Response to argument a church member gave for banning same-sex marriage

I originally made the following posts as facebook notes and comments. The names of other speakers have been anonymized. I claim copyright over any portion I wrote directly. I include the remaining text to give context to the conversation and to make clear my criticisms and comments (i.e. Fair Use).
Argument a church member presented me for banning gay marriage

Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 12:46am

Hi everyone,

I wanted my friends to be able to read the note that CMFN CMLN, from the church where I was raised as a child, posted regarding gay marriage. I had to copy the note because I wasn't sure that the note was visible to people who were not facebook friends with CMFN. I also wanted everyone to be able to see the comments that we sent back and forth.

Best wishes,
David Liao

P.S. I probably don't have time tomorrow to read any responses to this note or the original from which it was copied, but of course you are welcome to put comments in the queue.

CMFN wrote: Should Government Recognize and Legalize Same Sex Marriage? Thu 3:42pm http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/pg83392 I copied and pasted the below from the above website link. Not sure if I accurately picked up all the sentences. This is about loving all sinners of which because I know myself just as Paul in the bible knew himself, I say that I am the chief of sinners. This is about putting the statistics from the US Cnesus Bureau, U.S. Department of Justice and peer reviewed studies out there. What Do Proponents Want? Why should anyone oppose homosexual couples who want to be married to each other? Shouldn’t we promote loving relationships and encourage the kind of commitment that we recognize in marriages all over the country? Why would we ever deny this desire on the part of homosexuals? After all, aren’t they just trying to fit in to the fabric of our society? These are questions that we need to examine as we see the trend toward same sex marriage growing in our country. But before we begin, we need to understand what motivates many homosexual advocates in this discussion. While some homosexuals may simply want to nestle into the marital culture that surrounds them, many more want to transform that culture altogether: Paula Ettelbrick, (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund) “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.” Many homosexuals who want our government to approve and establish same sex marriages appear to want to change the culture rather than simply assimilate into the culture that already exists. How Many People Are We Talking About Here? The trend toward same sex marriage may make the headlines, but it involves a relatively small number of people in our culture. While many homosexual advocacy groups tend to inflate their statistics in order to increase the perceived number of homosexuals in our country, the most reliable data (Dan Black’s “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population”) places the male homosexual population at 2.5% and the female homosexual population at 1.4%. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau conducted a survey called, “Married-Couple and Unmarried Partner Households” and reported that there were 594,391 same-sex partner households in our country (301,026 male homosexual households and 293,365 female homosexual households). Of these households, 33% percent of female homosexual households and 22% of male homosexual households were actually raising children. Compare this with 46% of heterosexual married couples who were raising children in the household (plus an unknown percentage of heterosexual couples who were raising kids in an unmarried household). And while homosexual couples may say that they are raising kids in their home, this does not, of course, mean that these children began their life in this setting. The vast majority of children being raised in homosexual homes are the product of prior heterosexual relationships and marriages on the part of one of the two homosexuals in the present relationship. These children were raised in a heterosexual two parent environment during the earliest years of their development, even if they are now listed as children who are being raised in the context of a same sex union. The point here is that the issue of same sex marriage applies directly to a very small part of the general population (those who live as homosexuals), and to an even smaller group within the homosexual community who choose to live in same sex households! What is the Role of Government? While homosexuals are free today to live in same sex households, many homosexual advocates want more than the simple freedom to live in this way; they want the government to recognize their relationship and afford them the same affirmation and benefits that traditional heterosexual marriages enjoy. Before we can decide on the merits of such a notion, we need to think about the nature and role of government. What is government designed to accomplish? Why do we, as human beings, form governments in the first place? Well, we can learn something by simply reading the preamble of our own constitution: The Preamble of the United States Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Our government, like many other governments before and since, exists to punish what is evil, protect what is good, and look out for the welfare of this and the next generation. This is the role of government, and the Christian worldview agrees with this stated purpose: Romans 13:1-7 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them; tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to who fear; honor to whom honor." The Bible describes the role of government quite clearly; government exists to praise and promote “good behavior” while punishing “evil behavior”. When we ask government to get involved in any particular issue, it’s important for us to ask the question, “Does this involve a behavior that government should punish, a behavior that government should praise, or a behavior that government should simply ignore?” Promoting the ‘Ideal’ Versus Punishing the ‘Non-Ideal’ There are lots of social institutions and relationships that government either promotes or prohibits. It’s the government’s role to encourage the institutions and behaviors that strengthen the culture and protect our ‘posterity’ as a society. Sometimes the government promotes and affirms a relational institution (like traditional marriage). Sometimes a government discourages a relational behavior (like the marriage of siblings to one another). Sometimes a government neither affirms nor discourages a relational reality (like single parent households). There are times when it’s important to promote the ‘ideal’, but government has to be careful not to punish the ‘non-ideal’. It’s for this reason that our government doesn’t seek to punish single parent households, but does promote marriage as the institution within which we raise the next generation. There are certain benefits and recognitions that the government offers traditional married couples in an effort to affirm and encourage the very institution that lies at the foundation of our society. Government sees a high value in the role of two parent traditional family units in raising healthy, well balanced children. Innumerous studies have been conducted over the years demonstrating the value that traditional family units have on children. Children who are raised in traditional, two parent family units are… Less likely to be involved in ‘delinquent’ behavior (Matsueda & Heimer, 1987) Less likely to drop out of school (Astone & McLanahan, 1994) Less likely to be unemployed (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994) Less likely to use drugs in adolescence (Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Thomas, Farrell, & Barnes, 1996; Hoffmann & Johnson, 1998) Less likely to be involved in crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990, Kamarck and Galston, 1990) Less likely to become pregnant as teenagers (Garfinkel and McLanahan, 1986) Less likely to be poor (Kamarck and Galston, 1990) Less likely to be sick (Angel and Worobey, 1988) In virtually every area of measurement, from academic success, to psychological wellbeing, to the rate of incarceration, children who have been raised in the context of two parent family units compare favorably to those who have been raised in single parent families, and in every other construction of the family unit. Kids raised in two parent family units are far better adjusted by almost every available measurement when compared to those raised without both parents. Governments that recognize this have strived to promote two parent family units while not punishing those households that fall short of the ‘ideal’. It’s in the best interest of governments to support and encourage those social relationships and institutions that protect and foster the wellbeing of the next generation of citizens. So, What Kind of Family Units Should Government Promote? But if two parent family units are the ‘ideal’, isn’t it possible that same sex family units might be just as ‘ideal’ as traditional heterosexual marriages, so long as there are two parents in the relationship that can help raise the children? Must the parents be heterosexual parents in order for us to see the same optimum