Defense of Marriage

[minn_stat]

In his thread on the "Irrelevance of Choice in Gay Marriage", BlueHair said:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

...

Seriously, I have no problem with you wanting to keep the "social norms" the way they are. Everyone is free to think the way they want. I also have no problem with churches preaching against homosexuality. I think legislating against it goes too far. Since allowing gays to marry wouldn't cause any harm to heterosexual marriage, I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

I disagree. There have been several threads recently on homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular. I lurk around, reading much of it, but rarely finding the time to reply. But since not many others are representing the "against gay marriage" side of things, I'm going to do so. This will be pretty long, because I'm not very good at the one-liners so many of you are good at. Or maybe it just takes time to lay out some of the issues involved. But I actually feel this is a pretty important issue.

The mainstream media has done a horrible job informing us of the issues involved. Instead of providing us a reasonably balanced view of the pros and cons, they have become advocates for the homosexual agenda. They have been almost unanimous in decrying actions such as the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) of 2006 as unnecessary, as an incursion of state’s rights, and as an unprecedented attempt to single out a group to be denied basic civil rights. The cacophony is just about deafening, and it can become very easy to be swayed by the repeated media phrases, with nary of word of opposing views, except to portray them as discriminatory, hate-filled desires of close-minded bigots. Why not a fair, reasonable portrayal of both sides?

Note that most of the experts I will be citing are not LDS, and in fact, several are openly gay or are proponents of gay marriage. I will refrain from explicit religious arguments against gay marriage.

Let us begin with examining the purpose of marriage within the context of government. Why should government be involved at all in marriage? Why did it get involved in the first place? This involvement arises because the government has a strong interest in preserving society, in ensuring its own survival, so to speak. And this is achieved by promoting institutions which nurture and educate the next generation of society – families and schools, in particular. Let me reiterate this key point – it is in society’s (and government’s) best interest to preserve itself by promoting institutions that protect, nurture, and prepare children to be the next generation of society. To do otherwise is short-sighted at best; it is self-destructive from a societal point of view, and it is narcissistic in the extreme for individuals to seek to destroy those institutions without providing alternatives to protect society’s interest. “My wants exceed the needs of the composite individuals in the larger society” is a pretty simplified picture, but strongly illustrates the narcissism that I am referring to here.

[minn_stat]

So government promotes marriage to provide an institution for the raising and nurturing of children. Note that government has no direct interest in whether or not the couple that forms the foundation of the family love one another (at least in the romantic sense); marriage is not society’s stamp of approval on two people’s feelings for each other. Many marriages have little romantic feelings left in them, but still produce capable and well-adjusted children. To the degree that those feelings keep the marriage together and healthy, there is an indirect interest, but directly, the government and society have no compelling interest in marriage as an indicator of the couple’s love for each other. And the fact that some marriages never serve this role (of raising and nurturing children) does not invalidate society’s need to promote marriage and families. I suppose we could make each couple considering marriage indicate whether or not they intend to have children, and test them to make sure they are capable of doing so. If not, no marriage license would be granted. Then, if they changed their mind, decided to adopt, or “had an accident”, they could re-apply and government would grant the marriage license. This, or something like it, is a real alternative. But not a very serious one, because societies have deemed it trivial to allow such couples to marry. These cases, relatively few in number, have been going on for generations, and have not threatened the institution of marriage in general, so why impose the costs? Note that same-sex marriage advocates make a similar argument – however, I will argue below that in the case of same-sex marriage, it does threaten the institution of marriage.

Now let’s take a closer look at the children.

Children are raised by one or more adults who serve as society’s models. Mostly, this function is served by the children’s natural mother and father. In some cases, through death or divorce, a single parent is left to fulfill this role. In other cases, both parents are lost to death, are deemed unfit, or simply refuse to fill that role. In such cases, grandparents, other relatives, or state institutions step in. But clearly, society has recognized over time that families are the best institution to raise children. The fact that some families do it poorly does not invalidate this conclusion. It is very instructive to note what societies do when a child loses his or her family of origin. Put them in full-time daycare? Put them in an orphanage? (Note that western societies have pretty much abandoned orphanages.) Some sort of shared responsibilities arrangement within a community? No, societies ideally try to find another family to place the children into – mostly with relatives, through adoption, or as a last resort, foster family-type programs. Even foster family programs, with all the stories of children being passed around and the attendant impacts on those children, are considered better than non-family alternatives (at least in general). If they aren’t, then why don’t we implement whatever it is that is better? Return to orphanages, perhaps?

