Magneticcarpet

Hawaii Senate passes orientation-neutral civil unions bill

2010-01-24T10:25:00.001-08:00

Hawaii's State Senate just passed an orientation-neutral civil unions bill. Unlike other civil unions in other States, these civil unions would be available to both same-sex and different sex couples.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/01/hawaii-senate-passes-civil-unions-bill.html

I support marriage equality in the sense of granting the same rights and legal nomenclature to couples without regard to couple's relative genders. Marriage equality for me could be literally civil marriage for same-sex and different sex couples, civil unions for everyone and civil marriage for no one, or nothing for anyone.

The Hawaii case is interesting because I've thought that legalizing orientation-neutral civil unions alongside heterosexual marriage could be a stepping stone toward marriage equality of the second kind: civil unions for everyone, civil marriage for no one.

http://magneticcarpet.blogspot.com/2009/11/orientation-neutral-civil-unions.html

Plural marriage and juristic personhood

2009-12-26T17:09:00.000-08:00

I think that the arguments that encourage support for legalizing same-sex marriage might be useful for legalizing polygamy. I am going to talk about a worldview that does not necessarily coincide, at least not literally, with conventional legal theory. This ideas might be useless in American courts of law, YMMV.

I think of marriage in terms of juristic personhood.

We treat corporations and non-profit organizations with some degree of personhood, including EINs that look like Social Security numbers, tax returns distinct from the tax returns of any constituent members, and the ability to sue/be sued in court. Sometimes the coordination of combined will, knowledge, memory, actions, bodies, and responsibility we instinctively associate with a literally individual human person can also appear to limited degree in relationships between people.

If we legally banned someone's mouth from voicing medical decisions for that same person's body, that person's mouth would probably spend much time petitioning for changes in law recognizing the right of one part of a person to care for another. I acknowledge that two people related by blood are not literally parts of the same body, but for some critical situations, such as situations requiring medical decisions, the consequences of family members' legal rights to speak for each other might simulate in miniature form the consequences of the legal right for an individual's voice to speak for the rest of its person. This is one reason it is useful to recognize legal kinship. I'd rather permit family members to make certain decisions for one another than to deny such rights, compelling them to petition for that right when they could be doing otherwise productive things.

I am sympathetic to contemporary views of marriage as a bizarre old-fashioned legal construction, but I can also see some reasons to respect it. Sometimes a sexual union forms a bond between people not already related by blood. They become family in every sense that touches on the cohesion of will and actions, the desire to share responsibility, and in medical situations like those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is useful to have marriage to provide legal kinship when these relationships come into being.

These relationships can occur between people of the same sex, so it makes sense to me that we would legalize same-sex marriage.

I could also see these relationships occurring between multiple "spouses," and so I don't have an a priori moral objection to legalized polygamous marriage.

I acknowledge I have concerns that civil polygamous marriage might be technically difficult to implement. Rewriting tax forms would be a headache. Updating insurance law sounds like a nightmare. I guess I would try replacing policies that allowed a person to cover his or her one spouse with policies that allowed a collection of people to pool their payments to cover each other so that on average, 8 spouses in a plural marriage, for example, would pay the same as 8 spouses in 4 two-person marriages.

P.S. I might be interested in continuing to develop a concept of civil marriage along the lines of this blog post, but my interest in this line of reasoning and its silence regarding incestuous relationships should not be interpreted as any dismissal on my part of the possible legal suitability or morality of recognizing incest. I'm not sure I have an objection to sterile incestuous relationships per se even though I personally don't wish to enter such a relationship, as my brother, I am sure, would be relieved to know.

I do not object to plural marriage

2009-12-26T16:38:00.001-08:00

One of the issues I hear raised in opposition to same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage is the first-step on a slippery slope to legalizing polygamous marriage. I do not sympathize with a variety of anti-gay-marriage positions in this vein. I don't think it makes sense, and I object to the way that this discussions bash people who are polygamous.

Logical positions regarding legal interpretation

Sometimes gay-marriage opponents say, "[We don't have to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil right, because if we had so to do], what would stop us from [being required to] afford the same legal treatment to plural marriage?" If someone thinks

that legal recognition of plural marriage is a consequence of an argument that holds same-sex marriage as a civil right, and
that plural marriage is objectionable

then that person can consistently find the recognition same-sex marriage as a civil right objectionable, but that person cannot conclude from this sense of objection that it is a logical impossibility for same-sex marriage to be a civil right. An interpretation of legal text is not deemed illogical merely because a person finds that its generalization is offensive.

Moral grounds

When someone uses the specter of legalized plural marriage as an objection to same-sex marriage, that person takes it for granted that polygamy is per se objectionable. Yes, there are historical instances when plural marriages existed in societies with wealth disparities leading to unequal treatment of spouses (i.e. see the polygamous Chinese marriages described in Joy Luck Club). However, that experience does not directly shed light on the workings of a polygamous relationship between consenting adults in the absence of coercion.

As a matter of accident, I happen to feel naturally monogamous, but I don't think that means that people who are polygamous are "unnatural." Even if they were "unnatural," that wouldn't mean that they were necessarily "wrong." If "natural" defined "right," and "right" determined law, then refrigeration, polyester, and condoms would be illegal.

If hospitals can't recognize civil unions . . .

2009-12-13T18:04:00.001-08:00

I am thoroughly convinced by the testimony I heard at New Jersey's senate judiciary committee hearing on 2009 December 7 that civil unions don't work. Even though civil unions and marriage are supposed to provide the same substantive legal State rights, marriage enjoys better recognition that makes a difference at the hospital.

I hope we legalize gay marriage so that gay couples suffer fewer horrendous experiences at hospitals.

I'd also like to know whether other legal constructions that also do not enjoy the label "marriage" lead to the same horror stories we hear about in New Jersey in the context of civil unions. Even if we do legalize gay marriage, I might choose to fill out a bunch of health care proxy forms to indicate a chain of command for my closest friends to make decisions should I ever lack the ability to make them for myself. It would be really great if hospitals could understand my instructions regarding my friends as easily as they could understand the label "marriage" even though I have no intent on marrying all of my friends.

Draft 2

The State of New Jersey is unable to provide civil union partners the substantive rights it gives married straight couples even though, aside from typographical errors and unintended errors, civil union code is written in theory to provide gay couples with all the substantive, tangible rights of marriage. Putting aside the question of whether the State of New Jersey should attempt to provide the substantive rights of marriage through a civil union, it's not encouraging that even when New Jersey does attempt to do so, it fails.

Constitutional ambiguity

2009-12-11T19:33:00.001-08:00

I thought the testimony in support of marriage equality in Monday's senate judiciary committee hearing was pretty professional and fair. The hearing was even contemporary--I heard stories of children in the awkward position of explaining to their peers that their parents were in a civil union. I heard civil union partners talking about problems proving to hospitals their legal right to know about their partners' medical condition. I heard about medical insurance companies withholding same-sex benefits that otherwise they would grant in States with same-sex marriage. I hope that the gay rights debate in this country in general soon catches up with these issues and moves to a level of discourse that doesn't sound like broken records on both sides recorded by speakers who cannot hear each other.

Many participants in the American gay marriage debate agree that whether one supports or opposes gay marriage personally, the Constitution is absolutely clear and unambiguous about due process, equal protection, and civil rights. I support marriage equality, and I often take it as a good sign when civic debates use words like "Constitution, due process, equal protection, and civil rights," but I'm not writing this blog entry to parrot the usual "gay rights are civil rights" talking point.