results in terms of child-rearing? Are there reasons why heterosexual unions should be promoted over same sex unions? Government is in the business of praising what is good and promoting the general welfare, so it’s appropriate for government to study this particular issue and promote those family units that best care for the wellbeing of young people. After all, these young people will eventually become the next generation of citizens and leaders. So, what kind of foundational relationships should the government promote, and which forms of family unit have the best record of success? It’s All About KIDS Let’s examine the evidence and try to remember what we learn by inserting the facts into a simple acronym: K-I-D-S. Let’s examine four attributes of healthy families that both heterosexual traditional marriage advocates and same sex marriage advocates can agree on! Both sides of the issue will probably agree that ‘ideal’ family units (those that should be promoted and encouraged by our government) ought to be: Kind Government Should Promote Family Units That Are Non-abusive All of us are concerned about violence within relationships, particularly within the marital relationship. Both heterosexual and homosexual advocates would agree that children should not be raised in an unsafe environment in which partners are abusing one another. Children do best when raised in an environment where kindness is modeled. There is an important issue of safety and wellbeing that government must consider as it decides which type of relationships it wants to encourage and promote. All of us would agree that abusive relationships should not be encouraged as the ‘ideal’ for our culture. Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to understand the level of abuse that exists within marital relationships in our society today. A recent study conducted at the national level found that 21.7% of women and 7.4% of men in traditional heterosexual relationships reported some form of rape, physical assault or stalking within the context of their relationship. (U.S. Department of Justice, “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence”, Office of Justice Programs, July, 2000). Those numbers may surprise you, and they are certainly higher than any of us would like. But compare these statistics to the rate of violence that occurs in same sex relationships. The same study on violence just referenced revealed that 39% of women and 23.1% of men in same sex relationships reported the same kinds of abuse. (U.S. Department of Justice, “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence”, Office of Justice Programs, July, 2000). This data obviously reveals that same sex relationships are far more likely to involve abuse and violence. And this data is supported by other surveys and studies. The Bureau of Justice reports that women in traditional heterosexual marriages experience far lower rates of violence than women in any other type of relationship. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, “Intimate Partner Violence”, U.S. Department of Justice, May, 2000). Over and over again, studies reveal that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than traditional marital relationships. In one study, researchers found that 90% of surveyed lesbians said they had suffered verbal abuse and 31% said they had experienced physical abuse from their same sex partner. (Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9, 1994). Another survey found that more than 50% of lesbians reported that they had been abused by their female partner. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications”, Journal of Social Service Research 15, 1991). Additional studies confirm this level of abuse within lesbian relationships. One such study revealed that 54% of lesbian couples report 10 or more incidents of abuse, and 74% reported that the abuse grew worse over time. (William C. Nichols, et al, editors, “Handbook of Family Development and Intervention”, New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000). And male homosexual couples report similar abuse. One study found that gay men experience nearly two times the amount of violence (in the context of their relationships) than tradition heterosexual couples. (D. Island and P. Letellier, “Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence”, New York, Haworth Press, 1991). These studies simply reveal the truth of the matter. Homosexual relationships are far more violent that heterosexual relationships, based on a number of different parameters and measurements. The Bottom Line: If KIND, non-violent and non-abusive family units are optimum for raising well-balanced children, heterosexual unions are far more likely to provide the stability and safety required to raise children. Heterosexual couples experience far less violence in the context of their relationships. For this reason, it is appropriate for government to promote heterosexual family units (as an ideal) over other family units in an effort to provide and encourage the best possible environment for children. Innoculated Government Should Promote Healthy Family Units The biological and mental health of parents is important to the wellbeing of children; both sides of the debate will probably agree on this issue. The government should have an interest in promoting both the health of parents and their children in the context of each family unit, so this issue is something that the government should look at seriously. Heterosexual couples are obviously not immune to illness. Disease and illness are often blind to their victims. But it is clear that families can help inoculate themselves from disease, and it is also clear that families can sometimes expose themselves to higher risk for disease and illness; this appears to be the case when we examine the behavior of same sex couples. We know that risky sexual behaviors increase the possibility of contracting a number of serious life threatening diseases. And studies now reveal that these risky sexual behaviors are actually far more likely to occur in the context of ‘steady’ and monogamous’ homosexual relationships (remember the definition of ‘monogamy’ is different for homosexuals – particularly homosexual males – than it is for heterosexual couples). One national study reported that homosexual men engaged in anal and oral sex more often when they were involved in a steady relationship than when they were not (A.P.M. Coxon et al., “Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men”, AIDS, July 1993), and an English study revealed that the most “unsafe” sex acts occur in the context of these steady relationships. (G. J. Hart et al., “Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992”, AIDS, July 1993). In addition to this, a study in Amsterdam reported that “steady partners contribute to (HIV) incidence more than casual partners.” The report made the case that risky sexual behavior was far more common among ‘steady’ partners than among ‘casual’ partners. (Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam”, AIDS 17, 2003). And these findings are also reflected in a Dutch study that found that 67% of homosexual men with HIV (who were under 31 years of age) were infected with HIV by a ‘steady’ partner. This study confirmed that “in recent years, young gay men have become more likely to contract HIV from a steady sexual partner than from a casual one”. (Jon Garbo, “More Young Gay Men are Contracting HIV from Steady Partners”, GayHealth, July 25, 2001). In addition to this, gay men are far more likely to contract other serious illnesses. According to one study, “homosexual men are at significantly increased risk for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections”, (L.A. Valleroy, D.A. MacKellar, J.M. Daron, et al, “HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men”, JAMA, 284, 2000, pp. 198-204). Homosexual females are also at higher levels of risk for contracting disease based on sexual behavior. While lesbians are far more conservative than their homosexual male counterparts, studies reveal that lesbians are “significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an (intravenous drug user)”. (The Journal, “Sexually Transmitted Infections”). Studies indicate that homosexual women (even those who are involved in same sex unions) are far more likely to suffer from a number of illnesses. “Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women.” (L.A. Valleroy, D.A. MacKellar, J.M. Daron, et al, “HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men”, JAMA, 284, 2000, pp. 198-204). The truth is simply this: homosexual behavior puts homosexuals at far more risk for disease and illness, and according to at least one study, homosexual behavior (even within the context of a ‘steady’ relationship) decreases the life spans of homosexual partners (R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, KJ Craib, MV O'Shaughnessy, JS Montaner and MT Schechter, “Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men”, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, Oxford University, 1997, pp. 657-661). In addition to physical health risks that exist within same sex relationships, studies have also concluded that there is a significant mental health risk in these kinds of relationships. