For marriage, monogamy is strongly connected to the marriage presumption of paternity and the integration of the sexes. Monogamy protects children. It also protects both husband and wife, both of whom are vulnerable to the social ills that flow from adulterous behavior and attitudes. Marriage, as a social institution, is a relatively non-coercive means by which society promotes conformity in sexual morality.

Equality of the sexes is served through monogamy within marriage, but in an all-male or an all-female scenario, one or the other sex is excluded and sex equality is irrelevant. And conformity to sexual morality does not seem to be intrinsic to SSM arugmentation.

But those who favor SSM might consider monogamy relevant to same-sex sexual behavior such that it merits an effort by society to promote conformity based on moral claims or perhaps based on a demonstratable cause-and-effect connection between monogamy and same-sex relationship stability.

I am thrilled that we have the same attitude that IF there is same-sex marriage, people’s right to run their businesses and their jobs and their personal lives according to their own beliefs about marriage must be protected.

Now, I have shown some evidence on this blog (and have done significantly more behind the scenes) of my speaking out against the excesses of my allies who go overboard – like implying or stating that two lesbians and their baby are not a family. Why is it that I have so far seen no prominent “marriage equality” supporter who has taken a public stand against the excesses of your movement when it comes to forcing doctors to inseminate lesbians and shutting down adoption agencies that give even a slight tie-breaker preference to families with both a mother and a father.

I am absolutely not implying that you are personally inadequate in that department. I don’t even know your first name, much less whether you are in a position to make a difference. But if I’m wrong, and the marriage equality movement actually is more about expanding freedom than restricting it, why do you think (and this is not a rhetorical question) there has been no prominent dissenter saying “Hey, slow down, guys. We want to be treated fairly, not to punish people with different ideas”?

I also don’t want restaurants to be able to refuse to seat lesbians. I have never heard of a religion that believes serving lasagna to anyone of the Sapphic persuasion means you’ll go to Hell.

But there are many religions that think a baby should have both a mother and a father. So the question is whether an adoption agency can give a preference to mother-father families or whether a fertility doctor or clinic can refuse to inseminate a lesbian (especially when there are other doctors available). I’m also concerned with journalists facing libel lawsuits for writing that two lesbians aren’t really married and teachers being disciplined or fired for teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Chairm and Fannie-

I have stayed silent too long. One or more of you is probably wondering who will get the last word in this exchange. The answer is me. I will delete any post that continues a thread that got worthless long ago.

Sorry.

Please don’t characterize my above comment as brushing you off. All I request is to leave a fruitless discussion without receiving such provocative and unfair comments in return.

Please respect that.

Thanks.

But no harm no foul.

Cheers,
Chairm Ohn

While I was speaking of marriage, which is an arrangement that unites man and woman, I suppose you were talking about the relationship types, or arrangements, which, for those involved, the absence of the other sex is not a lack but rather a definitive feature.

The same-sex category is very broad.

If you intended to pinpoint the subset of that category which is characterized by same-sex sexual attraction and/or behavior, then, please find a more precise term or phrase. Perhaps, the lesbian relationship or the gay relationship or somesuch would communicate your intention more clearly.

If instead we’d use same-sex is a eupehmism for a single category encompassing the gay or lesbian relationships, and excluding the rest, then we will trip over the very probem that Fannie and David have discussed regarding differences between gay and lesbian relationship types and monogamy. In addition, there are the non-gay and non-lesbian arrangements within the same-sex category and these may or may not entail expectations of monogamy.

Still, whether it be gay, lesbian, or same-sex, the relationship type would indeed lack one or the other sex in terms of the core of marriage.

Marriage integrates the sexes, provides contingency for responsible procreation, and does so as a coherent whole (i.e. as a social institution). This is deeply embedded in our customs, traditions, and our legal system. It pre-exists governmental authority, in the past and today. That core is what makes entry to marriage a identifiable liberty around which boundaries have been drawn. The liberty is that through which a woman becomes the wife of the man who becomes her husband. It is the liberty by which fatherhood and motherood are integrated.

It is not the liberty of Party A to join with Party B, although that, too, may be a liberty exericised and which is not denied by the man-woman criterion of marital status.

