a secular case to be made for government involvement in the institution of marriage. Marriage is the only institution wherein a new life may be created. No, the generation of new life is not an automatic given nor are those who choose, for whatever reason, not to generate new life to be considered less in any way than those of us who do. But the fact is that without children, marriage would really devolve into little more than a contract or partnership.

Now one of the problems that clouds the whole debate on marriage is that most people tend to think that the issue is only a positive one. That is, that the issue is about the creation of a marriage and the state’s recognition thereof. That is sadly not the case, if that were all there were to it then the state would really have no reason to create and maintain such a registry at all. No, the real debate is on the unfortunate and often unavoidable issues that arise at the end or dissolution of a marriage. Who gets what and, more importantly, what about the children?

You see, marriage exists to proactively protects the rights of the children. Among these rights are the right to know and have a relationship with both of their parents, which means their mother and father. Marriage in this respect, serves to attach mothers and fathers to children and to each other. Can this be done outside of a legal marriage? Perhaps, but statistics show that without the commitment that comes along with marriage men are far less likely to remain in a family unit and children are far more likely to be hurt in all kinda of ways, including physically, emotionally, mentally, developmentally, etc.

When it comes to homosexual unions, the issue of children’s rights becomes even more sticky, and it is the rights of the children that are often overlooked altogether. You see, while people are busy talking about the rights of the gay and lesbian couple few people seem to be concerned with the rights of the children that are inherently and necessarily violated.

These rights are inherently violated because a homosexual union cannot biologically bring about new life, therefore they must either adopt which has historically been seen as an exception to the rule, but homosexual marriage would make it the rule and biological parentage the exception. In other words, the state would move from recognizing parentage based on biological fact to assigning parentage based on subjective standards. Something that has been done in countries like Canada that have already implemented homosexual marriage, and something that is being considered in homosexual-friendly states like Massachusetts.

Children’s rights are also necessarily violated because if marriage is not kept to the natural, historical, and biological definition, the state is required to intervene in the affairs of married couples even more than it does currently. Currently the state only intervenes when there is a dispute. That means that the only role the state has in regards to marriage is to resolve disputes if they arise. Ideally, most marriages will not require much, if any, intervention. However if marriage is redefined, the state must go from being a passive spectator that only intervenes when a dispute arises to intervening in many areas now, especially when children are involved, to cover over the biological gaps opened up when we separate from a biologically-based definition of marriage.

Sure, governments also interact with the institution terms of offering tax breaks (or supposed tax breaks) to encourage the formation and sustaining of healthy marriages. However that is really out of a selfish motive as biologically-based marriages are historically self-sustaining, requiring little in the way of government services or interference and also capable of producing well adjusted offspring by themselves. By contrast, on average, single parents (mostly mothers thanks to our sexually permissive culture) and homosexual unions require much in the way of government assistance, services, and general interference (ie. to strip/assign parentage in the case of homosexual marriages). If for nothing else than out of a commitment to limited government, the idea of homosexual marriage ought to be rejected.

So while families may not necessarily be defined by legal marriage but they are most certainly modeled on them if they wish to be anything short of a train wreck and an unnecessary drag on society.

On proposition 8

I’ve been thinking about the recent court case in California to repeal Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage ((Actually, it was really more a positive affirmation of what marriage has been understood to be for centuries due to the provocation of the radical and aggressive agenda of the GLBT movement.)) and I’ve come up with a few questions for the GLBT community.

I am curious to know why the GLBT community thinks this is immoral and not fair that the citizens of California voted overwhelmingly to include specific language (12 words to be precise) into their state’s constitution which concretely defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.

I wonder where they derive their ethical standards for fairness and morality.

I can easily see where the civil rights movement grounded their campaign that all men are created equal specifically in a Christian world view. Essentially, they believed (rightly in my opinion) that there was a natural law that superseded the government’s laws. This case in CA, and the stubborn refusal to accept defeat by the GLBT community, raises a very precarious question; Where do they ground their objections and why are we morally obligated to obey such a standard?

However I fail to see how members of the GLBT community are being devalued as human beings for being denied the imaginary “right” they never had1. I also fail to see where diversity (in the strict sense of accepting all human beings as equal in value) is challenged by refusing to accept all practices and lifestyles.

For excellent coverage on the whole proposition 8 fiasco, I highly recommend the podcasts from The Ruth Institute by Jennifer Roeback Morse. Also, here’s a great overview post by Wintry Knight.

  1. Actually, they do have the right to marry. Same as you and I do. What they are upset about is not being afforded special privileges that no one currently has. The whole mantra of “equality” falls flat on it’s face when you consider what is really being demanded by the GLBT community. []