Independent Gay Forum - Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn.

Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn.

April 6, 2007

Don't miss IGF contributor Dale Carpenter's critique of David Blankenhorn, over at the indispensable Volokh.com. Says Dale:

Blankenhorn’s book is unusually well-written. And intellectual guilt-by-association has an easy appeal that may make his argument that these bad things all "go together" an anti-gay marriage mantra in the future. Like [Stanley] Kurtz’s superficially frightening correlations, now largely ignored on both sides of the debate, Blankenhorn's argument has to be carefully unpacked to show how unsatisfying it is.

Dale's unpacking is masterly. And Blankenhorn's book, which I just finished, is the best piece of work that the anti-gay-marriage side has yet produced, containing much to admire despite its flaws. If nothing else, the Dale-David exchange shows how far the gay-marriage debate has come since the hysteria of only a few years ago.

Comments to "Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn.":

MeToo | April 6, 2007, 5:32pm | #

the best piece of work that the anti-gay-marriage side has yet produced,
-----------
Jon, care to make a short list of what exactly is so impressive and "new" in this horn-blower book, for those unlikely to take time for it? I can't even get a table of contents listing from Amazon.

Ramza | April 7, 2007, 6:42pm | #

I haven't read the book, but it appears much of Blankenhorn's arguments can be located in the Carpenter link provided. Inside it you will find Carpenter first responding to the book, Blankehorn's Weekly Standard piece, Carpenter's response to that, followed by Blankehorn respond to Carpenter, and so on. There are also some miscellaneous links Carpenter links to responding to people posting about Carpetner and Blankehorn's discussion

MeToo | April 9, 2007, 3:59am | #

I've read those and I've read Blankenhorn's response.

If all that Blakenhorn has put up in his book is some obviously flawed and weak analysis of "trends", it's not worth the praise it gets from Jon or Dale.

I could make a stronger "traditionalist" argument without relying on that.

What would be interesting is on what basis Blankenhorn says this, "Further, I argue at some length in my book that these people [the de-institutionalization 'lefties'] are right."

F. Rottles | April 9, 2007, 4:22pm | #

"Dale's unpacking is masterly."

That unpacking begins with a series of misrepresentations that ought to embarrass Dale Carpenter.

And it ought to embarrass the pro-SSM advocates who have let it slide by.

Here is what Dale Carpenter said, mistakenly:

>> "[Blankenhorn] [...]eschews the argument made by Stanley Kurtz [...] Maggie Gallagher, too, has avoided relying on Kurtz. Robert George of Princeton has seemed agnostic about Kurtz's claims. Now Blankenhorn rejects the Kurtz thesis. It is becoming difficult to find even opponents of same-sex marriage who think Kurtz is right."

1. Blankenhorn embraces Kurtz's argument, he did not say he rejected it.

>> "The main point of my Weekly Standard article is to lay out new empirical evidence showing that, around the world, support for gay marriage is strongest where support for customary marriage is weakest. So obviously my argument does not rebut Kurtz at all; instead, it augments, seeks to clarify, and builds on what Kurtz has been arguing all along."

2. Gallagher has not avoided relying on Kurtz as she has said, that

>> "Dale [Carpenter] is basically insisting that the only kind of evidence he would acknowledge is scientific proof of unilateral causality. David [Blankenhorn] is arguing (Or perhaps I should say I am arguing) rather differently ..."

In 2004, Gallagher said this:

"To me, the most persuasive part of Stanley Kurtz's argument is this: If you go around telling people that marriage has nothing in particular to do with making and raising children, people
just might believe you."

In 2006 Gallgher said:

"Jon [Rauch], my argument and Stanley's are not necessarily the same, although close enough that your connecting them is natural."

She went on to explain: "Stanley could well be right that the successful campaign for gay marriage helped destabilize marriage in the Netherlands; it's more plausible to me than his critics have acknowledged, if the mechanism is [...] the cultural campaign that made the legal change possible. But such a thing, of its nature, would be a judgment call, not a statistical proof. Nor do I agree that the methods of many of his critics are definitive."

3. In 2006, Robert George did not indicate was "agnostic" when he said this:

>> "Rauch?s fourth point is a claim that legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages would actually serve as an impediment to the deinstitutionalization of marriage favored by those who signed ?Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.? This is, I believe, the reverse of the truth, but it is an empirical prediction and I am content to let Stanley Kurtz and other sociologists who dispute it present the data grounding their doubts. I will point out, however, a particularly dubious move Rauch makes in connection with this claim. ..."

Robert George makes a principled argument against merger SSM with marriage recognition. He believes it would probably not obstruct the very deinstitutionalization that Kurtz, Gallagher, and Blankenhorn have been pointing out. But he says he will leave the empirical debate to others.

Now, Jon Rauch, as an informed SSM advocate, could you please clarify your opinion of Dale Carpenter's description of the supposedly conflicting views of these other people -- incuding David Blankenhorn, Stanley Kurtz, Maggie Gallagher, and Robert George?

Did Carpenter get it right or did he mischaracterize, exagerate, or simply pressed his wishful thinking into the words of others? Maybe something else comes to mind, I dunno.

MeToo | April 10, 2007, 6:22am | #

F. Rottles,
You are lucky that you have kind guys like Jon and Dale, who may consider your points kindly. Other people, like myself, find most of this empiricism to be specious, whether it is in the mouths of Kurtz, Blankenhorn, Gallagher, or George. It masks weak arguments and only leads to fallacies, like guilt-by-association, a/k/a propaganda.

F. Rottles | April 10, 2007, 8:13am | #

MeToo, do you say the same about the empiricism that Jon Rauch, Dale Carpenter, and Andrew Sullivan would put forth, as well?

On principle, it is the pro SSM argument which stakes its case on false equivalencies of its own making.

The question here is whether or not Jon Rauch agrees with Dale Carpenter's characterization of the views David Blankenhorn, Maggie Gallagher, and Robert P. George -- in regards to Carpenter's attempt to recruit these people against the argument of Stanley Kurtz.

MeToo | April 10, 2007, 1:27pm | #

do you say the same about the empiricism that Jon Rauch, Dale Carpenter, and Andrew Sullivan would put forth, as well?
--------
To be truthful, yes and no.

The problem with Kurtz and the wandering empiricists is that they have no cogent theory of why gay couples are bad for non-gay couples. It's just too much of a non-sequitur. This sets them up for data-mining.

Blakenhorn's own "new empicism" and response that 'radical left' are ideologically predominant AND that they are persuasive ("right"), empirically or otherwise, is pretty far out there. I'd look for other empirical causes before I swallowed that nut, and I'd certainly suggest that, despite their fervent hopes, they are wrong in principal, too.

It certainly would be a 'false equivalence' to turn gay people into non-gay people, so that they might fit into the hitherto "institution" of marriage.

On the other hand, if one actually spends some time thinking about it *constructively* (i.e., with an open mind) and meeting gay couples, you might find that there is more that unites (even abstractly) than divides.

Mark | April 10, 2007, 5:15pm | #

F. Rottles,

The fact that your biggest gripe w/ Carpenter's rebuttal is that he misrepresented Blankenhorn's opinion of other's views is simply more evidence that the substance of his rebuttal is indeed masterly.

Your characterization of the misrepresentation as "embarrassing" is downright silly, since a fair-minded person (using quotes from Blankenhorn's book that you don't care to cite) could reasonably conclude that Blankenhorn was at odds with Kurtz on the issue of causation.

In balance, and especially considering Blankenhorn's later clarification and correction of Carpenter's misrepresentation, I agree that Blankenhorn and others are not quite as at odds with Kurtz as Carpenter stated. But as an intial impression of Blankenhorn's argument it can hardly be characterized as embarrassing.

As far as Carpenter's statements that Gallagher does not rely on Kurtz's argument, none of the quotes you provide show that she does. She certainly admits it's a possibility and stronger than other arguments, but Carpenter never said she didn't do this. Of course you can argue that I'm being technical on this point, and it depends on how much you read into the words, it's subjective, etc., but that just further proves my point that if there is a misrepresentation it is certainly not one that rises to the level of embarrassment.

F. Rottles | April 11, 2007, 1:58pm | #

MetToo, you did not read what I said.

You say "your biggest gripe w/ Carpenter's rebuttal is that he misrepresented Blankenhorn's opinion of other's views"

1. Carpenter misrepresented the opinion of Kurtz, Gallagher, and George -- as well as Blankenhorn.

2. That misrepresentation distracted from the actual arguments that have been made and with which Carpenter would disagree.