So children need families. If a better alternative is out there, we have not found it, and we would be unwise (to put it mildly) to create alternatives without lots of serious consideration, planning, and testing.

[minn_stat]

Kathleen Kiernan, a British demographer, has noted four societal stages in modern since the liberalization of divorce laws and the introduction of contraceptives in the early to mid-1900s. Stage one is characterized by nations where the vast majority of children are produced and raised by a two parent family. Stage two sees the rise of cohabitation, although it is viewed as a testing period and is generally childless. Divorce becomes more commonplace, and more children are raised by a single parent. In stage three, cohabitation becomes increasingly acceptable, and parenting begins to be dissociated from marriage. In the fourth stage, marriage and cohabitation become practically indistinguishable, with many, perhaps even most, children born and raised outside of marriage.

Interestingly, the impact of all of this on children has been the subject of many studies. Keep in mind that academic research deals in objective statistics and trends, not exceptions. Some families and marriages are destructive and unsuccessful, but that does not invalidate the overall tendencies. This research overwhelmingly shows the harmful effects of de-coupling marriage and parenting. In the interest of space, let me provide just a few examples demonstrating this. One researcher, R.J. Shapiro, summarized his findings by saying “it is no exaggeration to say that a stable, two-parent family is an American child’s best protection against poverty.” Separate studies by G.T. Stanton, Steven Nock, and Linda Waite demonstrated that children of cohabiting couples are much more likely to be abused. British scholar Duncan Timms conducted long-term research on the lives of all children born in Stockholm, Sweden in 1953. The clear, unambiguous conclusion was that parental breakup has negative effects on the mental health of children, particularly boys.

So children need families. How does this tie in to the gay marriage issue?

In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the nations of Scandinavia passed the world’s first laws recognizing gay unions and gay marriages. The experiences of these nations thus provide the best view into the effects of gay marriages on families and children. It is no coincidence that these nations are all in stage four of Kiernan’s model. These nations were in stage three prior to the recognition of gay unions, but their already high out-of-wedlock birthrates went up even higher after this recognition. In Norway in 1990, 39% of children were born out of wedlock. In 2000, this had increased to 50%. Sweden’s increased from 47% to 55% over this same period. Danish sociologist Mai Heide Ottosen has documented the increased risk to Scandinavian children from these rising rates. A 2003 study by a group of European researchers found that children of single parents in Sweden are much more likely to be injured, get sick, and to die than children in two parent households. The economies of these educated, advanced nations are stalling and in severe danger because of the mammoth costs of providing the welfare state necessary to support this system.

Stanley Kurtz notes that “gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating marital decline”.

All this, and for what cause? So homosexuals can marry and have children, too? Some proponents of gay marriage argue that doing so will establish more families to provide good, loving stable environments for children. But this simply has not happened. In the first four years of Sweden’s laws, only 749 homosexual couples married. For Norway, only 674 married in the first four years. So why go to all that effort for so few to benefit at such an extraordinary cost? Danish social theorist Henning Bech, himself a gay and a proponent of gay marriage laws, has stated that the goal of the gay marriage movement in Scandinavian nations was not marriage, but social approval for homosexuality. And those who want society to approve - not just tolerate, but approve their sexual proclivities - are willing to destroy the foundation of society to get that approval. That extreme narcissism I mentioned at the beginning of this article? It’s right in front of us, and it is called gay marriage.

[minn_stat]

The descent into stage two of Kiernan’s model began in the late 1950’s and into the 1960’s. Most of western Europe is in stage three, and the United States is transitioning towards it. The result of the experiment is in, and the costs have been huge. I believe it is no coincidence that the same period has been marked by a huge increase in crime rates, rising mental illness rates, and the rise of the welfare state. Gay marriage accelerates and accentuates the disintegration of the family.