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more likely to experience mental health problems (especially when compared to traditional married couples). A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide discovered that same sex partners report lower overall mental health and were 6 ½ times more likely to attempt suicide. Importantly, this increased likelihood of suicide was not related to pre-existing mental health issues or drug abuse. (R. Herrell, et al., “A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men,” Archives of General Psychiatry 56, 1999). Over and over again we see evidence of the fact that same sex partnerships are significant more susceptible to physical and mental disease and illness. The Bottom Line: If healthy, INNOCULATED parents are the ideal for raising well-balanced children, heterosexual unions are far more likely to provide for the health and well being of such parents. Heterosexual couples are far less likely to participate in the risky sexual behavior that contributes to the lowered mental and physical health of the parents. For this reason, it is appropriate for government to promote heterosexual family units (as an ideal) over other family units in an effort to provide and encourage the best possible environment for children. Devoted Government Should Promote Committed Parental Relationships There are probably many children who are presently growing up in some type of ‘open’ household in which adult role models are engaged in promiscuous, ‘open’ sexual relationships with people outside the family unit, but both heterosexual and homosexual activists would agree that this is not the optimal environment for raising children. Parental commitment and devotion to one another is an important value in the moral development of children, according to both advocates of traditional marriage and advocates of same sex marriage. Homosexual advocates are quick to point out examples of enduring, committed same sex unions in an effort to demonstrate that homosexuals can be just as devoted and monogamous as heterosexuals. But the data seems to contradict such isolated examples. Studies confirm that while some heterosexual partners may have broken their vows of fidelity to their marriage partner, the majority have remained faithful, devoted and monogamous. National surveys have consistently discovered that 75-81% of married men and 85-88% of married women had never broken their marriage vows. (Michael W. Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey”, Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997; E. O. Laumann et al., “The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States”, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994; and “Sexual Habits of Americans Have Changed Dramatically in Ten Years: New National Survey Finds Both Men and Women More Committed and Caring”, PR Newswire, August 4, 1994). Over and over again, studies reveal that heterosexual marital partnerships are largely stable, devoted and monogamous. Compare this to homosexual relationships. Studies of every kind (including those conducted by homosexual advocates) confirm that homosexual relationships are far less devoted and monogamous than heterosexual relationships, particularly when male homosexual couples are factored into the equation. Homosexual couples are simply not as monogamous as heterosexual couples, and homosexuals are typically far more sexually active than heterosexuals. A classic homosexual study revealed that 43% of white homosexual men had sex with at least 500 partners and 28% had sex with at least 1000 partners. (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978, pp. 308, 309; and A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, “Sexual Preference”, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981). This survey has been repeatedly confirmed by additional research. The Journal of Sex Research reports that most homosexuals have between 100 and 500 sexual partners in their lifetime. 10.2% reported that they had between 501 and 1,000 sex partners, and 15.7% said they had more than 1000 sex partners in their lifetime. (Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men”, Journal of Sex Research 34, 1997). And studies conducted by homosexual advocate groups agree with these findings, reporting that 24% of those homosexuals who were surveyed reported that they had more than 100 sex partners in their lifetime. Several of those surveyed indicated that they had more than 1000 sex partners. (“Sex Survey Results”, Genre, October 1996, as quoted in “Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners”, Lambda Report, January 1998) But even within the context of homosexual partnerships, homosexuals are not nearly as devoted and monogamous as heterosexual couples. In a Dutch study of homosexual couples, surveys revealed that homosexual men with a steady partner had an average of 8 additional sex partners every year. (Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam”, AIDS 17, 2003). A Canadian study reports similar findings. Homosexual men in committed partnerships were surveyed and reported that only 25% were actually faithful and monogamous in their relationship. (Ryan Lee, “Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows”, Washington Blade, August 22, 2003). Other studies report that even those homosexuals who say that they are in ‘monogamous’ relationships still report that they have 3 to 5 additional sex partners each year. (David H. Demo, et al., editors, “Handbook of Family Diversity”, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000). And one study revealed that the vast majority of male homosexual partnerships are not monogamous, and every couple studied beyond 5 years reported some form of additional sexual activity outside the partnership. (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop”, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1984). In addition to this, another study reported that only 2.7% of older homosexual men had only one sex partner in their lifetime. (Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile”, The Journal of Sex Research, Volume 34, 1997) Homosexual men consistently report their involvement in a steady partnership while simultaneously reporting that they continue to have multiple sex partners! This kind of accepted unfaithfulness within the context of a reportedly ‘committed’ and ‘steady’ relationship is unique to the homosexual community (particularly the male homosexual community). Why is this so? Studies suggest that homosexual men consider sex outside the relationship to be normative. In fact, many homosexual males simply refuse to be monogamous because they see it as an act of oppression. (Refer to the previously mentioned McWhirter and Mattison study). One study confirmed that only 26% homosexuals believe that commitment is the most important aspect of a marital relationship. (Mary Mendola, “The Mendola Report”, New York, Crown, 1980). Researchers and homosexual advocates alike have openly discussed the attitude that many homosexuals have toward ‘monogamy’ in steady relationships: Homosexual Writer and Activist Michelangelo Signorile “For these men the term ‘monogamy’ simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term ‘open relationship’ has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.” (Michelangelo Signorile, “Life Outside”, New York, HarperCollins, 1997) Former Homosexual William Aaron “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for (new sex partners). Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.” (William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972) It’s clear from the studies, the data and the statements of those who are involved in the lifestyle themselves, that homosexual couples are significantly less monogamous and devoted to their mates (at least from the point of view of fidelity) than traditional heterosexual couples. Both groups contain some percentage of people who will engage in sexual activity outside the relationship, but homosexuals are far more likely to do this from a statistical and cultural perspective. The Bottom Line: If monogamous, DEVOTED parental relationships are optimum for raising well-balanced children, heterosexual unions are far more likely to provide the stability of an intact, monogamous two parent home. Heterosexual couples are far less likely to be involved in ‘open’ multiple partner relationships and increase the chance that this behavior will be exposed to the children they are raising. For this reason, it is appropriate for government to promote heterosexual family units (as an ideal) over other family units in an effort to provide and encourage the best possible environment for children. Secure Government Should Promote Lasting Two Parent Family Units There are millions of children being raised in single family households, and none of us would want these parents to be punished in any way. No one is arguing that single parent households are ‘doomed’ or ought to be eliminated. And no one is saying that great, contributing, law abiding citizens cannot emerge from these types of households (Hey, I was raised in a single parent household)! But it is clear from every study that children who are raised in secure, lasting two parent households do better than those raised in single parent households. So it is reasonable for government to promote enduring, two parent family units as an ideal, even if many of us cannot always meet this ideal. Many same sex marriage advocates quickly agree that