3. This is not my biggest beef with what Carpenter says on the subject. But it was his starting point and he has not yet made a correction. Neither has Jon Rauch and others, even a commenter like yourself, who have now accepted the meme that started with Carpenter's original post.

5. If there is no embarrassment, then, a correction should be forthcoming. If none is produced, by those who passed on the meme, the excuse would have nothing to do with "fairness".

----------

Why would you assume that Gallagher must rely on Kurtz's argument? Especially when Kurtz did not claim unilateral causality?

Perhaps the answer is that you have not understood the argument Kurtz made nor have you understood, therefore, the problem with Carpenter's original post.

Embarrassed, or no, people cannot agree to disagree (i.e. reach disagreement) without first restaging in their own words what the other person has actually said.

Fitz | April 11, 2007, 2:40pm | #

"If nothing else, the Dale-David exchange shows how far the gay-marriage debate has come since the hysteria of only a few years ago."

The exchange between Mr. Blankenhorn and Mr. Carpenter points to the same tired tactics of proponents of same-sex "marriage" must engage in to advance their cause.

Just as the term "hysteria" (above) is used to describe one of this countries most successful populist movements, Mr. Carpenter also needs to mischaracterize the opposition by engaging in rhetorical games rather than reason.

Even the highest levels of supposed scholarship, same-sex marriage advocates have proven themselves to be anti-intellectual, ill-liberal and un-democratic.

YOU?LL KNOW THEM BY THEIR TACTICS

MeToo | April 11, 2007, 10:04pm | #

Fitz, those comments you refer are Mark's, not mine. It seems to me that Dale could thank you for all your "clarifications" and it wouldn't change the basic problem that all of the writers, Kurtz, Blankenhorn, and even Gallagher, to some extent. George appears to have his own, unique problems.

It doesn't bother me that there might be people who passionately defend marriage, as they conceive it. But you cannot just fabricate certainties, in order to do so.

One good way to illustrate my point is to read Blankenhorn backwards, literally, as follows:

Blankenhorn concludes: "By itself, the 'conservative case' for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not."

Based on such strong assertion, one would have expected that the author had tested a clearly specified case, hopefully with some control sample, in which the "conservative case" had been implemented.

Is that what we find? No!!!

Is it a wonder why some folks, like me, find these arguments on the whole to be specious, insofar as they look like they start out with the conclusion they want and backfill with some "recurring patterns" that are lauded either as persuasive or truly "causal and predictive"?

I'd agree with Jon that it is gratifying that Blankenhorn is willing to accept the "conservative case" as compelling on face value (see quote above), if that was Jon's reference and if David was *genuine* in saying so.

MeToo | April 11, 2007, 10:15pm | #

lauded either as persuasive or truly "causal and predictive"?
====
by the way, to add insult to injury, Kurtz dismisses the difference between these two as "a quibble". C'mon.

On Lawn | April 12, 2007, 1:44am | #

> "Kurtz dismisses the difference between these two as 'a quibble'. C'mon."

You should avail yourself of the full quote:

====
I also noted that while I?m on largely the same wavelength as Blankenhorn, we might have a minor methodological quibble. Well, Blankenhorn speaks to methodology, and other important points about gay marriage, in a fascinating post at Family Scholars Blog (here). Given that post, I can?t see that I?ve got any substantial differences with Blankenhorn on methodology. What I do see is a broadly shared framework. And what I very much continue to recommend is a look at Blankenhorn?s original, important, and beautifully written new book on the same-sex marriage debate, The Future of Marriage.
====

So, tell me what do you find as the differences between the two, especially when both have openly embraced each others work as fully compatible?

People might use different words, or have their own areas of expertise they draw their arguments from. If that is all Dale was saying, then that would be okay. But, there was no basis (even at the time of that writing) for Carpenter's ultimate conclusion that "Now Blankenhorn rejects the Kurtz thesis. It is becoming difficult to find even opponents of same-sex marriage who think Kurtz is right."

F. Rottles | April 12, 2007, 7:39am | #

MeToo, I confused your comment with a comment by Mark. Apologies to both of you.

And then you, MeToo, confused my comments with another person, Fitz. We have both misattributed!

We have that much in common, I guess.

F. Rottles | April 12, 2007, 8:10am | #

MeToo,

Dale Carpenter made a mess and has not cleaned it up, yet.

Jon Rauch chose to quote Carpenter's mistaken assertion that Kurtz's analysis was "now largely ignored on both sides of the debate."

So Jon Rauch has some tidying up to do, as well.

As does Andrew Sullivan who hastened to entitle his post "Abandoning Stanley Kurtz".

Right off the starting line all three demonstrated that they did not understand 1) Kurtz's argument, 2) Blankenhorn's framework, and 3) the views of at least two others -- Gallagher and George.

With a single voice, Carpenter, Rauch, and Sullivan cried, "gotcha!"

But look at what has happened. They messed up.

Now, before going further on other matters of dispute, they might, as a unified voice once again, set the record straight by posting a correction on each of their blogs.

I am dissappointed that they would even need to be prompted by readers to do so after the errors have been pointed out and they've had more than enough time to respond.

F. Rottles | April 12, 2007, 8:24am | #

Quote:
no cogent theory of why gay couples are bad for non-gay couples. It's just too much of a non-sequitur. [...] It certainly would be a 'false equivalence' to turn gay people into non-gay people, so that they might fit into the hitherto "institution" of marriage.
Unquote

You really haven't understood the argument with which you would disagree.

1. The issue is marriage, and certainly not "gay couples are bad for non-gay couples".

2. The issue is treating nonmarriage as marriage, not turning gay people into non-gay people.

3. The issue is not fitting gay people into marriage, but, according to the SSM campaign, the issue is the supposed necessity of turning SSM into a uiversal template for adult relationships of both-sexed couples -- but defined by the limitations of the one-sexed arrangement (gay or not).

The nature of marriage is the combination of 1) responsible procreation and 2) integration of the sexes.

This is extrinsic to the idealized homosexual relationship type that Rauch and Carpenter and Sullivan espouse as the model for a new view of marriage.

MeToo | April 12, 2007, 10:19pm | #

F. Rottles, I thought you were "Fritz" because you reproduced Fritz's quotes above without attribution, which I assumed you had done because they were your own. Sorry to have mistaken.

Dale didn't "make a mess", he simply picked up on the clear contradiction in Blankenhorn's rehtoric on the topic, on Blankenhorn positioning/framing his arguments one way, but then giving them the gusto in quite another: "Blankenhorn says he?s talking only about correlation?not causation?and stresses that it?s impossible to prove causation, or to predict institutional futures, from numbers alone. As I read it, however, whether Blankenhorn wants to frame it that way or not, he is in fact making a predictive and causal case.", wrote Kurtz.

The train wreck doesn't stop there, either. Despite what he says there, Kurtz says that causality is not what you get in the social sciences, most often (they why make causal conclusions, one wonders, if not for the propaganda value?). In his own work, he says that gay marriage is BOTH cause and effect. *blink* Kurtz interchanges "gay marriage" with "the conservative case for gay marriage" so much in his long Scandinavia article that it is hard even keep his train of thought, for someone who is used to reading rigorously presented and thought-through material.

To be charitable, assuming Kurtz and Blankenhorn are well intentioned, a concessions that may be a stretch for many people here (myself included most often), it is probably best NOT to think of Kurtz and Blankenhorn as scientists whatsoever, social or otherwise, but just as commentators, with a collection of beliefs, feelings, and data that they intermingle in their own style to make their (understandably?) partisan points. There is really no other way to square trying to have correlation and causality be a "qibble" of a difference and still be gentle. Simply because they embrace each others work means nothing - it would be the point of critical thought to see whether such an embrace held water, anyway.

At that very basic level, "Gothca!" is fine, if it means, "Gosh, this is really not more than just partisan commentary, viewpoint, or (in my case) propaganda." Not that there isn't a place for propaganda, but let's just call a spade a spade, so we can get on with it.

I'm afraid that I would agree with Jon that there is not much worthy in the gay marriage debate in Kurtz's "work" on the subject of Scandinavia. All the same, it pays to look at numbers and someone does have to do the work of refuting his "analysis". I understand this has been done in a book by Eskridge. For myself, I would focus on his analysis of Norway.