At law, the man-woman criterion stands for the integration of the sexes; the marriage presumption of paternity stands for responsible procreation; and the preferential status of marital status is acknowledgement from society, through government, the great signficance of the most pro-child social institution we have.

This core of marriage benefits society and society benefits the social institution. Deconstructing marriage into bits and pieces, as per SSM argumentation, dismantles social esteem for the coherent whole — the basis for the preferential status — and, via gay identity politics, promotes the more superficial and fickle aspects of romance and sexual attraction.

So it is really odd that for you the man-woman criterion is deemed a purely religious criterion.

* * *

Monogamy is directly connected to the marriage presumption of paternity — culturally and legally. Marriage, the social institution, exerts an influence on behavior and attitudes throughout society. Some jurisdictions have produced statutory provisons for the presumption of unwed paternity but that typically requires significant intrusions by the government. Yet even in such statutes we see the influence of marital monogamy with its strong connection to responsible procreation.

However, the marriage presumption does not apply to the all-male or the all-female arrangement — whether that is called SSM or something else. Not because of anti-homosexual animus, but because the nature of human procreation is both-sexed.

Monogamy’s connection to the marriage presumption is not transferable to the arrangement that is all-male or all-female. As with other nonmarital arrangements, there may be an overflow effect due to the remarkable influence of the social institution of marriage, even today.

But such an effect, evident somewhat with lesbian relationships in the Solomon study, does not mean that the lack of the other sex is itself the basis for an expectation of monogamy in an all-male or an all-female sexualized relationship.

There must be some other basis for the impulse to promote monogamy where one or the other sex is excluded. As it stands, it would seem that lesbians, especially those who have been previously wives to husbands, do not need to be convinced further that sexual monogamy is a valuable feature of a sexualized relationship. Perhaps the purpose of SSM is to use relatively non-coercive means by which to promote conformity among the population of gay men — and the lesbian example, such as it is, would be the standard-bearer.

I think that monogamy in the all-male or the all-female arrangement is irrelevant to the significance of monogmy in the conjugal relationship type. But no doubt some will disagree and might attempt to provide a convinsing set of reasons to think otherwise.

Mr. Benkof asked me:
2. whether you could endorse an amendment to same-sex marriage that guarantees traditionally religious people the right to use their own definition of marriage in the way they teach, write, perform their professions, and run their businesses? If not, why not?

Hopefully I’ve been clear about my views on separation of church and state: I do not want the government to promote or inhibit anyone’s religious beliefs or practices in any branch. Separation of church and state in democracy is wise and necessary for freedom for both.

I can agree with guarantees regarding religious freedom. In considering how far freedom of religion goes (and should go) I thought about Santeria’s battles over animal sacrifice. The practice is well outside my own expression of faith, even extremely distasteful to me. But I read the USSC’s decision highlights on the page, and I am still glad religious freedom is kept as absolute as it is.

In a 70′s talk show discussing flag burning, one guest’s comment has stuck with me all these years, even though I was just an adolescent. He said we should beware of making holes in liberty to get our opponents, because they will, in turn, get you through the same hole.

I don’t know how I can say more clearly that I believe in protecting our basic civil rights, and equality as citizens. I apply that to everyone, even those with whom I strongly disagree.

I will address the “if not, why not?” situations instead. In the public arena, we all have to make certain compromises in the interest of the liberty of all of us. I do not support discrimination of any kind in businesses. So if you are asking me whether a Christian owner of a restaurant should be allowed to refuse to seat a lesbian, legally married couple in CA, my answer is no, not legally.

I will give you a true example to explain. In the early 90′s I was friends with a gifted, highly-skilled oral surgeon who was also a zealous fundamental, evangelical Christian. Every time he performed procedures or surgeries (he did the massive reconstructions a lot), he risked HIV transmission by both needle sticks, and scalpel nicks or cuts.

[Current information: Needle sticks among health care professionals. Present studies indicate that the risk of HIV transmission by a needle stick is about one in 250. This rate can be decreased if the injured worker is given AZT, an anti-retroviral medication, in combination with other medication.]