I write this note to call the Constitution out for being a sadistic magician: while it might speak clearly and unambiguously to both you and me, what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to me is not necessarily what it says in clear and unambiguous terms to you.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. . . . For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." I grew up a born-again Christian believing in John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8--9 and condemning homosexuality. I left the faith in college and became open about being a gay man. Now I lobby for gay marriage.

Having been on both sides, I realize that Scripture, statistics, and logical discourse join the Constitution in volunteering their authority to enforce the beliefs of popular culture and lobbyists on both sides of the marriage debate to a point that many on both sides can only interpret the claims of the other as results of irrationality, dishonesty, or both.

The marriage equality lobby accuses conservative Christians of dismissing separation of church and state and the Constitution. Christians don't necessarily interpret the Constitution and separation of church and state in the same way as I do, but many Christians certainly believe that they must and do uphold the Constitution.

And going in the other direction, conservative Christians accuse gay Americans of lying whenever they claim that being gay is a matter of intrinsic identity rather than choice. In some Christian world views, Romans 1:18--20 can be read as saying that only by lying can any person deny that his or her conscience and mind demand a heterosexual Christian lifestyle. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

What productive conversation can result when on the one hand gay rights proponents believe that conservative Christians are incapable of logical consistency while on the other hand conservative Christians automatically categorize as lies each and every claim that gays and lesbians make about their most personal and fundamental emotions?

There are some really fundamental problems with the arguments and myths that supporters from both sides of the issue conveniently permit to circulate in popular culture. If I aired out the dirty laundry of gay culture, many conservative parents would probably attempt to enroll gay children in destructive so-called "reparative" therapies. Wait, wait, wait, before you do that, if I aired out the dirty laundry of straight culture, many conservative parents would probably enroll their straight children in reparative therapies to prevent them from having any sexual orientation.

And if I aired out the dirty laundry of the so-called Judeo-Christian position against homosexuality, many Christians would leave their faith. These painful consequences are not the purpose of this note.

The purpose of this note is to admit and ask you to admit that we often hear what we expect to hear, instead of what is realistic. As much as we'd like to think of ourselves as logical computers, much of our intellectual discourse is merely gift-wrapping for our deepest emotional convictions, which sometimes lack the consistency and sense necessary to possess an articulation in language.

I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is not that some people want what's "right" while some people want what's "wrong." Does anyone actually believe that he or she wants what's wrong? I propose that a fundamental concern in the marriage equality fight is that people from both sides of the issue simply have different personal emotional experiences. Wait. Stop. This blog entry is not a cheerleading piece for politically correct warm and fuzzy respect for all personal emotional perspectives. The origins of differences in personal experiences are important.

I know with deepest conviction that when my friends and I treat gay couples as though they were married, literally referring to them as spouses in marriage, they live up to that name and act just like straight couples. They work hard to pay the bills, squabble about stupid things, and fight to give their children the best future possible. They benefit their communities as do straight couples. I know this because I sincerely recognize gay couples as deserving of marriage and say it face-to-face. This is an emotional experience I hold at the most fundamental level in my heart: it drives my so-called "dispassionate and logical" thoughts to justify same-sex marriage, and it drives me to fight for its legalization.

Are you unable to find this emotional experience in your heart when you ask whether you can support marriage equality? When you treat gay couples as bona fide married couples, personally using the words "husbands" and "wives" and calling gay couples "married" with belief and honest tone, don't they live up to the word "marriage" just like straight married couples? Have you personally done this experiment? Have you tried to find out how gay couples respond when you call them "married" believing sincerely that it is true?

I am concerned that some people don't have this emotional experience, not through any distinguishing fault on the part of gay couples to live up to the label "marriage," but through the fault of some gay marriage opponents who don't let themselves perform the personal experiment of seeing what happens when they tell a gay couple with honesty and warmest embrace, "You are a married couple, and I recognize you."

Due process/Equal protection + Democratic election = Presumed sub-human until popularly perceived as human

2009-12-10T23:11:00.000-08:00

There are serious problems with the conceptual organization that our Constitution prescribes for our system of government. At face value the Constitution respects due process and equal protection, but at the same time, the Constitution is (a) written in English and (b) interpreted by elected officials.

In many cases, you don't enjoy the same civil protections as "real" citizens until you convince the electorate to support public servants who recognize (a) that you, a person or class of people, share those features of civic personhood that define those people who already enjoy the full civil rights of American citizenship, and (b) that "treating you the same" literally means "treating you the same" in the most direct way in written language and actual operation.

The only people who were granted full citizenship at this country's birth were white men. The default assumption has often been that you do not have rights until you convince at least a significant minority of existing citizens that you deserve citizenship as much as they. The Constitution's prescription for due process and democratic election has an interesting consequence: we have due process in the sense that classes of people often have to perform due diligence demonstrating their humanity before government recognizes their rights. It's different in spirit from "innocent until proven guilty"; it's sub-human creature until proven, to a hostile and skeptical crowd, human.

Citizenship is a club that often assumes a priori that prospective applicants outside its membership deserve to be excluded.

Abbreviated gay Asian-immigrant lobbying spiel

2009-12-10T22:14:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator Turner,

I'm a student at Princeton University asking for your vote to support marriage equality because marriage equality is an important part of my Asian immigration story.

My parents came from Taiwan in the 1970s to look for a better future in the United States. Growing up, my mother was afraid to talk about politics in Taiwan because she was afraid that the government would "disappear" her. But in America, she could be hopeful that I could be whoever I honestly was.

I was born in Red Bank in 1982, and my parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian. I told them I was gay in 2006, and now they support marriage equality.

I don't think my parents ever thought that I their son, born in New Jersey, would be pleading for my rights. But about thirty years after they got their citizenship, I'm in their shoes, making a case for my full rights. I know I'm doing the right thing because my parents showed me that sharing our honest selves is how we get our civil rights in America.

A fair chance for gay couples

2009-12-10T19:34:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator Turner,

I was born in Jersey and raised in Calfornia. I came back as a graduate student in physics at Princeton University. I support marriage equality.

My parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian, and I was a true born-again believer before I converted to atheism in college. I still remember how to draw the "cross and the chasm" to illustrate the salvation that the Jesus of the Evangelical tradition offered through John 3:16. I can recite, "salvation not by works, but by the grace of God alone," until I turn blue.

I am also a gay man. I came out to my parents in 2006, and now they support marriage equality alongside me.

Having come from both sides, I honestly believe that New Jerseyans, both those supporting and those opposing marriage equality, believe with honest conscience that they support civil rights, the Constitution, and religion. We are all sincere in our patriotism.

This is not a letter explicitly about civil rights, the Constitution, and religion. This is a letter about the deepest convictions and emotional knowledge that so often, for us as human beings, inform our more analytical arguments about civil rights, the Constitution, and religion.

Now I want to ask you and anyone yet to commit to supporting marriage equality whether the same experience is part of your heart. When you treat gay couples as bona fide married couples, personally using the words "husbands" and "wives" and calling gay couples "married" with belief and honest tone, do they not live up to the word "marriage" just like straight married couples? Have you personally done this experiment to find out how gay couples respond when you call them "married"\ believing sincerely that it is true?

I am concerned that some people don't have this emotional experience, not because gay couples fail to live up to the label "marriage" as well as straight couples, and again in my personal experience gay couples I call "married" act like straight couples I show the same respect, but because some people who oppose gay marriage don't let themselves perform the personal experiment of seeing what would happen if they said, "hello," to a gay couple and with deepest honesty and warmest embrace, said, "You are a married couple, and I recognize you."