I don't think that the luminaries in the debate respond to post-replies too much. They do not take comments on Family Scholars at all and I haven't seen Maggie jumping into the debate in her online forum (could be mistaken, but that was my sense of it).

MeToo | April 12, 2007, 11:02pm | #

Bcause this is just a blog, I can only offer short replies to your post, even though I believe that the points deserve a more thoroughgoing reply:

1. The issue is marriage, and certainly not "gay couples are bad for non-gay couples".
---------------
1a. Assuming you are in earnest, what do you propose are the appropriate recognition, celebration, and civil rights/responsibilities for gay couples, notwithstanding your beliefs about "marriage"?

2. The issue is treating nonmarriage as marriage, not turning gay people into non-gay people.
----------
2a. Your mistake here is the same that you made about George. He doesn't offer a principled defense. He offers a definitional one.

4. The nature of marriage is the combination of 1) responsible procreation and 2) integration of the sexes.
========
Wow! Also Spracht ... Aquinas?

Gay people are clearly a beautiful and fruitful part of God's creation. Therefore, there is a 'natural law' for them, too. Marriage has never been exclusively about procreation or sexes, fully understood. Gay people have a place at the table, undeniably.

5. This is extrinsic to the idealized homosexual relationship type that Rauch and Carpenter and Sullivan espouse as the model for a new view of marriage.
---------
5a. Yes and no. Datur cuique suum. Non-gays assume their rights and responsibilities under 'their natural law' (nothing changes for them), and gay people simply assume their own, under 'their natural law'. The Law is not divided, it is made whole.

Like all of us, I can only pray, in humble service, that I am right. But as I see it, I say to you that is the Truth.

Chairm | April 13, 2007, 2:06am | #

-> "turn gay people into non-gay people, so that they might fit into the hitherto "institution" of marriage."

Please unpack that. I hope you are not trying to put words in the mouths of people who disagree with you about SSM. That would just be a repeat of what Carpenter did in his opening attack on Blankenhorn's article.

-> "clear contradiction in Blankenhorn's rehtoric on the topic"

The contradiction is perceived by Carpenter but it does not exist. So relying on Carpenter does not show you have understood the arguments put forth by Blankenhorn and by Kurtz -- and by Gallagher.

In sociology and in anthropology, a causal case does not stand or fall on finding scientific evidence of unilateral causality. In fact, such evidence hardly exists for any causal case outside of the "hard sciences".

Eskridge's book did not refute Kurtz's argument. But Eskridge has implied that the timeline goes back to the mid-1980s; and Carpenter has implied the same, in his recent posts. So you can put to rest the strawman argument that the changes in nonmarital trends in Scandinavia -- and especially in Holland -- predated the cultural influence of the SSM campaign.

I mean, come on, legislation does not just pop out of thin air. A campaign to change the shared public meaning of marriage preceded the enactment of legal changes in Scandinavia and in Holland next door.

* * *

I can't speak for F. Rottles or for Fitz, but you haven't shown you understand the issues very well.

If you examine what the Massachusetts court did in Goodridge, you see a swap of definitions. So to dismiss Robert P. George the way you tried to above just doesn't support SSM argumentation.

* * *

Provisions for designated beneficiaries are a good way to protect nonmarital alternatives. No new relationship status is needed. No presumption of a sexual relationship. No merger with marital status. And, importantly, this could be streamlined and made both more accessible and more portable than even SSM Massachusetts-style or CU Vermont-style. AND it would be far more inclusive than either SSM or CU -- without touching marriage law, at all.

* * *

Blankenhorn's book, "The Future of Marriage" does an excellent job (not religious-based, by the way) of describing the nature of marriage.

The best I've seen from SSMers is a persistent attack on the nature of marriage. The attack fragments the social institution into a diminished bunch of bits and pieces. Only those parts which fit the one-sexed limitations are then deemed "essential" but this would apply to all husband and wife relationships, as well.

The sexual ecologies are different. It makes little sense to bleach-out the core of the conjugal relationship just to accomodate the nonmarital alternative that SSMers idealize.

Where is the honest description of the nature of the one-sexed arrangement? Of the idealized version of the homosexual relationship?

That would provide the basis of a special status -- perhaps even on par with marital status -- but it must stand on its own two feet instead of piggybacking on marriage. And it should not detract from marriage, as a merger would do.

Marriage is both-sexed. Just look at the nature of humankind and the nature of human procreation. Two-sexed and both-sexed. The essence of marriage is directly linked to institutionalizing fatherhood combined with motherhood.

The evidence of this is all around us -- and throughout recorded human history.

But what is the essence of the now-idealized homosexual relationship? And why should its essence be mistaken for the core of the conjugal relationship of husband and wife?

MeToo | April 13, 2007, 5:28am | #

Wow, Chairm, you are up burning the midnight oil, eh! I'm no better. I'm up at 5:00 a.m. I love the early morning, especially when the grass is wet with a heavy dew...

Anyway, let me take a few of your points, in turn.

"Provisions for designated beneficiaries are a good way to protect nonmarital alternatives. No new relationship status is needed. No presumption of a sexual relationship. No merger with marital status. And, importantly, this could be streamlined and made both more accessible and more portable than even SSM Massachusetts-style or CU Vermont-style. AND it would be far more inclusive than either SSM or CU -- without touching marriage law, at all."
==========
Let me do a thought experiment with you. Suppose that nature had turned things around, so that there was a 75% likelihood that children were homosexual, and you, as a non-gay, lived in the other 25%. As such, "naturally", you and yours were seen as the "worker bees" of this imaginary society and the laws encouraged you to procreate, because that is what is the "obvious" reason that you are here on earth, by forbidding all relationships forms that discouraged women from having as many partners as possible, during their procreative years. Would you feel unjustly ... classified?

There are plenty of others here who can take you through why contract-law is insufficient. I will give you my number one reply. Non-gays, in their far less than infinite wisdom, can force gays to testify against their beloveds in court. I FIND THAT CRUEL. The callousness required to suggest such a thing is profound.

The fact that you can write "no presumption of a sexual relationship" perhaps suggests that you do not think that gay relationships deserve celebration, without actually saying it. Yet, so many non-gays suggest that this is "about marriage, not about bigotry". Well, with this 'presumption', I can point out to you precisely why folks have good reason to be wary of that formulation, because it can provide a mask for a deep-seated hostility (enough to ignore facts, even, the sexual and human facts of the case) or, provide a mask for a simple, hostile indifference.

The best I've seen from SSMers is a persistent attack on the nature of marriage.
=============
The best I've seen from marriage advocates is that they come away from the debate with a deeper sense of their own marriage and either an understanding or willingness to consider that there might be more to this all than simply 'fighting-the-devil' by repeating doctrine. By the way, I don't see that as a cosmic failing, necessarily. Black people had to wait for whites to "re-manner" their beliefs about a great number of things, for instance.

Where is the honest description of the nature of the one-sexed arrangement?
==========
I find this lazy.

You have to take witness and inquiry with an open mind, ultimately, to answer this question for yourself, knowing ultimately that you will be judged on with how great a care you proceed, if you are a Christian.

On the other (in no particular order):

Be sure to read my 4/12 10:19 with attention to the quote from Kurtz and the paragraph following.

A person above said, "Robert George makes a principled argument..." He doesn't, he simply throws out a definition, and his shallow "analysis" follows from that. The tragedy of his commentary, though, is that he thinks that what he describes is a real problem for Rauch. The hard truth may be that the joke is ultimately on him for not listening to Rauch and his conservative case. Trust me, I'll have NO pity for him, if it turns out that it is, given his overtly snarky tone.

On Scandinavia, perhaps you can direct me to where it is that Kurtz can substantiate this claim, "I?ve acknowledged and examined possible alternative causes, and argued that, important as they often are, these alternative causes do not by themselves suffice to make sense of the current decline of European marriage." I'm curious what he thinks these 'alternative causes' are and how he rejects them.

MeToo | April 13, 2007, 6:12pm | #

oh, by the way, Fitz, you were mentioning knowing them by their tactics, above.

Check this out: the documents are all password protected.

Apparently, the "public interest" is so secret the public cannot be allowed to freely access it! LOL.

Would it be wrong of me to suggest that someone find out the password and publish it?

Chairm | April 13, 2007, 6:51pm | #

-> "Non-gays, in their far less than infinite wisdom, can force gays to testify against their beloveds in court. I FIND THAT CRUEL."