Every time he stuck, nicked or cut himself, and it happens a lot, he felt the terror of contracting AIDS, and of death, leaving behind his wife and two beautiful little girls. As a Christian, he was angry that his own life was at risk because of the sexuality of others and their risky behaviors that he felt were very, very serious sins. Yet, he was legally compelled to treat them. (His statements, not mine, and not necessarily accurate.)

While I loved my friend a lot, and was highly sympathetic to his beliefs and predicament, I could not then, or now, agree that he should be allowed to refuse service to people who were HIV-positive, or who had AIDS. It would violate their civil rights.

Did he have a choice? Yes, he could find other employment. It’s a lot to give up, I know. But civil rights are that important, in my opinion.

So do I think that traditionally religious people may be faced with non-life-threatening compromises regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, they will. Can they discriminate? No, they cannot – as long as their religious freedom is not hindered materially (using the standard the USSC applies to such questions).

Same-sex couples likewise will face compromises. Even though that cathedral in town is gorgeous, they can’t get married there.

As my point here was to respond to Mr. Benkof’s over-generalization, which I did, my time in this thread is done.

Peace.

I know you have reason to be skeptical, but if we can come up with a better name for you it would make me more able to get to know you as a person. How about “Polly”? Or any name you choose.

You correctly summarized my views in the first two paragraphs.

Your opinion about civil rights not being subject to a majority vote is a reasonable one. There are many things the constitution holds that cannot be changed by a majority vote, either by the people, or by the Congress. But there is nothing in the Constitution that cannot be changed. We can take the right to vote away from women by repealing the amendment that implemented suffrage. We could bring back slaver by repealing the Thirteenth Amendment. We could take the vote away from 18, 19, and 20 year olds by repealing the 26th Amendment. Those are civil rights, but with enough voters they can be taken away. And everyone knows the ground rules up front, and if the rules change they apply to everything. Many of the people complaining about “voting on my civil rights” have voted in favor of environmental and educational constitutional amendments in California without claiming that the system is unfair. So it’s not right for them to now say “we need a 2/3 vote to change the constitution.”

If you don’t agree, who should decide what amendments can and cannot pass muster?

You say that when the Supreme Court rules on the CMPA, “that I am saying the government must not appease religious beliefs in questions of civil rights.” I’m not sure I disagree. I don’t want Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Steven Breyer to say, “Well the Talmud says in Masechet Chullin that same-sex marriage is wrong, so as Jews we’re voting to uphold the law.” However, I don’t want John Paul Stevens to say “Clearly most of the people who voted for this think were motivated by religion so we’re striking it down.”

What I want the Supreme Court to do is look at the text of the Constitution and the relevant decisions, especially Loving v. Virginia and ask “Is there a federal right to same-sex marriage found in these documents?” I’m confident there is one. If they say there is, I can live with it. I have options: I can try to pass a constitutional amendment, I can try to elect presidents and senators that will appoint justices more likely to vote my way in the future, and I can move to Israel.

“No one’s religious traditions, beliefs or practices can be used as a justification for infringing on the civil rights of others.” So the government could move the weekend to Tuesday and Wednesday at will? The only reason to keep the weekend on Saturday and Sunday is that that is when most Americans have their Sabbaths.

Fannie said: making huge, sweeping, false generalizations about this community

Which community is that now, Fannie, the gay community, the LGBT community, the lesbian community, the pro-SSM community, some other community? Perhaps you can here provide an example from this very discussion.

If you don’t think that would be on-topic, okay, we can move on to the actual disagreement.

* * *

Fannie said: My point was that I think it’s more plausible that sex/gender, rather than sexual orientation, contributes to the difference in monogamy between gay male relationships versus lesbians/heterosexual relationships.

In another discussion I cited the Solomon study, which you have linked above, and its survey of husbands (the study presumed they were straight and not gay or bisexual) and men in committed rgay elationships suggested that there is a huge difference both in attitude and behavior. The husbands are men. The gay partners are men. Sexual orientation is the distinguishing feature that was measured in that study.

Now in that same study the differences between wives and women in lesbian relationships was much smaller and, given the size of the sample, probably, as you said earlier, not significant.