Sincerely,

David Liao

Letter to Representatives re: New Jersey marriage equality

2009-12-09T10:49:00.000-08:00

Edited from a letter handwritten to representatives while lobbying for marriage equality in Trenton on 2009 December 7.

Dear Representative,

I'm a student at Princeton University and a resident of your district. I want to tell you about being a gay man looking hopefully toward marriage equality.

My parents immigrated in the 1970s from Taiwan. My mother had to wait a year after my father arrived to join him here. Becoming American citizens took a lot of patience, but it was worth it.

My mother told me about the differences between the Taiwan where she grew up and the America where she and my father raised me. My grandfather told my mother to be politically silent or else be "disappeared" by the government. In America, she could be hopeful that her sons could be whoever they honestly were.

In 1982, I was born in Red Bank. My parents raised me as an Evangelical Christian. I came out to my parents in 2006, and my parents now support marriage equality.

Through their patient work while waiting to earn American citizenship and through their acceptance of me as their gay son because they knew me personally, my parents taught me that acceptance and recognition reward patiently introducing one's honest self. That's why I'm hopeful as a I write this letter about my family story, my American story, and ask for your vote to pass marriage equality in New Jersey.

Civil unions are not a substitute at the hospital for being able to say, "We're married." I am a gay New Jersey resident hoping to be allowed to have a husband one day, so I honestly need your vote.

Sincerely,

David Liao

Legislative District 15

Causes

2009-11-08T11:50:00.000-08:00

I hope you visit these organizations I support. Follow me on facebook and twitter to suggest organizations to support.

2009

Princeton Fund for Reunion

$10.00 2009 December 31

Oxfam America

$10.00 2009 December 31

Garden State Equality

$25.00 2009 December 31 (GSE Action Fund 501 c4)

$25.00 2009 December 31 (GSE Educational Fund 501 c3)

Harvey Mudd College

$25.00 2009 December 31

American Civil Liberties Union

$12.50 2009 December 31

WNET/Thirteen

$15.00 2009 December 31

Rally Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research: Kinematics for a Cure Jess, Luc, and Audy

$12.50 2009 September 04

Maine Freedom to Marry/Equality Maine/Protect Maine Equality

$5.00 2009 November 02 (plus $0.25 tip to ActBlue, http://www.actblue.com/page/noon1redalert) http://gay.americablog.com/2009/10/one-last-money-push-for-maine-message.html

$17.50 2009 October 15 (plus $0.87 tip to ActBlue)

$10.00 2009 September 30 (plus $0.50 tip to ActBlue)

$10.00 2009 August 20 (plus $0.50 tip to ActBlue)

$5.00 2009 July 15 (plus $0.25 tip to ActBlue)

$7.50 2009 June 23

Lambda Legal

$5.00 2009 June 24 -- Thanks to Robin Baur for the suggestion.

George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund

$5.00 2009 June 23

Jon Corzine for New Jersey Governor 2009

$10 2009 June 23

Human Rights Campaign

$12.50 2009 December 31

$7.50 2009 June 15 in thanks for Joe Solmonese's letter to Obama re: U.S. vs. Smelt

$20 2009 January 20

Americablog

$5.00 2009 June 15 for working on U.S. vs. Smelt

New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus

$20.00 2009 November 10 (in kind)

$20.00 2009 June 12

2008

No on Prop 8 $1010

Barack Obama for President $50

Hillary Clinton for President $25

New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus $30

Electronic Frontier Foundation $15

Free Software Foundation $15

Additional donations made to the American Civil Liberties Union, Northern California Public Broadcasting (PBS stations KTEH and KQED), and Oxfam America.

NJGMC and Christian atheism

2009-11-08T11:45:00.000-08:00

First posted online 2008 May 04.

Our choir conductor asked us to write short responses to some questions for an upcoming concert. He asked, "How has being involved with NJGMC changed you"? I wrote

In 1998 I found my voice at a summer camp that reached out to youth music ministers at Chinese churches. During my membership in the Protestant faith, music was an essential tool for coordinating the community to witness its most fundamental beliefs. I received dismissive resistance and disrespectful judgment when I came out in college, first as an agnostic/atheist, then as a gay man. Christianity and I parted on unfriendly terms. I kept singing, but I performed no outreach repertoire for a decade. Joining NJGMC reminded me that music was a tool to convey personal experiences and hopes for community reconciliation in emotional and artistic terms that written platforms sometimes cannot. By joining NJGMC I met members of living, inclusive Christian faiths. NJGMC reminded me that music was a tool for nurturing and healing society, and through NJGMC I found a community that affirmed for atheists, as much as it affirmed for adherents of any other faith, the responsibility and privilege of bearing witness to social needs and hopes.

on Saturday afternoon, 2008 May 3.

Equality Forum 2008

This afternoon the choir sang at the 2008 Equality Forum National Faith Service in Philadelphia, PA. http://www.equalityforum.com/2008/interfaith.cfm The speaker was the retired Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong who affirmed what I had written the preceding day. Traditional conservative literal Christian theology claimed that through disobedience humankind fell from its God-given perfection to worthless dependence on divine salvation. Literally, Jesus is sacrificed in humankind's place. This obsession with worthlessness is a form of congregational abuse, which then leads the abused congregation to abuse others: Jews, African slaves, African Americans, women, and now queer minorities. Spong explains that minority oppression and its roots in self-denigration explain Christianity's modern battles with Darwinian evolution and lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, and the rest of the queer alphabet soup. Darwin claimed that humanity is a work in progress; we never fell from perfection. We need no rescue, and in liberal interpretation Jesus is not a barbaric sacrifice for our wretchedness, but an example for us to improve ourselves. The LGBT community happens to be the in-vogue minority group upon which to transfer abuse. Spong reads in the book of John the purpose of Jesus: that humankind might have life and have it abundantly. In other words, Jesus showed how we might be ourselves without putting others down, eventually freeing us to give ourselves to others. Spong opened his sermon by apologizing to the LGBT community for the suffering that the Christian community has wrought.

Christian atheism

Spong belongs to a group of theological dissenters who use the name Christian in ways that no one from my childhood church ever would. I would consider Spong and similar liberal Christians atheists. They do not take literally the concept of a divine magic man in the sky or even anywhere "out there." Instead, the concept of God is more like a quality, like that of perfect Love. Jesus held the title of Lord for showing what this God was. Jesus was raised from death when his work and teachings continued God in the world after his physical death. I see no serious distinction between my beliefs and Spong's. Anglican Christian atheism reminds me of Unitarian Universalism and Reform Judaism. These religions share two aspects. First, each of them affirms liberal humanitarian principles. Don't mess with people just because they are different. One would probably find among adherents of these faiths many members of the American Civil Liberties Union. Second, each of these religions bear witness to the hopes for using a long-cherished human belief system for humanitarian good in a modern world. These religions recognize people's spiritual or aspiritual inclinations as tools that can be honed for global benefit. I hold that my atheism, scientific atheism, is a religion like those just mentioned. I support the American Civil Liberties Union and I keep alive the practice of natural science because I think it deserves a chance to be a tool for spreading well-being and kindness. I prefer to think of disbelief or the absence of belief as examples of belief systems in the sense that negative numbers are part of the real number line even though sometimes they are distinguished from the positive values. Furthermore, a common thread among atheists is the expectation that no evidence shall ever surface persuading the scientific method of the presence of personal God-like beings. Strictly speaking I remain agnostic on this issue since I live purely in the present. Strictly speaking it is a matter of faith to believe fully that no such evidence shall ever appear. Let me get back to the philosophy at another time. Let me end by saying that these religions agree that we can improve the human condition by cherishing and reflecting upon diverse spiritual heritages, and the responsibilities and privileges of bearing witness to social needs, hurts, and hope belong to all people regardless of specific spiritual heritage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.T._Robinson

Philosophy and religion

2009-11-08T11:44:00.000-08:00

First posted 2008 June 15 as a personal page linked from my facebook profile.