Well, I can be forced to testify against my sons and daughters, my grandchildren, my best friend, and so forth. Is that cruel?

Designated beneficiaries is more inclusive of a wide range of nonmarital alternatives than would SSM or CU. To grant some sort of unique status to the presumptively homosexual relationship does need some more rigorous reason than you have given. A state interes in regulating romance is pretty thin fare.

Chairm | April 13, 2007, 7:06pm | #

MeToo, you admonished me for being lazy and yet you haven't read Kurtz's various pieces on Scandinavia and Holland? If you read with that wonderfully open mind of yours you just might learn what he has actually said.

He certainly has not been depending -- entirely -- on a statistical analysis of just one trend. Just take his writings on nonmarital births -- he looks at first born and second born children, at the abortion rates, at contraceptive use, at economic factors, at the posteponement of marriage and of childbearing, and much more.

He has referred to Holland as an example as close as we can get to seperating out the influence of the SSM campaign from other influences on nonmarital trends. While Sweden, and Denmark, and then Norway, experienced growth in nonmarital births, the Dutch society resisted those trends -- despite very liberalized laws. The cultural resistence was weakened at the same time that the SSM campaign gained steam and eventually succeeded. That success came before the enactment of SSM -- as all legislation must first succeed in the public mind. The campaign changed the shared public meaning of marriage. It was a tipping point, if you will, that had been experienced much earlier in the nearby Scandinavian countries.

So Holland stands as a sort of "reverse time" experiment. The same sort of legal and social polidy reforms had been undertaken in Scandinavia and in Hollad, but those structural changes did not change the traditionally low nonmarital trends. In the early 1990s demographers expected the Dutch to continue to be an exception in Europe -- with low nonmarital births. That changed dramatically in the mid-1980s and the change has not relented.

If you want to "refute" Kurtz, you need to begin by understanding his analysis before you stomp all over conclusions you dislike. He may be wrong, but he has not been endgaming.

Next, you would need to offer an explanation for what occured in Holland -- and that would mean answering Kurtz's analysis of those explanations. I doubt you will come up with something new he has not already included in his writings on this subject, but you might do better than others.

Like most such assessments of demographic data, and the cultural contexts, there is plenty of room for substantive debate. But you really should not be misled into thinking that he has simply looked at a single data point and then extrapolated. His analysis does lead to a plausible conclusion.

As for how Carpenter has messed up, his wanderings in the 3 posts he did at Volokh should raised questions about how thoroughly he has examined what Kurtz has actually written ont his subject. His superficial "critique" of Blankenhorn's contribution is far from masterly.

Chairm | April 13, 2007, 7:14pm | #

Drat. Typos. Corrections follow:

The cultural resistence [in Holland] was weakened at the same time that the SSM campaign gained steam and eventually succeeded. That success came before the enactment of SSM -- as all legislation must first succeed in the public mind. The campaign changed the shared public meaning of marriage.

* * *

The same sort of legal and social policy reforms had been undertaken in Scandinavian [countries] and in Hollad, but [in Holland] those structural changes did not [drastically] change the traditionally low nonmarital trends.

* * *

[Even as recently as in] the early 1990s demographers expected the Dutch to continue to be an exception in Europe -- with low nonmarital births.

* * *

That changed dramatically in the mid-[1990s] and the average increase of 2% points per year has has not relented.

Chairm | April 13, 2007, 7:17pm | #

MeToo, if you would like to read the documents, do as the adminstrator of the site has suggested:

"Please email Duncan Sahner, ... if you would like ... to view these documents"

MeToo | April 14, 2007, 1:22am | #

Do you think I have so little self-respect that I'm going to engage in a debate by asking permission to read the case of 'other side'? Good grief. The utter hilarity of the shear self-importance in posting articles about the "Public Interest" that are held up behind a secret password ought to be an indication to you of why there are 'radicals'. Might I suggest that you send a note to Duncan and mention to him ... that they are going to have an image problem if they keep portraying themselves as servants of the people in this way.

You didn't really answer my question related to the thought experiment. Why?

You didn't say one way or the other whether it is cruel to force people to testify against their beloved, so good luck with that.

Being forced to testify against children and others is more proof that marriage, fully understood, is not just about children. (Thanks for that bit. The law itself seems to preserve a distinction that so many gloss over).

I guess you did not find any substantive places where Kurtz "examined possible alternative causes", as he claimed. (Does that avoidance explain why you felt the need to reherse a paper on Scandinavia that I've already read?)

All your comments about changes of the attitudes of non-gays toward marriage in Scandinavia seem to have precision little logical bearing on "the conservative case for same-sex marriage" (that was in the title of the piece, yes?). Kurtz's fervor to be "drawing a line against descent", as he says using a phrase with overtones that many will no doubt recognize, probably causes him to commit this analytical failure, in spades, sadly. With a little more evidence, I would suggest that he does this knowingly and misrepresents his arguments accordingly, to keep the propaganda going.

Your contention that there is "plenty of room for substantive debate" seems directly at odds with Kurtz's and Blakenhorn's contention that they have shown something causal.

I really do understand that people have been swamped by the propaganda. I did suggest that his arguments needed refutation, despite the puffed up claims about what they amount to as science.

If someone wants to pay me Kurtz's salary to sit and write non peer-reviewed stuff, I'd be happy to give all his Sandinavian stuff thorough attention, if it hasn't been done. As it is (and what they are betting on?), I don't have the time. If I were to focus just on a part, I would pick his analysis of Norway, as I suggested. Specifically for his Netherlands write-up, I wonder what the alternative explanations are that he's considered and rejected?

MeToo | April 14, 2007, 1:27am | #

er...
"precision" s/b "precious"

Chairm | April 15, 2007, 1:13am | #

->"testify against their beloved"

It is not cruel to distinguish between the married and the unmarried. Why do you appeal to emotion rather than respond to the counterexamples I provided. Are those examples also cruel?

* * *

The first paragraph in your comment above is self-indulgent and presents a deadend created by yourself. If you wanted an explanation from that website, you'd seek it from that website, rather than make aspersions.

Chairm | April 15, 2007, 1:16am | #

MeToo, if you are too lazy (your own phrase) to actually read Kurtz's writing, then, you disqualify yourself from discussion of those writings. It is not up to me to do your homework for you.

While I won't do the reading for you, here is a link to the Kurtz part in the Marriage Resources site of The Opine Editorials:

http://defendmarriageresources.blogspot.com/2007/02/stanley-kurtz-work.html

Your welcome.

Chairm | April 15, 2007, 1:31am | #

-> "Your contention that there is "plenty of room for substantive debate" seems directly at odds with Kurtz's and Blakenhorn's contention that they have shown something causal."

How "at odds" with what they have actually said? They encourage debate of the substance. They make room to debate the criticisms of their analyses and their conclusions. That's not closed off.

You can pose as someone capable of refuting their arguments, if only you had the time, but since you do not appear to have read their work, and seem to entrust your own credibility to Capenter and to Eskridge, I guess you do cede the field and stand on the sidelines.

That's okay. It doesn't justify, or well-disguise, your attempt to poison the well. But that's okay because in the blogosphere it's not a crime for you to display your own incompetence on this subject.

Jon Rauch is wrong to have applauded Carpenter's misrepresentation of Blankenhorn, Kurtz, Gallagher, and George.

To that you offer zilch except a shrug of the shoulders.

To Jon Rauch: Have you asked Blankenhorn, Gallagher, and George what they think about Kurtz and about Kurtz's argument? Or do you entrust your credibility to Carpenter?

MeToo | April 17, 2007, 8:55am | #

It is not cruel to distinguish between the married and the unmarried.
=====
1. Well, if you just want to trade phrases, then "Marriage, fully understood, is not just about procreation."

2. You jump from the general principle to your conclusion, a lack of discipline that I ought not to accept. In general, we probably agree that it is "o.k." for society to make distinctions. In particular, however, we appear to disagree in considering how gay and lesbian relationships, ostensibly valuable and worthy as they are, get recognition. So, yes, it can be incorrect to distinguish between "married" and "unmarried" in the way you do. In fact, as we've seen above, it can be so incorrect that it leads people to ignore facts (the sexual bond that gay couples share) and the cruelty, as illustrated above, that the non-gay majority imposes.