WARNING - RELIGIOUS PART COMING
It is no wonder that the First Presidency worded their warning so strongly: “we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” Are we going to stand up and fight for our society, our children? I want to be able to tell my children and my God that I fought for them. The alternative is to tell them I was too busy trying to keep my lawn mowed, or to earn a bit more money so I could go on that vacation to Cancun, or whatever else it is that I’m focused on at the moment.
END RELIGIOUS PART

Many argue that gays just want the same rights granted to other Americans. As noted earlier, Danish social theorist Henning Bech, himself a gay and a proponent of gay marriage laws, has stated that the goal of the gay marriage movement in Scandinavian nations was not marriage, but social approval for homosexuality. I think it is fairly self-evident upon reflection that this is, indeed, the goal of gay marriage laws for many, if not most, advocates of it. But no one has a fundamental “right” of social approval under duress of law. If so, I need my “right” protected to have everyone approve of my having four children – there certainly are those here in Minnesota who disapprove of that.

[MikeWaters]

where are the quotes and citations?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

where are the quotes and citations?

Solon, can we get a review?

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

where are the quotes and citations?

I put most of this together about two years ago, primarily for consumption by my extended family and a few friends. I was not academically rigorous in my citations and so forth, so I'd need to dig a bit to find sources. If I get a chance, I'll try to dig up at least some of them. But I'm amazed at how much some of you post on here -- most of the time, I'm lucky to find time to read the threads I find most interesting. All of you either have a lot more free time than I do, are much more efficient at getting things done in your lives, or are much quicker at crafting your posts than I. So don't hold your breath too long.

This was originally written as a tool to get people to question what they'd been hearing in the media, at least to consider alternative ways of looking at the issue, to provide some solid logical reasoning for being against gay marriage. It was not intended to be an airtight logical case for being against gay marriage. I hesitated posting it for this reason, but (probably against better judgment) decided to do so anyways.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Solon, can we get a review?

I may attempt a short summary.

There are two conflicting forces in the fight to define the purpose of marriage.

One believes that government should sanction marriage for the purpose of propagating our species in an ideal family situation where the birth father and birth mother raise the child.

The other believes that the government should sanction marriage for the purpose of promoting love and healthy relationships between two people.

Those who promote the latter purpose do not believe that it will have any impact on the former. Those who support the former purpose disagree, believing that the shift in focus from future generations to current generations will have a negative overall societal impact on future generations.

It's my understanding that minn_stat believes the former.

As for me, I'm conflicted about the whole matter. I'm not offended at the idea of two homosexuals entering a marriage or civil union, but I remain unconvinced of the necessity that government sanction their relationship. If it's a matter of filing joint income taxes or receiving insurance benefits, I can see the argument. If it's purely a symbolic act, then I'd prefer to take a wait and see approach. On this day, it seems appropriate to quote William Buckley in the first publication of National Review when he declared that he was standing athwart history, yelling STOP!

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

As for me, I'm conflicted about the whole matter. I'm not offended at the idea of two homosexuals entering a marriage or civil union, but I remain unconvinced of the necessity that government sanction their relationship.

So, in other words, you are offended at the idea of homosexuals entering a marriage.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I may attempt a short summary.

There are two conflicting forces in the fight to define the purpose of marriage.

One believes that government should sanction marriage for the purpose of propagating our species in an ideal family situation where the birth father and birth mother raise the child.

The other believes that the government should sanction marriage for the purpose of promoting love and healthy relationships between two people.

Those who promote the latter purpose do not believe that it will have any impact on the former. Those who support the former purpose disagree, believing that the shift in focus from future generations to current generations will have a negative overall societal impact on future generations.

It's my understanding that minn_stat believes the former.

As for me, I'm conflicted about the whole matter. I'm not offended at the idea of two homosexuals entering a marriage or civil union, but I remain unconvinced of the necessity that government sanction their relationship. If it's a matter of filing joint income taxes or receiving insurance benefits, I can see the argument. If it's purely a symbolic act, then I'd prefer to take a wait and see approach. On this day, it seems appropriate to quote William Buckley in the first publication of National Review when he declared that he was standing athwart history, yelling STOP!

See? I told you, you guys are much better than I at this stuff. My pages and pages of rambling rolled into a couple of paragraphs. Oversimplified, of course, but pretty good.

I think it is pretty obvious that historically, the former view has been far more the norm than the latter.