This description is a cartoon of my religion, in part, because it is a goal rather than an achievement, and, in part, because I simplified the philosophy and psychology for brevity. My religion looks in some ways like what secular humanism would become if it were modified in the way that Christianity was modified to bring forth liberal Episcopalian and Unitarian Universalist practices or in the way that Judaism was modified to become Reform Judaism. See also Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria, a related, but distinct philosophy http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Person

I would like to use the word religion to collect some attempts to describe, prescribe, and practice "sustaining personhood." To the degree that an entity displays intelligence, sentience, and communicates a will, I say that the entity is a person.

Mindfulness

Don't panic -- Constructive interactions with reality often depend on surrendering immediate eruptions of grasping, struggling, and urgent concern. A mental anchor, I like to use the rise and fall of the breath or a dead stare, helps focus quiet attention upon the present. Other mental anchors in common use include schedules of rituals, fasts, and feasts.

Social contract

Exercise wisdom -- the discipline to focus, despite immediate desire and concern, proficient intent upon actions the foresight of intelligence and responsibility recommend Account for responsibilities honestly -- no person may demand another person's obligation by mere wish. We agree to make clear expectations and commitments in written contract and an intentionally sincere reflection of such records in oral memory. Exercise intelligence -- the ability to describe perception accurately, completely, and with productive brevity. Practice science -- the practice of describing perception accurately, completely, and with maximum brevity gives a coordinating language for government and social discussions

Affirm faith and reason

In human languages I speak, the word "truth" describes propositions in logic and faith, but the meaning of the word shifts with context. There is similar sloppiness in computer programming. In MatLab, I could declare a variable a = 1; equal to the integer unity. I could also declare a variable b = boolean(1); equal to the boolean value "truth" with binary representation 1. These variables are distinct. MatLab reports that a == b; a and b are labeled by the same binary value, 1, but the contents of these variable include their type, not just their number, and a and b are distinct because the integer 1 is not the boolean 1. I emphasize a similar distinction between the labels "reasoned truth/knowledge" and "truth/knowledge in conviction" despite their interchangeability in human speech. In the context of reason, I say that a proposition is "true" or "knowledge" when it is consistent with the scientific method, including the almost-aesthetic criterion of Occam's razor. In context of faith, I say that a proposition is "true," "knowledge," or "known with complete conviction," when its proposition raises within my gut a vibrant expectation and sense of presence or reality. Believing in a personal god while evaluating the proposition of god as scientifically false are compatible expressions. Such simultaneous expressions do not render a person internally inconsistent or cognitively dissonant.

Value of faith and skepticism

Sentience is finite. We do not witness during the performance of logic the atomic psychological processes that sustain our consciousness. You don't speak fluently by contracting and relaxing consciously each pair of muscles that control your breath, tongue, and lips. You "intend" the words and sentences, and underlying circuitry manifests the motions of your mouth. To sing, I sometimes conjure images of acoustic space and energy sources. I can hold that physics disproves the literal interpretation of these images while at the same time devoting to the images sincere trust, and by such feeling coordinate the production of sound otherwise impossible. While results vary by person, most people summon some degree of emotional communication to coordinate within themselves and with their peers the actions required for cooperation. I affirm in logic the value of faith for such coordination, and I affirm in logic that valuable practices include the practices of faith and skepticism.

Value the search for dispassionate logic

I have met no person divorced from passion, but the professional pursuit of dispassionate logic is nevertheless fruitful. We use the fruits of scientific analysis and engineering each day: information technology, electricity, etc.

I use frequently the label "atheist"

My personal philosophy is agnostic, my logical model of the world is atheistic, and my taste in faith is mixed. I like using nihilistic language as a reminder not to take things too seriously, but I don't like rehearsing it exclusively. Mere logical affirmation is sometimes insufficient for enabling wisdom that follows through with proposals for social cooperation. Sometimes a person more effectively focuses consideration on others or brings forth courage for tasks of magnitude by envisioning and trusting spectacular images historically described as "spiritual." I feel that two people who hold philosophies similar to the one described on this page, with the exception of the issues in the preceding paragraph, differ on issues of taste. They're kneading similar dough, differing primarily when choosing cutters they use to sculpt their goods. The joys, well-wishes, and attention invested in preparation and the good works and community built by sharing and enjoying these pastries are robust to changes in outward form. Many members of the church of my childhood were fundamentalist Protestants. The responses I received for revealing my agnosticism and coming out gay hurt. The philosophy on this page allowed me gradually over the last year to participate with the New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus in singing at congregation services. I share in the feast of those liturgical practices that resonate with my philosophy, and I leave on the plate others that don't match my tastes.

Acknowledgments and influences

Fundamental Protestant Christianity Secular humanism and atheism Agnosticism Episcopalian Christianity (Spong) Unitarian Universalism Reform Judaism New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus Nihilism and existentialism Mindfulness and Eastern meditation Lockean social contract theory Hume Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics Family and friends

Why discuss gay marriage

2009-11-08T11:35:00.001-08:00

First posted 2008 November 22 on a separate website.

Friends have asked me why it matters to argue about the names of partnerships like civil unions and marriages. As a country, I think we must maintain awareness of other issues including torture, education, and social security, but the question of gay marriage has arisen in various ballot initiatives and court cases, and I have personal experience being a sincere and fervent support of opposing sides in this debate, so I feel people might be interested in my perspective.

The gay marriage debate embraces at least three questions: (1) What set of legal rights and responsibilities enumerated under traditional civil marriage laws should government afford same-sex relationships? (2) If the response to (1) is that the rights and responsibilities afforded to same-sex and heterosexual couples should be the same, then should the legal constructs afforded to these kinds of couples be given the same legal name? (3) If the response to (2) is that same-sex and heterosexual couples should be indistinguishable in legal nomenclature, should the label afforded both kinds of couples be civil unions, marriage, or something else? In practice it is by far most important to answer question (1), but the question at hand in California is actually (2). California answered question (1) by providing domestic partnerships, which enumerate for same-sex couples all of the rights that civil marriages enumerate for heterosexual couples. The court case "In re: Marriage Cases" and Proposition 8 ask question (2): should these enumerated rights be enumerated under the same label. Does it matter? Think of all the vows that you've ever heard at gay and straight weddings. Remember how the partners described how they improved and completed each other. Remember how they described their feelings and lives. Your mileage may vary, but as far as I can tell, the relative sexes of the partners distinguishes the meaning of the vows in the same way as their relative skin colors--with consequence insufficient to distinguish the unions in name. In my personal philosophy, neither the distinction between same-sex and heterosexual unions nor the distinction between interracial and intrarracial should be recognized in the names of those legal unions. Having a segregated legal vocabulary, with its connotations lent to the vernacular, could encourage a culture of viewing these distinctions, rather than the orientation-neutral aspects of the family-forming process, as the important features that deserve to define the unions. I don't think that's beneficial for family values. In my experience, Evangelical Christian theocrats constitute a disproportionate fraction of proponents for reserving a distinguished name for heterosexual unions. I draw a partial parallel with Christian support into the twentieth century for reserving a distinct name for intraracial unions. In both cases, the reservation of a special term for heterosexual legal unions has for significant motivation and effect the respect of conservative Abrahamic beliefs. In the case of gay unions, I believe this religious influence is not merely significant, but primary, so I find nomenclature segregation unconstitutional on first amendment grounds.