3. You don't get to just beg the question by repeating the propaganda. #2 is just a fancy way to say that the 'room for substantive debate' is whether it is o.k. to distinguish "married" from "unmarried" along solely procreative lines.

I've read Kurtz's bits on Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Both are seriously flawed in relation to the claims about what they show, as outlined above. Even flawed work can have powerful propaganda effects (as is in evidence here?), therefore those with alternative views need to take time to rebut it. (Since I've granted that, why do you think I'm dismissing them entirely?. I rather regret having used "refute" in toto. The main thesis has been refuted, the remainder needs to be rebutted. Hopefully, you can see the difference).

Causal conclusions typically end debates and start others. If they are suggesting their work is open to further interpretation, then I certainly do have some rebuttals, not the least of which is that they switch between gay marriage and 'the conservative case' for gay marriage so much that you can hardly keep their train of thought. The rest depends on their limited - very limmited - analysis of significant, reasonable causal alternatives, both empirical and 'theoretical'.

Now, if only I could get paid what they do to churn stuff out for a living. So far as I know, neither Dale nor I have that luxury...

Just one last item. I can see quite a lot being said and written that might alarm 'traditional marriage' folks. Still, I don't see it as my sole responsibility to debunk all of that to you.

I'd rather do it as a back-and-forth on an important problem that has to be solved. At some level I reject the notion that I have to "make a case" to you. It's hard to analogize, but it's like asking a black man years ago to make a case why they aren't really 3/5th of a person. Savvy?

On Lawn | April 17, 2007, 11:50am | #

Marriage, fully understood, is not just about procreation.

No subset of purposes justifies removing any purpose. Marriage encompasses many aspects of our lives, anyone that is married can tell you just how and why. That the government recognizes and facilitates them is something, I believe, you have no problem with.

You would say that because of these other aspects, it is okay to remove marriage from its central theme of responsible procreation? What is responsible procreation then? How does the state replace or meet that purpose without marriage?

One of Blankenhorn's primary concerns is how -- in an effort to equalize the homosexual and heterosexual relationship -- procreation is equalized with the commercialization of children. In Massachusetts birth certificates are more like car registrations. Instead of recording an event and the parents of that event (the birth) it registers that child with whomever commissioned that child or has assumed responsibility for that child.

-- Excuse me, I'd like to register my brand new three year old.

-- Excuse me, we just purchased this child from a catalog of sperm donors and we wish to register them.

So many aspects of our lives tie into our own responsibility for our procreation that it is no wonder marriage does too. But that does not justify removing that central mooring of our social wellbeing in marriage.

MeToo | April 17, 2007, 4:30pm | #

Thanks for a thoughtful continuation. I'll pass on my reflections, as follows:

Marriage encompasses many aspects of our lives, anyone that is married can tell you just how and why.
========
I would tend to agree with you very strongly that many married-with-children citizens feel very strongly about that status. In some ways, the spirit of that feeling I find quite well rooted (who is going to deny that childbearing changes your life?) and other parts of it less well rooted (there are no "privledged" places in the Kingdom, for instance, and children are gifts from God, not "marital products" which justify "relationship pride").

That the government recognizes and facilitates them is something, I believe, you have no problem with.
========
Off the cuff, I am o.k. with "recognize" and "facilitate", but I start to get very nervous with "promote" (which I think is a non-governmental responsibilty and certainly a non tax-dollar one).

Generally put, if I had my druthers, I'd prefer to have 'gay marriage' without "throwing out" the entire public-policy framework to do it. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm accepting of broad means to put an end to an oppressive discrimination (which I assume you are not).

No subset of purposes justifies removing any purpose.
=======
The Church itself is open to changing its doctrines as a general proposition - and it has, even on matters of sexual relations, so, at that level, this prejudges that.

The "conservative case" is that "removal" is NOT the apt characterization. In other words, as best I understand it, the 'conservative case' is NOT to alter the purposes of non-gay marriage whatsoever, including for those who believe that procreation is 'traditionally' the import and province of 'marriage'.

There are, of course, other "cases" to be made that most certainly DO involve removal of procreation as central to non-gay sexual relations (always have been, yes?). To complicate matters further, these cases can be both coincident and not coincident to "gay marriage". It's important to keep all the categories straight (no pun intended).

What is responsible procreation then?
========
For non-gays, its the same. For gays, one would make the argument that, if they are going to adopt or fertilize, they ought also to take up the cross of the Institution of Marriage.

How does the state replace or meet that purpose without marriage?
==========
We would probably disagree sharply about the State's interest in such matters.

Blankenhorn ... procreation is equalized with the commercialization of children
======
Two things, at least. One, test-tube babies were an invention of non-gays for non-gays. You'll pardon me that, even if I have some understanding for his concern, I resent his laying the issue at the doorstep of LGBT folks, given its origin and original intent. It smacks of making gays the scapegoat for all of the non-gay's problems with marriage and procreation ethics. In such a world, gays will be waiting for non-gays to "fix everything" about themselves, before they even 'get a chance', so to speak. Grrrr...

Second, I can imagine a world in which gays are more prepared to be parents than non-gays. Non-gays can have children "by accident". If aforethought and deliberation and indicators of strong parental relations, then gays would take the cake, possibly. Still, I'm grey-haired enough to know that such "visions" don't account for human frailty, of which there is plenty to go around. There are going to be poor gay parents and poor non-gay parents, no matter what institutional structures are adopted. Given the few gay people I have known interested in partenting (it's a subset, to date), they are what I might call 'hopelessly responsible' types, so I'm not sure, near-term, how much weight his concern would muster. In days past, couples had to meet significant financial hurdles to be considered for adoption, too, (something non-gays aren't forced to deal with when making their 'procreative' choices). It stands to reason that such hurdles are countervailing considerations to Blankenhorn's in an 'on balance' assessment of gay parenting. (One could throw in the general societal benefits of adoption, too, into such a balance. In other words, in at least in some significant percentage, the marginal child might be one who has already been "commercialized", by non-gays, to be crude about it.)

Reproductive choices are issues that are only going to become more acute, because of science (including genetics research), not because of gays. As an ethical proposition, it seems a fallacy to me that a single woman, for instance, can argue that she has a "right" to a reproductive choice simply because gay people do, because the two parents are of different essence, one gay and the others, non-gay - the express ethic for non-gay people should naturally be understood as different than for gays.

OF COURSE, she (and others) are welcome to make the argument, but that doesn't mean it ought to be accepted.

Fitz | April 17, 2007, 4:58pm | #

?Two things, at least. One, test-tube babies were an invention of non-gays for non-gays. You'll pardon me that, even if I have some understanding for his concern, I resent his laying the issue at the doorstep of LGBT folks, given its origin and original intent. It smacks of making gays the scapegoat for all of the non-gay's problems with marriage and procreation ethics. In such a world, gays will be waiting for non-gays to "fix everything" about themselves, before they even 'get a chance', so to speak. Grrrr...?

One also hears this attitudinal stance coming from the LGBT mind. Its not so much even an argument as it is a species of the false dichotomy.

The world is not separated into gays and straights, with wrongs committed by the later generating some need to be equally applied to the former. Societies go down paths that are bad for themselves and children. Better to exercise clear thinking than reduce oneself to a tit for tat false dichotomy.

Under reasoning like this one could say ?straight people are responsible for all the wars in the world? or ?straight people invented the nuclear bomb? or ?straight people perpetuated slavery?. All three are generally accurate, yet one does not here people engaging in such rhetoric.

NOTE: Blakenhorn has added several Posts at Family Scholars? in exchange with others about his original Weekly Standard Article and his new book.
(one includes the following summation)

1. The primary cross-cultural purpose of marriage as an institution is to ensure, insofar as possible, that the man and women who make the child through sexual intercourse are there for the child, as social parents, and are there for each other.
2. Every child raised by a same-sex couple will by definition be missing either their mother or their father.
3. It is therefore not possible, or at least extremely hard, to believe both in gay marriage and in the importance of this essential cross-cultural purpose of marriage. The two goods are in conflict; we as a society must choose which we think is more important.
4. Changing the meaning of marriage and normative parenthood to accommodate same-sex couples changes marriage and parenthood overall ? not just for the children in same-sex couple households, but for all children.

MeToo | April 17, 2007, 5:20pm | #

The Church itself is open to changing its doctrines as a general proposition ...
==========
Two further thoughts, that I ought to have included.

"Open to change" ought not to imply casually change. Changes involve deliberation and care.