There are probably other significant factors that influence attitude and behavior, such as the presence of children (much more common in both marriages and female civil unions than in gay relationships) and a history of having been in a previous relationship with the opposite sex (which might point to past or present ambiguity regarding sexual orientation). These two features tend to appear together in terms of same-sex householding (a census measure of households in which there are “partners” of the same sex) and that is probably a large subset of “committed relationships”.

Observations from the Solomon study ought to be read with the caution that, as the researchers noted, there may be selection bias and sample bias since the samples of married men and women were derived from the families of gay and lesbian respondents. The samples were not representative of the general LGBT population nor of the straight population so the results are not a measure of monogamous and non-monogamous attitude/behavior based on sexual orientation in general. The study provided a measure of such in terms of “committed relationships” which does not necessarily mean co-residency or commitment ceremonies and the like. Presumably the vast majority married sample’s committed relationship type included both co-residency and public ceremonies and the like, but that, too, was not measured directly.

The point here is that when we talk of monogamy we need to also talk of the higher standard that is socially expected — that is part of the culture of marriage — and that standard certainly can produce an overflow effect from marriage to nonmarital arrangements. Certainly that is so for even dating — at some point in a sexualized relationship — for most people who court and eventually marry. The social institution has an influence both on attitude and behavior — it is not just something that people are born with. It is taught, imbued even, in a strong marriage culture.

Monogamy is not just about emotions. In marriage, it is about the marriage presumption of paternity. Some married people may not abide by the higher standard, and that’s why the standard is important because its lack would diminish the relatively non-coercive influence of the social institution.

Apart from the irrelevancy of the presumption of paternity (based on both-sexed sexual behavior), is it not part of the beliefs of SSMers here that a high standard of monogamy ought to apply to gay and lesbian relationships, generally?

In other words, is it the belief that all gay and lesbian women ought to be influenced by SSM to become monogamous both in attitude and behavior? Since this is not relevant to responsible procreation, what is its relevancy to beliefs of SSMers?

If not, why not? Surely such a higher standard would be pushing against the grain of, at least, the current attitude/behavior of gay men in committed relationships (as per the Solomon study’s limited evidence)?

Thank you for your response regarding “graduation” versus “completion”. Again, we fundamentally disagree on whether “separate but equal” works, because you have said you do not feel it would be too distressful as long as everything else was absolutely equal. Distressful is not my measurement, but I cannot support nearly absolutely equal.

“In other words, let’s say it’s mostly people motivated by religion who vote for the California Marriage Protection Act. That’s causeing the government to appease religious beliefs in a question of civil equality. So what should happen? How should we determine exactly which percentage of voters were motivated by religious beliefs and which ones were primarily voting on secular criteria? Should we then throw out the votes of the religiously motivated voters? Or should we figure out a way to prevent religiously motivated voters from voting at all? How would that work?”

Voting is obviously an absolute civil right regardless of the reasoning behind the vote. I don’t believe civil rights should be a matter of majority vote, but the vote on CMPA will happen. We could debate whether that is government appeasement of religious beliefs, but I see it primarily as a function of majority rule. Which brings us to why civil rights should not be a matter of majority rule. Pure, absolute majority rule can lead to tyranny. That is why there are checks and balances. Civil rights exist in part to protect the minority from any form of oppression by any majority.

Voters elect the legislators and the President. Religious voters, non-religious voters… everyone has their voice in their vote, as it should be. Laws are written, amendments passed. The judicial branch is where constitutionality is tested. If the CMPA passes, let’s say it goes to the Supreme Court for review. It is there, at that point, that I am saying the government must not appease religious beliefs in questions of civil rights. To be clearer, I am saying religious beliefs cannot be an acceptable basis for infringing on the civil rights of others. Everyone’s basic constitutional freedoms are to be protected. No one’s religious traditions, beliefs or practices can be used as a justification for infringing on the civil rights of others.

I do not want the government to promote or inhibit anyone’s religious beliefs or practices in any branch. Separation of church and state in democracy is wise and necessary for freedom for both.

You asked me a question earlier I have not answered yet. It goes to how my last two statements would work in practice. I will do my best to answer that in a later post.