Orientation-neutral civil unions alongside heterosexual marriage

2009-11-08T11:33:00.000-08:00

Because of the significant time that might intervene before all 50 States and the federal government recognize same-sex marriage, I am interested in considering stop-gap measures for partial rights. Civil unions for same-sex couples are one method that some States have explored. I would be interested in the viability in general and on a State-by-State basis of the proposal below: leave civil marriage for heterosexual couples for now while adding civil unions that are available to both same-sex and heterosexual couples. The primary purpose of this document is to articulate the proposal, with only a cursory exploration toward the end of features relevant to political viability.

ORIENTATION-NEUTRAL CIVIL UNIONS AND PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PROPOSAL

David Liao

DRAFT 2008 November 6 14h24 EST

Princeton, NJ

PURPOSE: To write a legal construction that addresses priorities from different sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

PROBLEM: Traditional marriage proponents and same-sex marriage proponents hold conflicting priorities. The fight for highly incompatible laws favoring either side consumes a lot of time, money, and energy that should probably be spent somewhere else, like solving our massive shortfall in entitlements, preventing nuclear proliferation, supporting education, maybe even mitigating genocide if that can be done realistically. To enumerate these views from both sides with accuracy, I must include moral statements from both sides, but for the purpose of this document I'm not discussing whether these judgments are "true." We can do that in university research on psychology, psychiatry, and philosophy. I'm asking whether we can write a proposal for law that satisfies enough of these priorities so that both sides of the debate can agree to a political solution. Two sides can disagree morally, and they can each view a proposed law as a compromise of their consciences and beliefs, but those sides can nevertheless agree to sign such proposals into law as a matter of political business. Traditional marriage proponents frequently hold

T1. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman.

T2. The orientation of the partners distinguishes fundamentally relationships from each other. The distinction is so fundamental that it should be enshrined in civil law. The legal instruments that afford civil protections to same-sex relationships should be distinguished in name from civil protections for heterosexual relationships.

T3. Heterosexual relationships are the best relationships for social functions including raising children. Therefore, same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal recognition that looks anything like marriage. These beliefs are often inspired by Evangelical Christian readings of the Bible or by research that is biased severely by such religious beliefs, i.e. Family Research Council.

Same-sex marriage (personally I prefer to refer to myself as an orientation-neutral civil marriage proponent) often hold the following priorities regarding civil law

S1. Government should afford same-sex relationships the same substantive legal protections and obligations currently afforded to heterosexual marriage by enumeration in marriage law.

S2. Government should offer these protections and obligations by way of a legal instrument that treats different-sex and same-sex couples in the same way, same even in the name given to the instrument. To offer parallel institutions of civil unions for same-sex couples, but not for most heterosexual couples alongside civil marriages for heterosexual couples, but not for same-sex couples, is demeaning to both civil unions and civil marriages. The mere observation that a same-sex couple is not a heterosexual couple is by itself inocuous and factual: we can obviously distinguish between gay and straight couples. However, to emphasize this distinction in the name of legal instruments trivializes other important aspects relationships, i.e. that loving relationships constitute family units that should be enjoy civil protections and responsibilities.

S3. Same-sex relationships are fundamentally identical to heterosexual relationships, and the legal instrument of civil marriage already exists fully coded in precedent and in writing, so the legal instrument protecting same-sex relationships should be none other than civil marriage.

I don't see a way to satisfy each priority; taken together they appear incompatible. However, I have also ranked the priorities according to the importance that typical proponents might assign to them, and I propose a legal instrument that satisfies priorities T1 and S1 while satisfying in compromised sense both T2 and S2.

SOLUTION: ORIENTATION-NEUTRAL CIVIL UNIONS I propose that we enact civil unions at the State and federal level that bring all the State and federal rights and responsibilities of civil marriage with the eligibility requirements of civil marriage, except that the genders of the partners need not be different.

SATISFIES T1 TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PRIORITY: MAN-WOMAN DEFINITION This construction does not modify in text the heterosexual-only civil marriage laws in States and federal code. This construction would be compatible with State and federal laws and Constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus priority T1 is satisfied.

SATISFIES S1 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PRIORITY: EQUAL ENUMERATED PROTECTIONS The construction by definition affords to same-sex unions all rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexual marriages as those rights and responsibilities are _enumerated_ _under_ civil marriage law.

COMPROMISED SATISFACTION OF T2 TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PRIORITY: SAME-SEX PROTECTIONS AND HETEROSEXUAL PROTECTIONS MUST BE DISTINCT IN NAME The construction of orientation-neutral civil unions leaves intact some distinction between same-sex unions and heterosexual civil marriages. Same-sex couples must use a legal instrument that is open to same-sex and different-sex couples alike, but different-sex couples can use marriage, which is not available to same-sex couples. Thus the instruments available to same-sex and different-sex couples are distinct in name.

COMPROMISED SATISFACTION OF S2 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PRIORITY: SAME-SEX PROTECTIONS AND HETEROSEXUAL PROTECTIONS MUST BE INDISTINCT IN NAME The construction of orientation-neutral civil unions gives to same-sex couples and different-sex couples an instrument for recognizing legal rights and responsibilities that does not change its name according to the relative sexes of the partners. By virtue of the that T2 and S2 can both be satisfied, in spirit the satisfaction is compromised in both cases. The remaining priorities are not satisfied. Same-sex relationships are not outright denied legal protections, so T3 is not satisfied. Same-sex relationships are not called marriages in legal code, so S3 is not satisfied.

RESULTS AND ADVANTAGES COMPARED WITH EXISTING PROPOSALS POLITICAL VIABILITY -- No politician GOP or Democrat can viably deny legal protections to same-sex couples, but at the same time it is politically impossible (at this time) to offer orientation-neutral civil marriage in most States and certainly at the federal level. An orientation-neutral civil union separate from a heterosexual civil marriage law is more palatable. It can also be constructed in pieces. States with domestic partnerships/civil unions sometimes start by constructing small unions with a handful of basic protections, i.e. hospital visitation. As the public becomes comfortable, additional protections are added until civil unions enumerate all the same rights that civil marriages enumerate. Related unions do get passed into law: France has a Pacte de Solidarite which is an orientation-neutral domestic partnership enumerating a subset of rights enumerated by marriage laws.

ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH LEGACY LAWS -- Orientation-neutral civil unions can be added to the law books of many States and the federal government even when Constitutions strictly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This could not be done for orientation-neutral civil marriage. Unfortunately, states with laws that withhold the legal rights and responsibilities enumerated by marriage for unmarried couples are incompatible with my proposal. However, those states also have domestic violence problems because by passing those amendments they have unwittingly removed vital protections for heterosexual couples living out of wedlock. This is just one reason to repeat State amendments withholding the protections enumerated by marriage laws from unwed couples, and if States repeal these amendments, orientation-neutral civil unions become legally possible.