I would welcome a shift in the debate from "you're wrong, go to Hell", to include something like, "Supposing you are right -just supposing that there is some merit to an ethic called 'gay marriage', what is the best way to propgate that, do you think?"

MeToo | April 17, 2007, 5:31pm | #

Under reasoning like this one could say ?straight people are responsible for all the wars in the world? or ?straight people invented the nuclear bomb? or ?straight people perpetuated slavery?.

All three are generally accurate, yet one does not here people engaging in such rhetoric.
===========
Nor does one hear that "We cannot let gays be Generals, or we will have more war" or "Gay people would never have invented a nuclear bomb" or "Gay people are good for the institution of slavery, because they perpetuate the notion that people's children can be bought and sold." Yet all three are propositions that we do hear in relation to marriage.

I was careful in my phrasing, "It smacks of making gays the scapegoat ..."

Thanks for the heads-up - I'll have a look at Family Scholars.

On Lawn | April 17, 2007, 6:35pm | #

And I thank you for your careful and considerate reply.

I would tend to agree with you very strongly that many married-with-children citizens feel very strongly about that status.

I would add that so do children with or without married parents feel strongly about that status. From a child's perspective I'm not sure that the business involved in heading a household is understood or appreciated. They understand bonds, and the bond to the parents they inherit their identity from is one of them.

However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm accepting of broad means to put an end to an oppressive discrimination (which I assume you are not).

I am reluctant to affix "oppressive discrimination" to the status of marriage. On the surface of it, no where are homosexuals mentioned by any variant of their self-identified labels in marriage law. No where are heterosexuals mentioned either. Just men and women, and that encompasses everyone.

I have more on this, but I anticipate your exchange will provide the ample springboard into the rest of the content.

But closer to the mark, I am one who feels that a case can be made for recognizing homosexual relationships. However, that case then falls short of the exclusive focus on those relationships. A system of support can be beneficial for society for families that are in need of being bandaged together, and homosexual relationships are a small subset of these conditions.

So neutering the definition of marriage for the sake of homosexuality is out of the question, that winds up being too prejudiced towards homosexuality at the risk of oppressive discrimination (assuming that marriage without homosexual relationships are indeed oppressive discrimination) against others.

The "conservative case" is that "removal" is NOT the apt characterization.

I've seen this argued, and if I understand it right the case is...

Marriages purpose for responsible procreation is not removed from society because the definition of marriage is neutered (rendered gender neutral) for the government. Society will still recognize this purpose, as will individuals in society. And, as a refreshed expression of monogamous encouragement, it will help people who wish to be responsible about their acts of procreation, and even the acts which may unintentionally lead to procreation.

Do you feel that might indicate I understand the conservative case accurately?

One, test-tube babies were an invention of non-gays for non-gays.

I am rather homosexually agnostic myself. I am as adamant to say that it is wrong for heterosexual couples to purchase or commission children as a matter of commerce.

Second, I can imagine a world in which gays are more prepared to be parents than non-gays.

I do not believe that anyone is more prepared to establish a child's self worth and identity than the people who they share that identity with -- their parents.

People who go through greater lengths to bring children into their homes are naturally more prepared. The extreme end of this is the case of foster parents, who are even given assistance for parent training and monetary support from the state. However, foster children do not respond as well to their conditions as the children who are being loved by the people who gave them birth.

Adoption offers a closer alternative, one that is without the instability that causes childhood obstacles. There the parents are screened as to their preparation. To point to their additional success because of stability is just tip-toeing up to the fact that adoption more closely mirrors the ideal of marriage and responsible procreation. Yet, even with how close adoption can be, it shows obstacles for child development also.

Would you agree that, all else being equal a child is best suited to be raised by his or her parents from birth in a marriage? That is the marriage ideal. The Kin Altruism.

MeToo | April 17, 2007, 7:56pm | #

I would add that so do children with or without married parents feel strongly about that status.
=======
And so too gay children, right? And children of gay parents, too, so far as we know, to date. One can make the case that the origin of where 'gay people' got the idea of getting married was from the circumstances observing marital bonds of non-gays that they respect and want to emulate.

That's an important follow-on point, but not necessarily how I would base a case for gay marriage, myself.

I am reluctant to affix "oppressive discrimination" to the status of marriage.
=======
If you would, see item 1a. above, April 12, 2007, 11:02pm., and the following discussion of it.

that case then falls short of the exclusive focus on those relationships
====
I'm afraid that I do not understand that. Can you restate another way. I don't doubt that you have an insight, I just cannot make out what you mean, precisely.

neutering the definition of marriage ...
======
See number 5a. above, in the same place. Datur cuique suum. The import of marriage, the "definition" of it, would not be changed for non-gays - the purposes of marriage would not be changed for them. The ethic of marriage applied to gay people only would not necessarily imply procreation/parenthood, that's all. It's seems natural enough.

the conservative case accurately?
------
well, not as I would state it. See items "4a" and 5a above, same place, April 12, 2007, 11:02pm.

all else being equal a child is best suited to be raised by his or her parents from birth in a marriage?
==========
Credo:
1. a child needs more than just his/her parents, in the ideal, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends of the family.
2. a gay child has a right to grow up knowing that they aspire to an equal place in society as their non-gay peers
3. it is abundantly clear that procreation ability does not equate whatsoever good parenting ability.
4. whether or not marriage is about procreation, we can debate whether or not marriage, as an institution, is successful at creating good parents. Do *marriage vows* say anything about promising to become good parents and in what way?
5. All children yearn for a bond with 'the parent', agreed (even the gay kids who have been thrown out by their parents and turn to 'the streets' for survival). However, in some cases this yearning is unhealthy, especially when the child is yearning for a bond with an abusive parent. This suggests that the "marriage ideal" is, in fact, a contingent formulation (or ought to be understood that way). Also, we expect children to break that bond, as they come into adulthood (even Christ called the children to himself, so ...). All's to say that such an ideal itself has a broader perspective.
6. State ownership of children is odious.

On Lawn | April 17, 2007, 11:15pm | #

And so too gay children, right?

Children. I look at children without categorizing them gay or non-gay.

And children of gay parents, too, so far as we know, to date.

While it is perfectly within my philosophy to say yes to that question, (on many levels for different occasions of argument) I should note that mapping children to parents is not injective though it is surjective and almost as predictable as injective (one to two). And the inverse is not surjective or injective at all (one to one, many or none).

What does this mean to your question? All children have parents, one man and one woman. That function is (with only a few anomalies) perfectly onto. But its bi-variate nature makes for some strange anomalies.

For instance, there are no man-man or woman-woman mappings to children. While children share a mother or father they are not guaranteed to have the same mother or father.

To wrap up every condition that we find children wishing their parents were married, we would have polygamy, incest, and no same-sex couplings.

Hence there is a difference between interpreting the child's need for their parents to be married to mean we should make any situation that has children a marriage, and interpreting that to mean that before any child is born we should make sure the parents are committed in marriage. And even then, neither interpretation does not lend to same-sex couples.

Yet moving from parent to child, there are same-sex couplings though that requires partially orphaning a child to do so. It is the move from the adult convenience and perspective that produces the most dramatic and unpredictable results (polyamory? polygamy? etc...)

One thing to remember, this is only a homosexual v heterosexual confrontation in the mindset of homosexual activists. To people like myself, marriage is a subset of heterosexuality and has its capacity as the pre-cursor to sexual activity. To preserve consanguine bonds in the monogamous and orderly fashion that best help children. Polygamy, incest, divorce ... all these things along with homosexuality work against the purpose of marriage. Hence looking at this mapping and how it works from the child's perspective.

One can make the case that the origin of where 'gay people' got the idea of getting married was from the circumstances observing marital bonds of non-gays that they respect and want to emulate.

This is an important point too, and I appreciate you sharing. To me (and it is just my perspective) the real nourishment for marriage is from its roots grounded firmly in responsible procreation. The import and civilization that occurs outside of marriage, in both cases like Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, -- and homosexual monogamy. But these exist outside of the grounding, as an epiphyte drawing from the atmosphere created around marriage.

The argument for neutering the definition of marriage, in that analogy, reads to me like uprooting the tree and expecting it to live like the spanish moss growing on and around it.