lasting, secure two parent households are an ideal that should be promoted. They argue that same sex marriages in which two parents live in a household with children would be a far better alternative to single parent households. Both sides seem to agree that durable two parent households are something that government should promote and encourage. But it’s important for us to recognize that heterosexual unions are FAR more likely to survive and remain intact than same sex unions. A national study in 2001 revealed that 66% of first marriages last ten years or more, and 50% last twenty years or longer (Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics - May 31, 2001). A national study in 2002 revealed that 70.7% of women married between 1970 and 1974 stayed married for at least 10 years and 57.7% stayed married for at least 20 years (Rose M. Kreider and Jason M. Fields, "Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996" Current Population Reports, P70-80, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. February 2002). While heterosexual couples do often divorce, large numbers of opposite sex marriages survive even beyond the 20 year mark, allowing for children to be raised within the context of an intact biological family unit. Same sex relationships are not nearly as durable. In a 2003/2004 survey of homosexual lifestyles conducted by a homosexual organization, only 15% of same sex relationships were reported to last longer than 12 years and only 5% of these relationships lasted more than 20 years (“Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships,” GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org). Homosexual men are far less likely to participate in monogamous long term relationships that homosexual women; some European studies have reported that the average length of a homosexual partnership is approximately 1.5 years (Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 - 2003). And western studies examining the lifestyles of homosexual men in America report similar statistics: University of Chicago Sociologist Edward Laumann “Typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.” (Adrian Brune, “City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says”, Washington Blade - February 27, 2004) Researcher M. Pollak “Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.” (M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times”, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster, New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985) Other researchers agree with these findings, and many of these researchers are from within the homosexual community. When male homosexual partnerships are included in the studies, the ‘durability’ and longevity of homosexual couples is reported to be dramatically lower than the durability and longevity of heterosexual couples. It’s a simple reality. The Bottom Line: If lasting, SECURE two parent family units are optimum for raising well-balanced children, heterosexual unions are far more likely to provide the stability of an intact two parent home. Heterosexual couples stay together longer and are more likely to remain intact throughout the life of the child. For this reason, it is appropriate for government to promote heterosexual family units (as an ideal) over other family units in an effort to provide and encourage the best possible environment for children. The Simple, Pragmatic Case Remember that government is in the business of praising what is good and promoting the general welfare of our society. For this reason, government must examine each institution within the culture and determine what is ‘ideal’ and in the best interest of the society’s survival. It exists to promote this ‘ideal’ without unfairly punishing those of us who find ourselves unable or unwilling to meet such an ideal. No matter what relational behavior or institution we are talking about, we need to determine whether or not government ought to advance, prohibit or ignore the behavior or institution. In the case of same sex marriage, there appears to be a simple pragmatic case that can be made for the proper role of government. Government should promote traditional marriages in which two biological parents can raise children, while permitting people to form and participate in other forms of family units (without prohibition) based on the following argument that uses the KIDS acronym: 1. Government exists to praise and promote what is good and prohibit and punish what is evil a. Government is responsible for the wellbeing of its citizens b. The wellbeing of the citizenry is dependent on the wellbeing of its children 2. KIDS (kind, inoculated, devoted and secure) two parent family units are optimum (the “ideal”) for raising well-balanced, healthy children 3. KIDS (kind, inoculated, devoted and secure) two parent family units are more likely to be the result of traditional heterosexual marriages. 4. Government, therefore, should praise and promote traditional heterosexual marriages in an effort to encourage the “ideal” environment for raising well-balanced, healthy children. The Value of Two Biological Parents It’s clear that that traditional heterosexual two parent family units are far more enduring, monogamous, non-abusive and healthy. On these standards alone, it’s reasonable for us to value and promote traditional two parent marriages as the ‘ideal’ form of family in our culture. But as it turns out, a number of studies confirm that two ‘biological’ parents are actually required if we want to best assure success and well-being in our children. Many studies come to this conclusion, including studies that are conducted by liberal advocacy groups who also recognize the fact that “children do best when raised by their two married biological parents…” (Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?”, Center for Law and Social Policy Policy Brief, May 2003, p.1). This reality is confirmed by a number of additional studies demonstrating that “an extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents…” (Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?”, Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p.1). We know, for example, that children raised in two biological parent families are far less likely to become sexually active at a young age compared to every other form of family unit, including stepfamilies. (Dawn Upchurch, et al., “Neighborhood and Family Contexts of Adolescent Sexual Activity”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 1999, 920-930). Children who are not living with both biological parents are 50 to 150% more likely to abuse drugs that kids who are raised in other types of family units, including stepfamilies like those formed in same sex unions. (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “The Relationship Between Family Structure and Adolescent Substance Use”, Rockville, MD, National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, 1996). In a similar way, studies indicate that “children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents. Risk of maltreatment death was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents.” (Michael Stiffman, et al., “Household Composition and Risk of Fatal Child Maltreatment,” Pediatrics, 109, 2002, pp.615-621). Over and over again, studies confirm the same reality: children do better when raised not only in two parent family units, but in two biological parent family units! So, How Should Government Promote Traditional Marriage? Those of us who argue that traditional marriage should be encouraged and promoted by our government are NOT saying that non traditional family units should be prohibited or punished. Each and every one of us has been created in the image of God, and each of us should be afforded the same human dignity that this reality demands. But our society must continue to recognize and encourage the formation of traditional marriages and families if it hopes to raise children in the best possible environment with the greatest potential for success. This bold statement is not the result of a religious conviction; it is simply the result of a close examination of all the data we’ve presented in this article. While the Christian worldview may agree with this high regard for traditional marriage, the case remains strong whether or not one sees it from a Christian perspective. The government must continue to venerate and encourage those family units that are kind (K), inoculated (I), devoted (D) and secure (S). It’s clear from the data that traditional marriages are uniquely able to meet these requirements. Beyond this, it’s clear that two biological parent families are optimum. Government must resist the temptation to equalize the value of all family units by assigning them equal status within the society, because doing so diminishes the important role that traditional marriage plays in ensuring the wellbeing of our children. Traditional marriage must retain a position of unique veneration in our culture if we hope to encourage it as the ‘ideal’ environment for child-rearing. Only traditional marriage should be called ‘marriage’ at all, and only traditional marriage should be afforded the special recognition that it has always been given in our culture. While alternative family units and relationships may be permissible, they simply should not be recognized and venerated as ‘marriages’. 23 comments Updated on Thursday