FINE-GRAIN DEMOCRACY -- We agree to a sets of laws governing millions of Americans at the federal level and often millions of Americans at State levels. It is expensive to administer votes and changes to laws, so we go years between ballot measures attempting to make large changes to law. If we can't quite agree to a proposal in a given election, even if we are talking about 52%-48% margins, and even if those views change in a matter of months following the election, we have to wait years before we bring the issue to vote again.

While enacting orientation-neutral civil unions would provide immediate written guarantees of protections, responsibilities, and nomenclature for same-sex and different-sex couples, the social respect afforded to a civil union as opposed to a marriage would remain a matter of personal belief and collective social attitude. The orientation-neutral civil union is a vehicle by which straight and gay couples can gradually move society toward a non-discriminating culture.

Everytime a straight or gay couple elects to enter into an orientation-neutral civil union, that's a public written statement and cultural vote in favor of equal respect for same-sex and different-sex unions. The orientation-neutral civil union can also be a vehicle by which conservatives can maintain society's traditional values. A conservative couple can choose to decline an orientation-neutral civil union and instead choose a heterosexual civil marriage as a written statement and cultural vote that this special institution retains contemporary relevance, moral importance, and social consequence. The proportion of straight couples who choose one option is a way for conservative and progressive straight couples to communicate back to society a collective opinion of the relative importance of heterosexual civil marriage vs. orientation-neutral civil unions.

The aspect of the same-sex marriage debate that has fundamental importance for the traditional marriage proponents is whether government and society should respect and recognize same-sex unions. I understand that generally the traditional marriage position is that same-sex unions deserve basically no respect or recognition because gay people deserve to go to hell. If the traditional marriage proponents cannot let their government give the full respect and recognition of civil marriage to same-sex unions, can they at least agree to institute orientation-neutral civil unions for the purpose of allowing straight couples to choose the kind of union they wish to enter? I know that just bringing the issue to a vote is insulting for both sides of the debate, but these issues keep coming up, so can we at least agree to make changes to make the vote occur in a more real-time way? I'm asking that we provide the option for straight couples to enter either heterosexual civil marriages or orientation-neutral civil unions so that straight couples can voice their respect for traditional marriage or orientation-neutral civil unions in an organic process that is smooth and on-going in contrast to the brief punctuations that we get every couple of years under the current system of ballot measures and polls. I'm asking that we introduce the legal currency of orientation-neutral civil unions alongside the legal currency of heterosexual civil marriages that already exists. Straight couples will then have the democratic power to endow those currencies with value that varies according to the frequency of couples who enter each kind of union. Gay couples will have the opportunity to influence currency values by choosing to accept or decline orientation-neutral civil unions.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY I hope this proposal offers something for people from various persuasions.

LIBERTARIAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL EQUILIBRIUM -- Eventually I hope that heterosexual civil marriage because unused legacy law. That society would probably find it easy by legislation or lawsuit to strike the law from the books, leaving only a secular civil union. I hope that this goal can attract from Libertarians who believe in minimizing government. I'm not proposing to abolish marriage rights altogether, but I'm proposing a structure that might one day eliminate from our laws language that is maintained for the mere purpose of paying special respect to certain religious faiths.

PARTIAL ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SECULAR STRAIGHT COUPLES -- Orientation-neutral civil unions give straight couples the option of entering into unions whose name does not hold religious overtones. In States with same-sex-only civil unions, straight couples do not have this option yet.

PROGRESSIVE PRAGMATISM -- I believe the hallmark of the Democratic party is becoming the ability to deal with a ground situation and temper the pursuit of ideology and ideological strong-arming in order to achieve practical goals. Democrats are willing to drill for oil in order to pass energy legislation. I personally would be willing to leave civil marriage between a man and a woman _for now_ if I could sooner and over a broader section of American States secure orientation-neutral civil unions.

GRANDFATHERING RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM -- Leaving intact contemporary heterosexual civil marriage laws so that they might stand alongside the new orientation-neutral civil unions laws gives religious conservatives an institution all their own, for which they can show support by electing to enter civil marriages rather than the civil unions that would be open to same-sex and different-sex couples alike. They can have this option for now and for years as long as straight couples have the option to enter into civil unions.

METHODS I would prefer to enact these changes through legislation, but I guess we could also affect parts of it by having straight couples sue for the right to enter into civil unions rather than civil marriage. Lawsuit is probably not an ideal way to do this since religiously conservative Justices might judge in favor of separate but equal in order to avoid judgments that could easily be turned around to allow same-sex access to civil marriage.

Not all gay men have AIDS

2009-11-08T11:32:00.000-08:00

First posted on my other website 2009 June 22.

If you followed a link to this page, you might want to use the "Revisions" tab to find the version that was cited. I've been editing, and some of the sections might be moving around. I grew up in a conservative Chinese Christian household, but my parents were very supportive when I came out. They scheduled a visit to NJ so they could hear me sing with the New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus, where they were happy to meet my boyfriend. My mom said she remembered one of the songs because she and my father danced to it in the 1970s. They met through ballroom dance. The pastor at the old church they visited gave a sermon against same-sex marriage saying that gay men have a life expectancy of 40 years and that average healthcare costs would decrease if we did not have the problem of gay men with AIDS. I asked to talk to the pastor, who responded hoping to find common ground. I disagree with the idea that we should ban same-sex marriage because people have HIV. My guess is that we agree we can and want to reduce HIV-related suffering by helping people to make informed choices about sexual behavior. Sexual contact exchanges bodily fluids, which can transmit HIV and other infections. The most effective way to prevent sexual transmission is abstinence, but barrier protection, awareness of the HIV status of the partners involved, and promiscuity are all factors that affect risk. I believe we prevent transmission by creating an open culture that encourages asking questions, learning about the varied risks associated with different forms of sexual contact, and having conversations with partners about condom use, fidelity, and blood testing.

Links

Condoms and blood testing (a) increase safety, but (b) do not guarantee it. It's everyone's responsibility to understand both of these features. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated relative risks associated with various sexual activities.

Varghese, Maher, Peterman, Branson, Steketee, Sex Transm Dis. 29(1): 38--43 (2002). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11773877 (Click on the Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins link on that page to access the text).

Trying to change someone's sexual orientation is not productive. From personal experience and knowing lots of gay people, I imagine that trying to change someone's sexual orientation is probably about as effective and at least as painful as trying to force someone to change religion.

"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings." American Psychological Association accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatabout

Most gay men do not have HIV/AIDS.

Based on CDC publications, a blogger estimated, "there are roughly 635,000 gay or bisexual men living with HIV/AIDS. This is about 12.0% of the gay male population. . . . These numbers are estimates." Box Turtle Bulletin 2008 July 31 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/the-prevalence-of-hiv-in-the-gay-community

You can perform a similar calculation using information from the CDC yourself. "MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men." Centers for Disease Control accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm The prevalence of HIV among men is described at the CDC link below accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/united_states.htm

Do all gay men get AIDS and have a life expectancy of 40 years? When I hear people say that all gay men have AIDS and have a life expectancy of 40 years, I feel I should provide a link describing the Family Research Council. I would be hesitant to cite content from the FRC as legitimate research.