Both are living organisms, and contribute to the ecosystem around them. Both are useful for people. No one is saying one is better than the other. But I am saying that marriage is uprooted from its mooring of responsibility will not survive. Responsible procreation might survive, and so might monogamy. The understanding of marriage might survive for non-gays even though the state loses all comprehension of that (and even chases its own good money after bad in the bet). But marriage the institution and the marginal cases which would otherwise go by the wayside won't. While life remains in the tree long after uprooted, it begins to die the second it is uprooted.

Again, there is more to say, but little time. I hope that suffices, and I again appreciate your time.

MeToo | April 18, 2007, 4:38am | #

You seem to be moving the discussion away from 'gay marriage' or the 'conservative case' for gay marriage on to both gay parenting and to other relationship recognition.

I'm not sure why the arguments quickly move in that direction, with the other issues not fully disposed of, but I'm willing to follow along, for now.

On parenting, you have a special prominence in your arguments on the value of biological parents. (Hopefully, this is more than just an argument of convenience, since it dovetails with one view of marriage.) In the "conservative case", I think that the same arguments about marriage may apply to parenting, in the sense of why gay parenting isn't bad for non-gay parenting.

There are other perspectives, to round out an argument.

Clearly, we agreed a surjective mapping of biological progenitors to offspring - I mean, at least, so far as the science is now, humans cannot be hermaphrodites. The bond with "parents" is more tricky, however. If parents die an untimely death, children may be raised by their family (grandparents, etc.) or by their "godparents", in the Christian faith. Would we consider these children "orphaned" (i.e. deprived) or fortunate (in the end, they may actually have had two sets of parents)?

Parents make distinctions among their children all the time. Some are favorites; this one is a black sheep; that one must remain unmarried in order to care for the parents (i.e. cultural distinctions). Sometimes, their children even seem 'alien' to them, a rotten-egg, so to speak. Family psychologists write about things like "middle child syndrome", too, and any number of dynamics that might be 'unconscious'. These are all 'emotional orphanings' or 'developmental hurdles' in one way or the other. It's just to say that there is not often so much 'ideal' in the ideal, as I mentioned above.

Is 'biological orphaning' more important than all these others? The answer is probably, "it depends" (at least, that's my experience. It appears to be in some cases rated highly by children, but in others, far less so). Assuming one did put the maximum weight on it, would one propose that gay parenting involve at least one of the parents be the progenitor of the child?

I don't think your view of marriage is historically accurate, but I do agree that what you express is currently the dominant belief.

I would eschew your epiphyte analogy, because I don't like that kind of language, but I would probably affirm your belief that many do seem to take the position of "marriage" in current mores too easily for granted, as a ceteris paribus, if you will. All the same, I think this is a strong argument for why 'traditionalists' ought to look carefully at the 'conservative case' for gay marriage, not look away from it so readily.

MeToo | April 18, 2007, 5:51am | #

Fitz,

I wish Blankenhorn would skim this thread.

Here are my reflections on his comments, "Goods in Conflict?"

I've already shown why "goods in conflict" is not the only way to conceive of the issue. See above, items "4a" and 5a.

1. Being against gay marriage should not mean being against gay people.

That is a most welcome, given that the tenor has been quite different. However, how is this carefully circumscribed "status" so much different than how jews were treated in medieval Europe, as a scorned, vestigal faith-group to be kept in "their place"?

2. There are two sides to this argument.

Well, I can think of at least seven!:
1. Non-gay people who affirm marriage, with subsets for every faith that has a different view of what it implies.
2. Non-gay people who affirm marriage, but who have, nevertheless, made de facto changes to its doctrinal import as it applies to them.
3. Non-gay people who affirm marriage, with various subsets for other relationship formal recognition (and for polygamy, for instance, in parts of the world governed by Islamic law).
4. Non-gay people who do not affirm "marriage" at all, with subsets for a host of ideas about why.
5. Gay people who affirm "marriage", on a "conservative case" basis
6. Gay people who affirm "marriage", but on an indifferent or non-conservative basis
7. Gay people who do not affirm "marriage" at all, with subsets for a host of ideas about why

Do you believe that both sides have a valid case?

All of these people believe they have a "valid case", yes?

Can you propose one genuinely good reason to oppose gay marriage?
Yes. All are "good reasons" in the sense that they appear to be rational arguments:
1. If you believe that marriage is wrong or harmful or unduly burdensome.
2. If you believe that biological ties to children are harmful, promoting tension and competition, instead of communal bliss and communal values
3. If you believe that the State has a greater interest in the child, for whatever reason, than do the parents
4. If you genuinely believe that gays should be jailed, killed, or force-converted (all of these conditions still obtain in the world, so don't call me 'alarmist').
5. If you genuinely believe that 'gay love' cannot be blessed (a steep hurdle, but one that exists, nonetheless, for many).
6. If you haven't done enough work yourself to have a firmly rooted theology on the matter of gay marriage and, instead, pursue changes hastily
7. If you believe that "marriage" is poor public policy, interferring with the right of the State to restrict procreation in the general interest
8. If you are a libertine

I could probably go on.

Despite all the dressing up of his arguments, I think I might make the case that Blankenhorn is against the proposition of gay marriage because he doesn't think it is prudent, not because he thinks it is wrong.

I'll try to elucidate why that is not persuasive futher, later on.

Meanwhile, I have a question for him:

Do you think that the Pharaoh like hard-heartedness of some 'hardliners' on gay marriage can also be "cause" and "effect"? Food for thought ...

MeToo | April 18, 2007, 9:36am | #

Fitz,
On Blankenhorn's Dale Carpenter p.s.:
This "haiku" again raises the possibility that Blankenhorn could be for gay marriage, but against gay parenting (because have two loving, married parents is a privation, on his calculus, if they are the same sex).
Is that his position?

Here is one possible reply, relating marriage to parenting:

1. Marriage vows for non-gays improve the chances that, should they have a child, the child?s parents will have made commitments roughly suitable to the long-term (and sacred) duties of raising a child. If they do not have a child, their marriage is intact, notwithstanding.
2. Marriage vows for gays improve the chances that, should they have a child, the child?s parents will have made commitments roughly suitable to the long-term (and sacred) duties of raising a child. If they do not have a child, their marriage is intact, notwithstanding.

What more can society or theology ask?

To the point of near universality, parents prefer to have their own progeny as their children (as I know it, this is also true for gays and lesbians). Unless I?m missing something in the worst way, the threat to this as an ethic, from gay marriage or elsewhere, seems virtually nil.
The fact that married gay couples have fertility and adoption choices under the marriage ethic is not an ?excuse? for a unmarried person to have a ?donor baby?. In both cases, the marriage ethic continues to include two parents committed in a way roughly suitable to raising a child, should they choose to have one.

I personally know of one case in which a dear friend (non-gay) decided to adopt a child from Latin America, as a single mother. She is part of a large family (about five siblings or so) and lives near most of them, as best I recall (she is no longer in this area). It wasn?t any rebellious ?feminist? thing, it just worked out that way, for her. Given that the child is living in America and provided with a great number of other benefits, I find it hard to make an objectively conclusive case that the child is worse off for having been adopted in this way.

Rewriting point DB?s point #4, for clarity, we have: ?gay parenthood changes parenthood overall ? not just for the children in same-sex couple households, but for all children.?
I don?t see how Heather?s two mommies changes either the experience or the conception of parenthood for Heather?s friends with non-gay parents. Her friends will experience two opposite-sex parents and will aspire to the same conception, in their time, if they are non-gay. Her friends ought to come to understand that Heather has two mommies because that is how some parents are. Heather herself will have a different experience, but whether that amounts to an abject privation is much debated. Whatever the case, it certainly doesn?t amount to ?tearing down everything we?ve been working for.?

Do Dave?s foster parents, gay or non-gay, change the experience or the conception of parenthood for everyone? We?d like to think that people accept adoption as a non stigmatized family relationship. The fact that some gays might do adoption pro forma for the love of it rather than as some foster homes do it, per dium for the public good of it, hardly seems like the kind of conceptual l�ger-de-main that is going to shake the foundations of civilization, given the number of gay households who are likely to adopt overall.

On Lawn | April 18, 2007, 11:03am | #

You seem to be moving the discussion away from 'gay marriage' or the 'conservative case' for gay marriage on to both gay parenting and to other relationship recognition.