CMFN CMLN wrote at 4:04pm yesterday Please do not bother commenting if you want to argue that you personally know non-traditional families with well-adjusted kids. These statistics are just what it is - it's not specifically about you or anyone you might know. In other words, don't bother citing anecdotal rebuttals. And just to reinforce the argument the author is trying to make; we are talking about the ideal case here and that is what the government should promote. Do we have to make compromises in our everyday life? Sure but (sigh) we are talking about the ideal here. Please don't make me repeat that again.

David Liao wrote at 5:47pm yesterday If we want to stick to statistics, then maybe we should strip this anecdotal statement out from the document you copy-pasted: “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for (new sex partners). Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.” (William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972) David Liao wrote at 5:49pm yesterday These statistics are not really news. I've heard them screamed at me in various forms from a Baptist pulpit in college. David Liao wrote at 5:52pm yesterday Chris Laumann is one of my classmates here in the Princeton University physics PhD program. His father is Edward Laumann, one of the researchers your note cited, and I don't think he would be pleased to see his research used in this way. His family is Republican for Libertarian reasons and supportive of gay rights.

CMFN CMLN wrote at 5:57pm yesterday RE David's comment at 2:47pm November 13. Sure, let's strip that "anecdotal" statement for now. I will try to look it up in the meantime to check it out. Hopefully without having to buy the book! CMFN CMLN wrote at 5:59pm yesterday RE David's comment at 2:49pm November 13. In general, just because things are "screamed" at you, does not mean that they cannot be true. Some things can still be true even when they are screamed out.

David Liao wrote at 6:00pm yesterday I'm not saying that the screaming makes them untrue. I'm just saying it's not news, and in fact, it's not news to a lot of people who have formed opinions like mine. I just wanted to say that I have formed ideas having heard these presentations.

CMFN CMLN wrote at 6:03pm yesterday RE David's comment at 2:52pm November 13. Whether Edward Laumann will be pleased or not about the way his research is cited, does not have anything to say about the statistics itself. He may simply support gay rights for reasons other than the conclusion (if any) of his own research. David, you have to be clearer and more logical in your arguments. Non sequitur replies are not what I am looking for.

David Liao wrote at 6:05pm yesterday I did not say that Edward Laumann's attitude toward the use of his research made the use incorrect.

CMFN CMLN wrote at 6:06pm yesterday Again, David, so what if they are not news to you. It does not make them less valid. You or others could simply have decided not to factor those news/statistics into your worldviews.

David Liao wrote at 6:08pm yesterday I thought it was possible that you were posting this document as though it were news. David Liao wrote at 6:11pm yesterday CMFN wrote, "These statistics are just what it is - it's not specifically about you or anyone you might know. " There are documents from both sides that use statistics, and use them in a way to argue for or against affording same-sex couples access to same-sex marriage (see link below for the example at the American Psychological Association of a presentation supporting gay marriage). Some of the research cited is even the same. The APA position and the position of the note you copy-pasted above cannot both be correct, but they both rely on statistics, so the use of statistics does not guarantee that a position is correct. So, when you write, "These statistics are just what it is - it's not specifically about you or anyone you might know," I have to hope that you did not mean to say that the conclusions are necessarily "just what it is"; the conclusions are necessarily true just because statistics are used. Is that what you meant? http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.html Paige, R. U. (2005). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 2004. Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from the World Wide Web http://www.apa.org/governance/. (To be published in Volume 60, Issue Number 5 of the American Psychologist.)

CMFN CMLN wrote at 6:12pm yesterday RE David's comment at 3:05pm November 13 How I followed your argument about why he would not be pleased about how his research is used was from the reason you stated about how he supports gay rights. I would hope the only reason he would not be pleased about how his research is used is because it is cited incorrectly.

David Liao wrote at 6:13pm yesterday Agh. I made a typo in the last comment I wrote. The sentence that reads, " . . . I have to hope that you did not mean to say that the conclusions are necessarily 'just what it is'; the conclusions are necessarily true just because statistics are used. Is that what you meant?" should actually read, " . . . I have to hope that you did not mean to say that the conclusions are necessarily 'just what it is'; I have to hope that you did not mean to say that the conclusions are necessarily true just because statistics are used. Is that what you meant?"

CMFN CMLN wrote at 6:14pm yesterday What I meant was numbers are numbers. Of course, interpretations have to be made from numbers. Numbers are what I meant by "what is".

David Liao wrote at 6:15pm yesterday Great. I agree. Interpretations have to be made from numbers. David Liao wrote at 10:22am (1) CMFN said, "These statistics are just what it is," and also said, "What I meant was numbers are numbers. Of course, interpretations have to be made from numbers. Numbers are what I meant by 'what is'." (2) CMFN quoted some statistics, "(Dan Black’s “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population”) places the male homosexual population at 2.5% and the female homosexual population at 1.4%." (3) CMFN quoted some statistics from Edward Laumann's research. If we go further to read his book, we find that Laumann says that the male homosexual population is 1.4% and that the female homosexual population is 0.7%, each population about half the sizes that Blacks measures. There are a variety of honest reasons this statistics from sources (2) and (3) could be so distinct while holding in good faith that both research programs were done with proficiency. It's possible that researchers worded their survey questions differently; it's possible that researchers surveyed very different sample populations; it's also possible that these disagreements lie within the margin of error of the surveys. A margin of error is the fluctuation that researchers expect because any particular random sample of 1000 people, say, will give results slightly higher or lower than a survey of the entire American population. When you said (1) that "numbers are numbers" I hope you did not mean that two simultaneous independent copies of the same research program you cited would get the same or similar results. I hope you only meant by "numbers are numbers" that you believe that (a) the numbers you cited were obtained from proficient research, (b) but that you did not mean to go further to say that only one set of numbers could be obtained from proficient research. Is this what you meant? David Liao wrote at 10:50am The note says, " . . . society must continue to recognize and encourage the formation of traditional marriages and families if it hopes to raise children in the best possible environment with the greatest potential for success." It was once illegal for slaves to marry, and even until 1967, it was illegal for couples of mixed race to marry. Considering the stigma and racism of the day, which still continues to significant extent today, children raised by slaves or mixed race couples on average faced greater threats of violence and lesser opportunities for success. It was nonetheless justice to grant both of these people classes marriage rights. Why? One of many possibilities I'd like to consider is that dangers for the children and instabilities in the relationship are not "inherent" in the people class considered, but exacerbated by social stigma and the withholding of civil rights including marriage. The disadvantages on average that African-American couples or mixed-race couples expect their children to face now are less severe than the disadvantages faced at the time that each of these people groups first secured marriage rights from the United States government. It's relevant to ask whether the child-unfriendly conditions cited in the note could improve after gay marriage is permitted. The note could compare statistically children in same-sex American couples living with gay marriage, including the name of marriage, with children in same-sex American couples living without gay marriage. The federal government does not recognize gay marriage, and stigma is pervasive, so there are no such American couples from which to draw the comparison directly. Despite citing some statistical disadvantages for children today, the note does not exclude strictly the possibility that granting gay marriage could improve these conditions to the point that the note's author would consider it appropriate for government to promote and praise gay marriage. Delete

CMFN CMLN wrote at 7:35pm RE David's comment at 7:22am November 14 Yes, of course to both a and b. CMFN CMLN wrote at 7:40pm RE David's comment at 7:50am November 14 http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/07/15/false_equation_opposing_same-sex_marriage_and_opposing_interracial_marriage Will address the rest of your comment at a later time.