The Family Research Council cited a report as evidence that "committed" gay men have 8 partners outside the relationship each year. Their conclusion was not supported by the report because the "purpose of the study was to look at how AIDS is transmitted," so "all monogamous couples were specifically excluded from the study." Box Turtle Bulletin 2008 July 21 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/07/21/2386

In a 2001 paper, researchers who studied life expectancy among gay men during the 1980s and 1990s note that their research has been misused by organizations such as the Family Research Council to oppose gay civil rights. The researchers described their 1997 research, "we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. . . . In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia. . . . we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group." Emphases mine. Hogg, Strathdee, Craib, O'shaughnessy, Montaner and Schechter, "Gay life expectancy revisited," International Journal of Epidemiology 30(6):1499 (2001). http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

Look at the faces of the men with whom I sing on the website of the New Jersey Gay Men's Chorus. If gay men typically died around age 40, many, if not most of the chorus members wouldn't be part of the chorus. http://www.njgmc.org/

Culturally-related factors can contribute significantly to HIV transmission rates and prevalence. The transmission rate among men who have sex with men varies wildly among ethnic groups. At the order-of-magnitude level, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male population is similar to the prevalence in the general adult populations of some sub-Saharan African countries.

"The high numbers of new HIV infections in young, black MSM are of great concern because the number of new infections was approximately twice that of young white and Hispanic/Latino MSM of the same ages (between 13 and 29 years)." Centers for Disease Control accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/qa/subpopulation.htm

" . . . HIV/AIDS does not impact the gay community uniformly. For example, African American men who have sex with men are ten times as likely to be HIV positive than white MSM." Box Turtle Bulletin 2008 July 31 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/the-prevalence-of-hiv-in-the-gay-community

I think opposing same-sex marriage is an unproductive way to address the transmission of HIV. It might make the problem worse. The press release below describes such speculation, though I withhold comment regarding the research itself, which I have not yet read.

"'Intolerance is deadly,' Mialon said. 'Bans on gay marriage codify intolerance, causing more gay people to shift to underground sexual behaviors that carry more risk.'" "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV Rate," Emory University, 2009 June 4 accessed 2009 June 23. http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2009/06/study-links-gay-marriage-bans-to-rise-in-hiv-rate.html

Associating HIV/AIDS with gay men could lead to unnecessary HIV transmission among straight people by giving them an exaggerated sense of safety.

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

2009-11-08T11:25:00.000-08:00

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.

I spoke about same-sex marriage at the church that raised me

2009-11-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

A note I posted on facebook:
I spoke about same-sex marriage at the church that raised me
Monday, September 15, 2008 at 8:39pm
Vote No on Proposition 8: The California same-sex marriage ban

David Liao

Adapted from the opening remarks I read at the question and answer session regarding same-sex marriage at the Chinese Church in Christ, North Valley, 399 S. Main St., Milpitas, CA 95035 on 2008 September 14. Text draws from a previous facebook note commemorating Audrey Sederberg and Colin Parker's wedding. I thank CCIC-NV for the opportunity to speak.

This summer the California Supreme Court made this State the second in the nation to validate same-sex civil marriages. This November, Proposition 8 will confront California voters. Proposition 8 proposes to remove the right of same-sex couples to enter into legal marriage. I wanted to talk to you this morning because I believe that supporting same-sex marriage equality pays the civil institution of marriage the respect it demands.

Many members of this congregation probably remember me because I grew up in the Chinese Church in Christ. For any newer faces, let me introduce myself. My name is David, and I am a doctoral student in physics in New Jersey.

As part of my studies, I travel to academic conferences, and this summer I met with other physicists in southern Germany. I enjoy talking to researchers from other countries to learn how they think, so I was lucky that an Egyptian studying in Saudi Arabia approached me one evening to talk about religion. I told him I was atheist, then he asked how Western media portrayed Islam—he assumed I held Western misconceptions, and he wanted to correct me.

I answered his question with a question: I wanted him to tell me whether Islam’s position on gay and lesbian people was as negative as the media portrayed. He confirmed that Islam holds that “homosexuality is unnatural; it’s worse than adultery.”

I told him, “I’m gay.” I told him that American psychological associations warned against “curing” gays—the professional medical community considers lesbians, gays, and bisexuals normal. I told him being gay was normal. He dismissed me saying, “I can understand growing up in a culture like that how it would seem normal.” But then he paused and admitted, “he had no personal experience from which to pass judgment because I was the first gay person he had met in real life.”

That evening was scary. I considered my safety, and I hesitated before I revealed my sexual orientation, but looking back, I was glad to let this Egyptian student meet a living example of a gay man.

Living openly is very important for me because it affects how people “pass judgment,” as this student said. That’s why I wanted to speak with everyone here today. I want you to see that I, a gay man, am a real human with real interests. I wanted especially to tell you that marriage is a real interest among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Let me do that by reading a note I wrote to celebrate the marriage of two of my friends from graduate school.

Dear Colin and Audrey,

I wanted to thank you for helping me to understand the meaning of marriage. I’ve supported fighting for same-sex marriage for years, but my motives were not always admirable. Fighting for equality was too often an instinctive attempt to annoy fundamentalists who said I could be “cured” of being an abomination. Sometimes I couldn’t care less about marriage itself. I felt that filling out a marriage application was invasive and insulting. It felt like petitioning government for permission to enter a relationship. Looking back I think that the sterility of my views probably resulted from lacking, on the one hand, the subjective experience of love and, on the other hand, the examples and languages with which to describe that love.

By sharing their lives with me, my "old married" friends—you know the type: the squabblers who can’t stand each other but can’t live without each other—these friends taught me a language with which I could understand love and marriage better. You, Colin and Audrey, have been among such friends, and I try to honor your recent wedding by practicing this language as art [1].

In special moments, a person feels that half of his heart is missing; in its place half of another's beats as part of his own. It feels as though a piece from each partner joins its compliment to become together a vessel collecting awareness, intents, and consequent actions that are intertwined with and at the same time distinguished from each of the two selves.

Coherent awareness, intent, and action together embrace features that demand rights and accept responsibilities, features of personhood. Personhood—personhood is a serious concept that entails civic and social consequences, and I can’t mention this magic word, personhood, without talking about the civic respect it deserves.

Government and society confer recognition, rights, and obligations in accordance with the degrees of personhood emerging from individuals and the groups they form [2]. For example, we confer upon corporations the status of so-called juristic persons: they can do business and they can appear in judicial proceedings as entities distinct from their constituting partners. If legal personhood suits a corporation, and many of us agree that it does, then I say that legal personhood suits a loving union.

But I also want to go further to say that a loving union is special. A loving union establishes and is established upon deep emotions, so a loving union is tightly and cohesively more an "individual" than a corporation is. We afford this special unit of personhood the legal and spiritual dignity and recognition that we call marriage.

As I see it, marriage licenses and marriage rites, that’s rite spelled R-I-T-E, do not request permission to form unions any more than birth certificates and christenings request permission to form children. The loving unions and children already exist by the time marriage licenses and birth certificates are granted. A marriage license notifies society of the existence of a union fit for rights and responsibilities—in other words, a union capable of a degree of citizenship. A marriage R-I-T-E rite celebrates the union's membership in a religious community, in other words the union’s capacity for spirituality.

Thank you Colin and Audrey for helping me understand. Yours truly, David Liao.

I just talked about meaning in marriage without mentioning the gender of the constituting partners. The meaning of marriage does not depend on the gender of the constituting partners, and I think that removing the right of same-sex partners to full legal marriage pays disrespect to marriage by distracting from its meaning. I will respect the meaning of marriage by voting to maintain equality in California; I am voting No on Prop. 8.

