The Law Of Unintended Consequences Applies To Marriage, Too
My children’s elementary school has a project in 5th grade that involves documenting the history of something of their choosing. Some kids pick Galatoire’s (smart kid); others choose Apple while others pick the violin. It is a wonderful exercise to educate youngsters that everything has a history and often times it is a story well worth learning.
The history of monogamy and marriage is something that calls for a modest, 5th grade style history lesson when those who support the institution are venomously called hateful by the mainstream media and its cultural leftist allies. This would be an exercise easily handled by 5th graders everywhere.
It might be of interest to readers that monogamy, or what many social scientists term Socially Imposed Monogamy (SIM) was quite rare until Greco-Roman times. Bigamy, polygamy (especially), concubines, incest and pederasty were quite common in the centuries leading up to the time of Jesus. These practices ensured mainly wealthy and powerful men had multiple wives and servants but most men were left out and the treatment of women was shocking to our sensibilities today.
Beginning in Greco-Roman times, recorded instances of monogamy were seen into the first centuries after Jesus. Early Christian leaders debated SIM and slowly over time monogamy became more widespread in practice. However, vestiges of uncivilized practices remained in many areas of the West. As the centuries went on, Jewish and Christian leaders slowly began to realize that SIM was not only the preferred route for vibrant and healthy cultures but also the only civilized and accepted arrangement permissible. Actual experiences with bigamy, polygamy, and so forth demonstrated how harmful these practices were in every respect save the wealthy class of men.
Similar to the then radical Jewish teaching of Monotheism, SIM had emerged by the end of the Middle Ages as a clear difference between many other cultures outside the west, especially Islamic portions in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Anyone who studies history realizes that change occurs over time and that change is not uninterrupted and constantly upward. There are many examples of cultures within the West who attempted to undue SIM, most notably for Americans, the Latter Day Saints (LDS) and the battle over statehood for Utah in the late 19th Century.
Western SIM evolution was so powerfully correct that cultures in all corners of the world were trending this way into the 21st Century. One need not to have a PhD in social sciences to know that two parent families are the best way to raise healthy and productive children into adulthood. SIM was so ingrained in Western and US culture that the thought of recognizing anything else would have puzzled all, regardless of ideology, religious/secular preference or region of the US.
Fast forward to 2011 and efforts to “get government out of marriage” by forcing government to recognize non-traditional arrangements are seen as necessary and proper by elites of most persuasions. Before we make this head long leap into darkness, perhaps it would be prudent for those who wish to upend SIM to let people know what will result by this jettisoning of 2000+ years of human experience. Having the US government recognize homosexual marriage will lead to the return of bigamy, polygamy, incest (especially if the daughter is above 18 years of age), the eventual lowering of the age of consent and all other manner of uncivilized practices. Sadly, all of these practices remain in certain cultures around the world. One need only read international news sites to see these stunted cultures, the savage treatment of women, teen and pre-teen girls, and general debasement, which SIM thankfully has largely vanquished in the US and the West.
When elite media types or Hollywood stars disparage monogamy and traditional marriage as an outdated and antiquated institution, the opposite is true. This would be quite evident, if only they took the time to read a little report from a 5th grader on the history of monogamy and traditional marriage, but that would require a few minutes to research and read. Removal of the long-time status of monogamy will lead to bigamy; polygamy, incest, pederasty and I see no cheerleaders in Hollywood telling the American people they support the return of these barbaric practices. Level with people here, let them know the true consequences of upending traditional marriage. It is a return to uncivilized times of old, not enlightened, forward thinking reform.
——–”Having the US government recognize homosexual marriage will lead to the
return of bigamy, polygamy, incest (especially if the daughter is above
18 years of age), the eventual lowering of the age of consent and all
other manner of uncivilized practices.”—– You should be ashamed of yourself comparing gay marriage with polygamy & incest. It invalidates any intellectual argument you are trying to make. It is inaccurate and not helpful to the discussion. P.S. Gay Marriage will further the tradition of SIM (Socially Imposed Monogamy). Obviously gay marriage is a step towards monogamy and away from multiple partners. Wow. I’m exhausted pointing out how flawed your logic is.
Truth: Gay marriage is LIKE polygamy and incest because the nearly constant argument in support of gay marriage is that it involves two consenting adults. Polygamy and incest (assuming adult child) also involve consenting adults. If gay marriage is permitted upon the premise that consenting adults may marry who and how they please no matter what, what is the alternative argument against those who would choose to be polygamist and/or incestual?