David Liao wrote at 10:56pm In the link you provided, Dennis Prager wrote that one "reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity . . . " In the middle of the twentieth century, anti-miscegeny laws were popular in the first half of the twentieth century throughout American States. They were often justified by quoting Biblical verses like Acts 17:24--26: "(24) God that made the world and all things herein, seeing that he is LORD of heaven and earth . . . (26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" Even in 1959 this was the motivation that a trial judge in Virginia gave for sentencing an interracial couple to prison for a year "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." Dennis Prager wrote that religious people opposing interracial marriage is not the same as a religious norm opposing interracial marriage, which is logically true. However, the religious belief in opposing interracial marriage was sufficiently prevalent that the Virginia trial judge felt confident articulating it in commenting on an interracial marriage case, so it is false that no one's religious norms ever opposed interracial marriage. Delete David Liao wrote at 11:05pm Dennis Prager wrote, "Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived." In context, Dennis Prager meant that every religious tradition opposes redefining marriage. My boyfriend belongs to the Conservative Jewish faith, and his tradition supports same-sex marriage. In the Conservative Jewish world, people are at odds about this question. In Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, the consensus is generally to call for same-sex marriage. Thus, to call for same-sex marriage is not to call every religious and secular tradition immoral, but in fact to agree with the statements of a variety of traditions, even those derived from Judeo-Christian origins. I disagree strongly when Dennis Prager says that by advocating same-sex marriage I call every religious and secular tradition immoral. I do not, and I have named a couple traditions with which I agree on this issue. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/sex_sexuality/Overview_Homosexuality/Sex_SameSex_Powers.htm# David Liao wrote at 12:32am The following comment rests between personal anecdote and broad statistics. CMFN did not yet strictly exclude this gray area from the discussion. Coretta Scott King in a leadership role met many members of the civil rights movement. I suspect that her views at least hint at moral views prevalent in the movement. The decades and sheer population that the movement encompassed entitle even its subpopulations, including the subpopulation represented by the attached quotations, the label of "tradition," depending on the definition of "tradition." Again to answer Prager's claim that gay marriage defies all religious and secular traditions, I note that this is yet another tradition that gay marriage agrees with, rather than defies. This tradition further identifies the civil rights and gay rights movements with each other. (1) The federal marriage amendment sought to ban gay marriage in the United States Constitution. Mrs. King responded, "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." (USA Today, 2004 March 24) (2) She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. (Chicago Sun Times, 1998 April 1) If CMFN finds that this reasoning lies too deeply in the gray area between anecdote and statistic, then I hope that the potential interest of these quotations to readers who might also have read the Prager article can render this comment as not a purely undesired use of facebook space and waste of readers' time. Goodnight and best wishes to everyone, David Liao 19 comments

David Liao wrote at 12:47am on November 15th, 2008 P.S. Some of the time references look strange because my time stamps are in Eastern Standard Time and CMFN's are in Pacific Standard Time. Delete

David Liao wrote at 12:58am on November 15th, 2008 I would also say that since this is my copy of the conversation, I am not asking the commenters of this note to exclude personal anecdotes from their discussions as was requested for CMFN's original copy. This discussion is very exhausting. Delete

FBF1 (Central Jersey, NJ) wrote at 2:01am on November 15th, 2008 I'm a numbers person... statistics do say a lot sometimes, but they have to be carefully analyzed to ensure they are not biased. How do we know that the statistics comparing heterosexual couples to homosexual couples are not biased by the fact that society views these two groups differently? Could the supposed additional violence present in homosexual households be brought on by the fact that people in those households are not treated the same way as their hetersexual peers? Here is an extreme example: All right-handed people are put in a comfortable air-conditioned room. All left-handed people are put in a sweltering factory and constantly whipped across the back. We ask both groups to perform work. The right-handed people perform the work admirably and are praised and rewarded, while the left-handed people struggle and are berated more. Conclusion: Only give the good work to right-handed people because they can get it done much better and faster. When you present statistics, you have to make sure the things you are comparing are on equal footing! Take away the ability to marry, adopt, etc. from heterosexual couples and see how the numbers change...

FBF2 (Stanford) wrote at 4:43am on November 15th, 2008 One other important thing to bring up is that any study done relating to homosexual relationships and homosexual parenting abilities should be throughly questioned. Many studies that those who wish to ban gay marriage are commissioned, conducted, and paid for by those who want a specific result: for gay marriage to look bad. A close analogy is the collection of eugenics studies performed at the beginning of the 20th century. Many of these studies "proved" that Nordic Europeans were the superior race through a variety of measurements, though many (if not all) have since been found to have manipulated, ignored, or over-emphasized sets of data to produce a desired result. Simply quoting the finding for these highly politically-charged studies isn't enough. Deep digging has to be done to determine how the study was done, who it was done by, and who is paying for it. It's one thing if its the NIH, NSF, or some other well respected, peer-reviewed and peer-directed funding organization. It's another if its done by an unfamiliar organization that, after tracking the money, turns out it is affiliated with or funded by a group like Focus on the Family.