Perhaps you can help me distinguish between them. From what I read of Rauch, Carpenter (any other "conservative case" articulators I should be aware of?) and probably yourself, a plank seems to always be in their platform. That children do best when the people who are raising them are married. Is that a plank you would eschew from the conservative case platform? How is a discussion on that principle moving off the platform?

gay parenting isn't bad for non-gay parenting

One of the reasons I appeal to some basic tenants of group theory to describe what is going on is because of its well developed understanding of individual and group relationship mappings. The simple point of the above exercise is to show that these functions taken from different perspectives (which you can take as the domain and range) are not equatable, reversible, or even comparable to a large degree. That is an especially important point when these perspectives are jumped between and even conflated as androgynous interpretations of, "I would tend to agree with you very strongly that many married-with-children citizens feel very strongly about that status."

In your case, it seems you are saying that if you take a subset of mappings, specifically two disparate samples, it provides no difference in which way the groupings are formed. This is true, from my perspective.

Yet, as a whole the mapping systems are not equal. As shown above, by the time you start forcing the function to accept same-sex bi-variate combinations the function itself becomes meaninglessly acrobatic and chaotic.

These two truths co-exist because of the sampling, however it would be improper to accept the singular and disparate sampling as representative of the state or social perspective which shows no such disparity or selection.

Add to that the special meaning that a child's lineage has to them, something recognized by UN as a right to know and have contact with their heritage, and the child centered perspective becomes the real shining light in understanding what procreation responsibility is, and by extension what marriage is meant for.

It is a very specific application and explanation of why the children come first -- not the adult relationships -- when understanding the purpose and function of families and the marriages that form their foundations.

As someone who is still officially non-partisan, but with strong libertarian leanings, the simplicity of understanding is important to providing good and minimal governance. But that is another tack which may or may not take wind in this particular exchange.

The bond with "parents" is more tricky, however.

That is true. This appears to be an argument that one cannot say the birth parent is the *only* one to raise the children, or be considered in the father or mother role.

However, as I pointed out the data from foster parenting, adoption, step-parenting, etc... shows that the people who have the most capacity for parenting a child is the ones they inherit their identity from. This would be, if you can allow me to forward, the anthropological version of the group theory review of child to parent mappings.

The sociological evidence shows a specific ideal to which success can be most assured. That ideal is, as also pointed to by group therapy, children identify most with the parents who gave them birth. Parents identify most with the children they procreate. This understanding can be a great platform for development and raising of children -- if the parent chooses to take advantage of it.

And parents, whether by choice or not, do not always take advantage of it. And in each case, it is a tragedy. If I may say, the most particularly human of the tragedies are cases such as Rosie O'Donnel who's sexual preference causes her to belittle her child's need for a father -- someone he can identify with along gender similarities. But it is not so much more human a tragedy as the parent who neglects their children, or otherwise missed out on their opportunity. Or in the case of ex-Gov McGreevey, who wishes to overly orphan his daughter from her mother's life, the selfish acts that parents go through after divorce.

As with no-fault divorce, the re-calibration of the marriage ideal around the adult centered relationship provides and even institutionalizes more tragedy into the system. In this debate, I'm sure you've seen the churlish attitudes people take towards marriage. That it isn't about procreation at all, or that it is meaningless why do we even do that. My thesis is that these attitudes were formed by watching their parents treat their individual marriages as adult-centered affairs and thus became meaningless to the children. But as of yet, it is just a hypothesis.

Which simply brings us again, that to people defending marriage there is a clear ideal. It is definable, promotable, and proven. It will survive being removed from recognition by the state, but those that the state inadvertently convinces with its blind eye will suffer, as well as the state who is left holding the bag of entirely or partially orphaned children.

I say that as the duly recognized black sheep of his family :)

I hope you continue to find the time to add your insightful commentary. I am appreciating this exchange.

MeToo | April 18, 2007, 6:14pm | #

How is a discussion on that point moving off topic?

It's not off topic, it is another topic. To my mind, these are topics with import, so my penchant for full analytical rigor is on display more than it usually is. Because I can imagine an ethic for gay marriage that does not include parenting, I have to raise it, even if I or others choose to dismiss it.

I don't know authoritatively about other authors and their planks. In any case, I would only use their thoughts as a springboard, not as doctrine. The best that can happen is not to leave these things to the States to decide, but that groups of well-intentioned folks work these things out in hyper-deliberative forums, perhaps emerging with a consensus, long before any politician has to "think" about it.

For defenders of marriage, it's important that they understand that, I think. Put another way, I think that it is better that Maggie Gallagher work out an answer to her well-put question (more than one person found it to be the crux of the matter, so I?m comfortable with that characterization), since it may be better to have a 'theology of gay marriage' that she (and others) are comfortable defending as just and right, ultimately, rather than rejecting any possibility of it outright, as some have done out of fear of 'holding the line', in a phrase.

That children do best when the people who are raising them are married?

This is like one of those attitude surveys that forces a formulation on you that somehow doesn't quite seem to capture your attitude. Children may do best when they have two caring parents (rather than one), along with grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, and friends of the family - and an understanding of presumptive sacred duties to parents (a/k/a the fifth commandment). Adults may do better when they see their parenting responsibilities in the context of sacred vows.

I don't doubt that the "logic" of your mapping argument is right. It's just that I don't think that is how people understand ethics. If you send your kids to a school where there are children of different faiths, does that challenge the purpose and conception of all faith? I'd say that, by and large, kids come to understand that, on this or that topic, the Catholic kids act this way, and the Jewish kids act this way, and the LDS act this way, because that is what is right for them. I know there are some parents who intensely dislike that kind of diversity, but I tend to find it more empowering of children than threatening to them, so long as they can come to understand these difference without incorporating the old-world hatreds that have been associated with them.

I don't follow the U.N. interpretation you give. Here is the UN declaration on the child.

For good or ill, I dislike the use of the word "ideal" to cover the "most assured" case, because these are not heroic ideals, like bravery or courage. Outside deeply orthodox circles, they are more like rule-of-thumb ideals.

There are all kinds of potential needs and talents of children that parents alone cannot fulfill, so I?m not sure what Rosie had in mind about meeting the needs of a child in general. Gender similarities are also these rule-of-thumb ideals. We all know stories of boys who didn't "gender identify" with their father (say, dad was into sports and they wanted to read or dance), etc. I didn't make much of McGreevey's thing at the time I heard it except as courtroom tactics and I don't know if there is more to the story than that.

I'm aware of churlish attitudes. I commend to you a film called "The Wedding Banquet", in which two people make an arrangement, only to find out that it's not so easy or advisable to toy with traditions.

For my own complex set of reasons, I worry about the loss of a dominant, responsibility-oriented relationship ethic, even if "marriage" often conjures up for many that inimitable line from "Auntie Mame", "Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to be in an institution?". To my way of thinking, it pays to have societal 'touchstones', even if societies often provide generous latitudes centered around them for individuals, for ?hard cases?.

For myself, I'm not overwhelmingly interested in being 'gay married' by a justice of the peace or the town clerk. My druthers are to be celebrated in the proverbial Cathedral, to have a recognized place in the 'hymn of all creation', to stretch a phrase. I?m open to the possibility that it doesn?t have to be the verbatim liturgy of Holy Matrimony!

I'm willing to concede (to Kurtz and others?) that I may not have a huge train of people behind me on that, figuratively speaking only. Many (even most?) gay people have seen the Church and her teachings as instruments of exclusion, shaming and hostile indifference (including the AIDS crisis period). Where they haven't created their own Churches, many have moved on to a personal doxology, in a phrase, beyond the old institutions. Is it so surprising that much of what they have to say is shocking to traditionalists, like George, for instance? Of course, this off-hand analysis is even more tenuous because of both the changing circumstances of young, queer folk and the changes in attitudes toward religion and ?religious marriage? in general in the wider populace.

The point is, however, all this just indicates to me potentially unique circumstances to propagating a new ethic, not that one is false, wrong, or imprudent, before it even gets started.

MeToo | April 19, 2007, 5:56am | #

p.s. I was thinking about the picture of "my daddy's name is donor" on the Family Scholar's website and unqualified comments about fathers.

For what it is worth, if there were a working group convened to develop a full marriage ethic, then it stands to reason that something like that might make it to a discussion list entitled, "Pastoral care: Pre-marital topics for gay and lesbian couples".

A decided view on such matters could work its way into a broader understanding, from there.

The Independent Gay Forum

Upcoming Events

Blogroll

RSS Feed

Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn.

April 6, 2007

Comments to "Carpenter vs. Blankenhorn.":