The comparison to a 5th-grade report seems apt; the rhetorical and
logical blunders demonstrated by the author deserve the red correction pen of an
elementary school teacher.
First, I have grown tired of this “slippery slope” argument, which has
nothing to do with the merits of the particular change in question, but
merely a statement of simple fear. Divorce, decriminalization of
adultery, and the elimination of covature (wherein women essentially
loose their legal rights as a person when they marry a man) were far
more significant changes. The suggestion that recognizing legally
marriages between same-sex partners would be “the” change that will
set-off a cascade of other changes seems ridiculous on its face– it’s
weight has to do with fear of such change, and likely, the simply
disapproval– if not outright revulsion– by persons who would prefer
not to see the change. Such an argument relies an emotion, and represents
empty rhetoric.
Second, the “kitchen sink” argument, where same-sex relationships are
thrown into a whole potpourri of various behaviors, statuses, and other
things considered undesirable by the speaker,
strikes against reasonable discussion through conflating unlike things.
At best, the argument seems condescending; at worse, it strikes the
listener as offensive and ignorant, as it gains its force through fear and
disgust.
Lastly, the value that the author discusses at length in encouraging SIM (“socially imposed monogamy”) in society seems curiously at odds with his arguments against same-sex civil marriage. Extending legal recognition to same-sex couples via civil marriage would reinforce this societal value, not diminish it. Such action would advance a
reasonable ideal for a democratic society; withholding it would not.
The commenter’s last point, that legal recognition of same-sex monogamy
among homosexuals furthers the same public policy end as straight marriage,
is a difficult one to make given that the purpose of families is the rearing
of children in a household with both a mother and a father. It’s impossible
to argue that homosexual marriage has the same value as heterosexual
marriage in that regard. It’s chiefly the raising of children and the
crucial societal importance of same which makes marriage a state interest in
the first place.
State your sources for the assertion that the purpose of families is to raise children in a household with both a mother and a father. Please also state the authority behind this source and why this authority is in a place to define what a “family” is. And don’t you dare cite The Bible, because while we Christians are called to live our lives by it, it in no way forms the legal or policy basis for (what should be) a secular society.
A family is what people make it to be. It is based on love, trust, and a collectivity of interests. Would you consider a cherished pet to be part of one’s family? Of course you would. Does a pet contribute to the goal of raising children in a household with a mother and a father? I don’t see how it would.
For a people who so cherish freedom from government intrusion, it is anomalous to think we would want our government to decide what a family is.
For someone who calls himself “Reality,” you seem to have a pretty flimsy
grasp of what 5,000 years of experience in human civilization has produced.
Read the author’s piece again. He handles the issue quite well. And if you
can’t understand the societal value in two-parent households, it’s pointless
to attempt to educate you on this subject.
Both of you so conveniently shift the focus here from the merits of one type of civil union to the parade of horribles that would seemingly result from an all-out abandonment of the heterosexual, two-person marriage scheme (just as Scott pointed out above–was no one paying attention?). Not a single person, from the posters on this thread to the supreme hate-monger Gene Mills himself has put forth even one convincing statement as to how letting two men or two women marry or be “unified under the law” will lead to incest and polygamy and World War III, as so many of you claim. Debate the real issue. Stop using straw men and distractions; it is clear you have run out of real reasons why you hate the way you do.
And no one has answered my first query: where does it state authoritatively that the sole purpose of the family is to raise children in a household with a mother and a father? ”See generally, history” just doesn’t cut it. Furthermore, it seems the general sentiment of this thread is that mother-father two-parent households are the only way to raise children, to the exclusion of all other forms. It then logically follows that a man whose wife dies from illness should have his children ripped from him and put into a home with a father and a mother. It also follows that single mothers should not be entitled to keep their children, in favor of immediate adoption or abortion of the child. See what I did there? It’s exactly the same thing that opponents of gay civil unions do on the opposite side of the argument. It is wrong, logically fallacious, and detracts from the real debate about the real issue.
And here’s the scariest thing for you. The country is moving in my direction. This will be a non-issue in 10-20 years, where people will not be discriminated against for who they love. Everyone in their 20s and 30s knows at least one person who is gay and has seen that person have to endure a world that people like you have created for them. They have had to live through a world where you tell them it is not okay to be who they are. Many don’t make it, taking their lives instead. One day, in the not-so distant future, when your generation dies out, it will finally be okay to be gay.