David Liao wrote at 9:55am on November 15th, 2008 Dennis Prager wrote, "Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not." I agree that there are physiological and morphological sex differences, but if I read this correctly, Prager then jumped to the conclusion that these "differences are significant," enough to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples with a special role for man and a special role for woman. Prager cited no statistics for this second claim, so I feel at liberty to respond by discussing broadly the weddings and married lives of many gay and straight that I have attended. Take a transcript of the wedding vows, lovers squabbles, and daily conversation these couples have shared with their circle of friends. Strike out all pronouns indicating gender. I can't tell from the transcripts which couples are gay or straight. I can't tell in either case who is male or female. I can't tell who is "the man" or who is "the woman" of the relationship because often there is no such thing as "THE man" of the relationship. Sometimes "THE man" of the relationship is really morphologically the woman. I disagree from broad experience with Prager's assertion that sex-differences in general are significant enough to give men and woman special distinct roles in marriage. If you ask me to confine my attention to couples from conservative Evangelical faiths, I might be able to distinguish the sexes of the partners from their communications. Delete

FBF3 wrote at 8:17pm on November 15th, 2008 CMFN, Thanks for the excellent argumentation. Many of the people reading this post will assume that you are referring to those statistics and studies as an excuse for rationalizing your prejudices. But that actually you’re not very smart or persuasive. I would like to defend you against these readers because I think that you are right. It is important that the government dictate social policy in a scientific and controlled fashion. That we first study the data, identify correlations of social practices with negative effects, and then outlaw said practices. That’s the point of social science, and the point of social laws. You have identified that gay relationships are unsafe for children, and therefore gay marriage should be outlawed. But why stop there? For example, sociologists at Columbia and Yale have found that communities with a high rate of Christian “abstinence pledges” also have high rates of S.T.D.s. We should identify which Christians have pledged to abstain from sex before marriage, and they should be forbidden from marrying. These communities are clearly unsafe for children. In 2004, the states with the highest divorce rates were Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, and West Virgina. The states with the highest teen-pregnancy rates were Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas. I support outlawing both straight and gay marriage in all of the above states. Come to think of it, high-divorce rates and high teen-pregnancy rates seem to correlate with “red states.” I would be OK with temporarily banning marriage in all red states until they get their act together. Thanks again, CMFN, for the smart and well-thought-out argument, supported by statistics and science. It is important to use science in this way for determining social laws, and I regret that the Nazis have given eugenics such a bad name. But that was a while ago, so let’s fight on! -FBF3

CMFN CMLN wrote at 1:28am on November 16th, 2008 Hi FBF3, If you say so, FBF3. I don't defend people's actions when they don't follow the values they espouse. CMFN

FBF4 (Ohlone) wrote at 11:17pm on November 17th, 2008 Wow I didn't know gay people were such abusive thugs. I'm, like, slightly frightened of them now. Anyhow, I'm tired of the whole thing too. Christians believe in an absolute morality, so you can't wiggle your way out of this one with argumentation. They'll never be able to see the issue as anything other than a perverse practice, a sin, something you should probably stop RIGHT now. I think the only recourse is to make people see it for what it is, which is a civil rights issue...as the judge had ruled, a "fundamental right". This battle of numbers is just another way to skirt around the whole thing, pretending that it's not just their Christian beliefs at the root of it. Like y'all said, we'll continue seeing these kind of statistics (questionable as the their methods may be) as long as gay families are invalidated, pushed towards the fringes, rather than nurtured by society.

CMFN CMLN wrote at 12:16am on November 18th, 2008 Are there moral absolutes? http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/intermediate/what-is-moral-relativism.htm http://danecarr.com/Apologetics/MyArticles/Relativism.htm One can talk about being a relativist, but no one can consistently live this way. It is contradicting and self-refuting. Relativists want moral rules to apply to others, but not to themselves (i.e. they want complete sexual freedom, but they would condemn the man who would violently violate their little girl). They claim all views are valid and there is not one system better than another, yet they believe thier view is the right view. They are absolutely sure there are no absolutes, and they are intolerant of those who are intolerant. We are left with two possible conclusions: either there is objective truth and morality or everything is relative. If relativism is false, which we’ve shown it to be, then objective truth and morality must exist. The relativist cannot even deny objective or absolute truth without an absolute, objective statement. Norman Geisler sums it up nicely, “In order to deny absolutes, one must imply that there are absolutes in the process of the denial. To deny absolutes, you have to make an absolute denial.” Our moral intuition tells us that there are objective moral truths and whether we admit it or not, we want and expect others to live by them.

FBF4 (Ohlone) wrote at 7:55pm on November 18th, 2008 Oh man. “In order to deny absolutes, one must imply that there are absolutes in the process of the denial...” The problem is that already begin with the faulty premise that if there is absolute truth, then there is absolute morality. No one's trying to deny that there are absolutes - I'm sure that pink elephants absolutely don't exist. It's absolute morality in question. The nexus of all these anti moral relativist theories is that we have no foundation upon to say "I'm right and you're wrong". To criticize other’s moral systems. Because I don’t have the clout of a purported heavenly creator backing my ass up. I believe that morals are constructed on a cultural and individual level. But does that mean I can’t defend my morality? Honestly, when I first renounced Christianity, I was uncomfortable with the fact that there was no absolute morality – all of a sudden I had to find my own set of values. While before I rested my beliefs on what the bible said were the right ones, I was set afloat – like the title of a book your second link referenced, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air. But then I developed the “FBF4 Doctrine.” This was my personal moral system, based upon ideas – my Gods – such as kindness, justice, equality, the preservation of nature is intrinsically good, etc., etc. And I realized I can rest on these foundations easily – my feet are planted solidly on the ground. And yet I can still criticize other moral systems. Because I can explain why I think it’s good to be kind, and I can explain why justice is important. So take for example a religion that believes that women should be repressed. I can actually criticize that, because it goes against my beliefs on equality. Just because a belief is cultural (as all are), does not exempt it from criticism. Anyway, I’m comfortable with my morality. Slightly insulted that you think they’re invalid. But that’s okay, I can’t really criticize.

CMFN CMLN wrote at 11:30pm yesterday Actually, you are just creating your own absolute morality when you say that you can criticize other people's morality as you think you are right. How valid is that?

David Liao wrote at 11:47am I just skimmed all the comments that followed FBF3's comment. CMFN wrote on 2008 November 18, "They are absolutely sure there are no absolutes, and they are intolerant of those who are intolerant." I'm sure there are in fact people who would describe themselves with words like those you have just described, but I am not one of them. I say I am an atheist and I say I believe in universal morals. Now there are some philosophical subtleties involved with what I mean with "universal." I feel uncomfortable with the way that a lot of people use language that claims that there "is" absolute truth. I am aware that in this comment by itself I'm making primarily a statement about the outward labels/vocabulary I use. Without giving detailed definitions or examples of other uses of these words it might not immediately be clear where the differences lie between my underlying world view and those of other participants in this conversation. I'm just saying that some non-Christians in fact describe themselves as "believers in absolute morals," so a discussion regarding non-Christians who say they do not believe in absolute morals does not apply immediately to all non-Christians or even atheists. Delete