Footnotes

[1] From speaking with old marrieds, reading Wikipedia, and seeing the example of my parents, I gather that the formation of a loving union occurs through approximately three distinct phases. An infatuation brings partners together, a passionate hormonal period lasting 6 months to 3 years holds them together so that spoken and unspoken communication work out the logistics that permit the partners to survive physically and emotionally in each other's presence, and finally a family-like state emerges. As each of the first two stages hands the spotlight to the next, they leave a significant thread that integrates with the final "family" state. The union-forming process is itself interesting but lies outside the scope of this facebook note intended to focus on one of the final products of the process.

[2] Not only do I observe that society afford respect, rights, and responsibilities to entities displaying personhood--sentience, free-will, and self-control, I also think that society should afford such recognition. The ability to be aware and act coherently upon awareness allows individuals and the society they form to adapt and survive in a complicated, changing environment.

Hard work merits comfortable, secure, and sustainable living--the American dream--a dream because it is mythology

2008-09-19T17:14:00.001-07:00

I support the Democratic party strongly in its social liberalism. Having visited Europe, I also view comprehensive government-based social services with high tax rates as a viable way for a society to promote its own welfare. I am an independent liberal who tends to vote for and donate to the Democratic party, but I would request two changes, one in policy and one in rhetoric. Both would help me more effectively persuade my Republican friends to vote Blue.

Safety nets help all of society by preventing individuals and families from plunging into economic failure that pulls down surrounding neighborhoods and cities. Sometimes safety nets are also necessary for corporations. Corporate bailouts are sometimes the right thing to do.

As great as social programs can be, we cannot market them to Republicans and Libertarians on the basis of the idea that hard work per se merits comfortable, secure, and sustainable living. I don't even believe that myself.

I basically agree with easternburbguy. I am liberal in the Supreme Court sense and somewhat liberal in the "safety net" sense. Based on the spectacular standard of living I witnessed traveling in Europe for an academic conference of Nobel Laureates this past summer, I would be very happy to have a wide range of "people-oriented" nationalized services in the United States.

That doesn't mean I'm happy with Democratic rhetoric. I disapprove when either Democrats or Republicans claim that hard-working people or the well-invested upper classes, respectively, serve almost exclusively as the source of this country's wealth while suffering, just as exclusively, the unfair effects of wealth redistribution policy.

The cartoon of American economics my high school taught was that (1) Currency is a book-keeping tool. We don't use the gold standard, so currency has some value by virtue of the fact that book-keeping itself is a useful technology, but currency derives much of its apparent value from the trust users confide in the economy upon which the currency is applied
(2) Even if we used a gold standard, bank savings would not be "real"--banks lend large fractions of customer savings--that is the sane thing to do since one of the most obvious conclusions one can draw from a customer's act of deposit is that the deposit is not immediately needed. Savings don't "disappear" during runs on banks--they "disappear" shortly after they are deposited
(3) Everyone lends to everyone else. Because this information is available through a high school education, and I presume through Wikipedia, many of us had the opportunity to be informed that our CHOICE to do business, save, and invest within the United States financial system incurred the pooled risks of using a system of fiat currency incestuously and promiscuously lent.

I don't like unsustainable or thoughtless debt, but I harbor no moral objection to credit per se--credit can be an excellent tool for an economy with intellectual capital and potential. Credit often works very well in the United States, though honestly I'm not sure how to quantify precisely the benefits each of us has derived from participating in our American system of currency. Hopefully to some degree we think rationally before we choose to participate in this system of currency. Hopefully we weigh its benefits and conveniences against (a) the effort required to regulate our financial instruments and (b) the fact that we cannot always regulate effectively (1) because our current system of politics has a bad habit of sitting quietly on the topic of regulation until a year after bubbles have begin bursting or until 50 days before a Presidential election and (2) because it's hard to see bubbles before they burst--a country's finances are complicated--and I am personally fine with paying millions of dollars in salaries to CEOs even as they oversee corporate destruction--managing that many people and assets is really hard. Assuming such a rational process occurred before we agreed to use American currency, we should have realized that we accepted the possibility that a large fraction of our wealth and standard of living relied not only upon our own hard work or intellectual capital, but also from the health of the American credit system. Thus, some of the wealth that taxpayers seem unfairly to be asked to surrender to Wall Street derived in the first place from Wall Street, not the middle class's hard work.

It might have been nice to have regulated in the last 5? 10? 15 years? to avoid the current crisis, but we didn't, so one of the questions we must face now is how we address the short term: I would vote in favor of partial bail outs (a full bail out that removes the incentive for responsibility is out of the question) because I would not like to see our system of credit die. It has already gone into a narcoleptic seizure.

We are all dependent on each other in ways that are not immediately obvious. It's in most people's interest to prevent entire sectors of the economy from vaporizing. We need to provide, perhaps through subsidies or loan assistance and education credits, a survivable way to get the American middle class from its globally less competitive state to a more productive state--otherwise our country could be filled with a large impoverished class, and I don't want to find out what happens in the midst of a high concentration of angry, desperate people. In the same spirit, I don't want to see the American system of credit collapse. Companies use credit and employee's work together to do business. These two tools add value to each other. I don't want to find out how hard the typical American would have to work to survive if his or her employer could not rely on credit to add value to employee labor. I doubt it would be as bad as subsistence farming, but I doubt it would be pleasant.

[Off topic: Stock market fluctuations are precedent]
Note: If you look at the stock market graph over the last century, the present credit crisis does not look like a surprise.

[Off topic: Globalization is real]
Digression on economics in general: My parents are from post-Civil War Taiwan. My father also worked in Taiwan during the early 2000s and as far as we're concerned the earnings of American workers were not appropriate for the value of their work in comparison with the value of Asian workers. I don't understand the mechanics behind the recent drop in the value of the dollar, but the final result, that American purchasing power has contracted feels like the "morally correct" outcome that my father and I have waited for years to occur. Just because we are American does not mean that we are special in a sense that would entitle our poorly-educated working class to expect the lifestyle of the competitive intellectual working classes that are emerging in other countries that are finally recovering from the second World War and the Cold War.

I don't for one minute believe in a special economic American dream, but I vote for Obama because I treasure the Constitution and the opportunities it provides for attempting to achieve liberty, justice, and equality. I also support subsidies (or their more palatable disguise--tax credits) for higher education--you don't WIN in the global economy just by working hard; you have to be productive. And what is this about WINning? Why is the focus on competing rather than contributing and participating?

[Off topic: Democratic rhetoric makes it difficult to campaign to my Libertarian and Republican friends]
The content of my writing might appear rather unattractive in this political forum; however, perspectives as callous as mine are very common among the up-and-coming 20-somethings: liberals and conservatives alike. A lot of my friends are Libertarians, and it might be very helpful to persuade them to vote Democrat if Democrats would stop using language describing Americans as deserving a safety net and comfortable living by virtue of hard work. I would be happy to have all these results, and European countries show that some government-managed socialism can be an excellent way to achieve these, but broadcasting the idea that hard work per se (even if it's stupid and unproductive) DESERVES physical safety and comfort makes Democrats look ridiculous to most of my Libertarian and Republican friends and also to many of my Democrat friends (including myself). I'm not even asking here for a major change in social policy, just a change in rhethoric.

Thanks to anyone who actually read through all that.

Best,
David Liao
PhD Candidate
Department of Physics
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

Originally posted as a comment by David Liao on AMERICAblog using Disqus.