David Liao wrote at 1:29pm Hi everyone, I don't know when I will get a chance to read the other facebook note that CMFN posted this week, but in the meantime I wanted to look at the structure of some of the comments and discussions in this note. Sorry the document looks weird. I have to insert ugly headings in brackets and parentheses because facebook doesn't print line numbers and because facebook notes have insufficient capacity to hold this entire response as one comment. [2008 November 13 CMFN-PleaseConvinceMe.com]: CMFN posts a copy of the text from a link at PleaseConvinceMe.com. It's not signed. I can't tell who wrote it. Anyways, it argues (1) government should promote structures that are socially beneficial and (2) that statistics show that heterosexual couples more often than homosexual couples provide environments that are nurturing and safe for children. The unsigned article concludes that (1) and (2) imply (3) that government should promote heterosexual couples, who are more likely to nurture children well, by reserving for them the special name of marriage. For future reference let me refer to this argument as (1-2-3). David Liao wrote at 1:30pm [2008 November 14 Liao-(1-2'-IF3')]: I wrote, "Despite citing some statistical disadvantages for children today, the note does not exclude strictly the possibility that granting gay marriage could improve these conditions to the point that the note's author would consider it appropriate for government to promote and praise gay marriage." In other words, one way government could honestly (3') afford the name of civil marriage to same-sex couples while claiming (1) promote the general welfare, including encouraging the formation of nurturing and safe environments for children even if it believed that (2) homosexual households were non-ideal for children would be IF government believed that (2') homosexual households would be reasonably ideal for raising children some time in the future as a consequence of expanding marriage rights. Let me call this alternative reasoning (1-2'-IF3'). Sometimes a concrete example makes written, abstract reasoning easier to digest. I talked about the struggles to secure first African-American and then interracial civil marriage to provide two concrete examples of situations during which the argument (1-2-3) by itself did not decide whether civil marriage should be afforded to a group of couples. Of course these events were distinct from the same-sex marriage debate, even distinct from each other: at a trivial level, they are distinguished by having occurred at different times. [2008 November 14 CMFN-Prager]: CMFN provided a link to Dennis Prager article. It gave a couple arguments against identifying the struggle to secure same-sex civil marriage with the struggle to secure interracial civil marriage. David Liao wrote at 1:30pm [O: 1-2-3 v. 1-2'-IF3'] First, my discussion of (1-2'-IF3') did not rely on complete equivalence between the African-American marriage struggles and the same-sex marriage debate. I only claimed in the (1-2'-IF3') discussion that the (1-2-3) argument alone stands insufficient as a universal reason to ban same-sex marriage. Consequently CMFN's link to Dennis Prager on November 14 does not address directly the comment I wrote on November 14 regarding the argument (1-2'-IF3'). [O: Prager] Second, I nevertheless poked some holes in Dennis Prager's article in article because I thought it was relevant to the broader debate from which sprang CMFN's link to the specific (1-2-3) argument. (O: Prager A) Prager claimed that same-sex marriage defied all religious and secular traditions, so I described many practices that would probably call themselves religious or secular traditions who support same-sex civil marriage. These include forms of Judaism, and maybe even portions of civil rights movements. As an example, Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King said, "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." David Liao wrote at 1:31pm (O: Prager B) Prager claimed that sexes are distinct in ways more significant than skin color. However, the purpose of a general marriage debate is not to determine which of sex or skin color is more distinct. The purpose of a marriage debate is determine whether either sex or skin color provide distinctions in the context of the lives of loving couples to have consequence significant enough to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples. Prager's article includes not a single sentence making this specific claim, only the claim that sex is significantly different. Well, honestly he probably meant by that sentence that sex is significantly different in the context of marriage. However, the point is at best only probably implied, not even substantiated explicitly by the preceding discussion of brain sizes. Given Prager's indirect and loose style of claiming that sexes are sufficiently distinct to justify reserving marriage for heterosexual couples, I afforded myself some latitude in counter arguing. I wrote that the myraid weddings and couples I have known have not distinguished themselves according to sexual orientation or even according to sex. Strike the names and sex-sensitive pronouns from weddings vows and daily lover's squabbles, and I can't tell whether the couple is straight or gay and whether there even is a partner playing the role of "the man" or "the woman." As far as relationships are concerned, sex distinguishes the couples only by name, morphological appearance, and sex-indicating pronouns in English speech. That seems pretty skin deep, like skin color. Your mileage may vary according to the couples you meet, but again I afford myself the latitude of substituing for hard statistics that CMFN requests a description of the many couples I have met because in this case Prager has been so loose in articulating the claim to which I respond. David Liao wrote at 1:31pm Again, arguments [O: Prager] are not necessary responses to [2008 November 14 CMFN-Prager] because as I say in [O: 1-2-3- v. 1-2'-IF3'], I do not rely on claiming [2008 November 14 Liao-(1-2'-IF3')] that racial marriage debates be morally identical to same-sex marriage debates. Historical racial marriage debates just give two concrete examples of situations in which it's obvious that the advantages for children in one set of homes today, i.e. argument (1-2-3), is not by itself universally sufficient to guarantee special praise in the form of the name of civil marriage for a class of couples. Some commenters might speak very direct language to complain on the basis of [O: 1-2-3 v. 1-2'-IF3'] that talking about [O: Prager] or even linking to Prager's article [2008 November 14 CMFN-Prager] goes off topic from the argument under discussion [2008 November 14 Liao-(1-2'-IF3')]. However, I think that the peripheral relevance of the Prager article does not reduce interest in the points in [O: Prager] or justify speaking firm language that risks creating hostility toward commenters raising in good faith such interesting topics. Peripheral relevance can be very interesting in a discussion that involves opinions and findings from so many people. Just because I don't see direct relevance at first glance does not mean that Prager's article could not lead to more subtle connections. David Liao wrote at 1:31pm I think it's important to be careful in the area of gray or peripheral relevance. You can use your web browser to search for phrases claiming that some "Non sequitur replies are not what I am looking for" or warnings against raising peripheral issues affirmative enough to be phrased, "Please don't make me repeat that again." You will verify that my comments are free of these phrases. What you will find in my comments is that I discussed some issues, sometimes I added parentheses and numerals for extra clarity, and then I asked for responses before assuming that my position conflicted with another as at first glance it might have appeared. Three separate times I wrote, "Is this/that what you meant?" Given these considerations, it might not be fair to extrapolate this discussion from the link to Prager [2008 November 14 CMFN-Prager]. When providing the Prager link, CMFN said she would add more comments, so she might not have had time to explain the intent of the link. Maybe the intent was not to respond to the (1-2'-IF3') argument, there might be a logical explanation in the link in the other note she posted this week, which I haven't yet had a chance to read. Regardless, my opinion about the style in which one participates in a discussion stands. Best wishes and Happy Thanksgiving! David Liao PhD Candidate Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ David Liao wrote at 1:41pm P.S. I know it's not yet Thanksgiving, but it takes so much time to read and reply to these comments that I might not even look at this note for another week, so Happy Thanksgiving in advance.