Thou shalt not judge lest ye be judged. Let he without sin cast the first stone.
That’s it – call people who disagree with you homophobes. Don’t ever accuse anyone else of bigotry, because you’re eaten up with it.
Anyone who wants to see what the failure to uphold Western societal norms brings needs only to look at Holland for the future. Failure to promote traditional marriage leads to a drop in the birthrate, which leads to immigration and which in Holland, as elsewhere in Europe, has led to Islamization. Guess what happens to gays when Muslims are on the scene.
I didn’t create this phenomenon, I’m just not blind to it. Failure to preserve and respect the cultural heritage of the most successful society in the history of the world is not without consequences, regardless of the irresponsible and selfish views of some among us.
Nobody is telling you not to be gay. Do what you want. Don’t ask the rest of us to normalize that behavior in the culture, though, unless you’re prepared for what follows.
Really???? You’re saying homosexuality leads to immigration and an increase in the Islam following? How did you make up that correlation? Did you ever consider the general theory globalization? Additionally, if this is due to the low birthrate explain why there are substantially more countries with lower birthrates without an increase in Islam. Further, cultural heritages change over the ages and successful societies do not fall simply because of failing to preserve and respect cultural heritage. The Romans and British fell from glory because of their economies and cultural heritage was relatively insignificant factor.
Once again, straw men and focus-shifting. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! There isn’t one logical reason why gays and lesbians should not be entitled to equality. This post is evidence that those against gay civil unions have run out of arguments.
And the post assumes, as Questions points out, that Muslims will suddenly flock to the U.S. in droves if civil unions are allowed. But if Muslims hate gays as much as you say they do, wouldn’t they stay away from a place that accepts gay people for who they are?
Never forget that we have a Constitution. That Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion. It also guarantees equal protection under the law. No amount of foreign or domestic influence can ever change that. I believe this discussion is closed. Thanks and have a wonderful day.
And you have zero idea what the Establishment Clause actually says.
Please give us one single example of a successful society which normalized
open homosexuality with official institutions side by side with traditional
family structure. You can’t. What you’re asking is for something no one with
your proclivity has ever had. Perhaps it’s understandable for you to do so,
but history is not on your side.
You also have no clue about Islamic immigration patterns. In Europe, when
traditional family structure broke down and birth rates fell below
replacement rates, the only way to maintain their social security system was
immigration on a mass scale. That opened the door to Muslims flocking to
Europe’s shores in such numbers that they couldn’t be assimilated. And the
same political attitudes which demanded any lifestyle choice was acceptable
were applied to those non-assimilated Muslims. Disaster has resulted.
To say the same can’t happen in America is dangerously stupid. You’re asking
this country to follow down the exact same path Western Europe has when we
know the result.
And to say your opponents have run out of arguments simply because you don’t
like the ones they’re using is the same childish and unserious thinking
which animates the entire gay rights debate. “I want this, I’m an American,
so I should have it and you’re a bigot if you tell me no.” Well, I like tall
brunettes with tight butts and big boobs and I’ve got lots of great ideas
about what to do in bed – and I don’t think telling everyone what my sexual
tastes are should make it more difficult for me to get a home loan or a job
as an Air Force fighter pilot.
1) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” And I typed that from memory.
2) Name one society or country whose government had a three-branch, single executive, bicameral legislature, independent judiciary, federal constitutional structure before the United States. But the U.S. survived, didn’t it? See? I can pose irrelevant questions to make a point just like you.
3) Going back to the evil wave of Muslim immigrants sure to break upon our shores any minute, I’m still not sure what you’re getting at here. I think what you’re saying is that allowing homosexuals to enjoy rights like the ones married people enjoy (a community property regime, inheritance rights, visitation rights when the other is hospitalized, the ability to make important medical decisions, etc.) will lead to fewer heterosexuals wanting to marry each other, seemingly because societal acceptance of homosexuality will make all the heterosexuals turn gay. (After all, keeping homosexuality repressed will force gay people to marry people of the opposite sex and crank out babies.) Not forcing this action, in turn, will cause fewer babies to be born, because heterosexuals will not want to have sex with each other any more. Am I getting it so far?
Then, because of the lack of hetero love-making and decrease in bundles of joy coming into the world, the birth rate will fall below the death rate, and the U.S. will lose more citizens than it will gain, causing a decrease in the overall population. After this continues for 500 to 1,000 years, and the U.S.’s population of 300 million + is all but wiped out, there won’t be nearly anyone left in the U.S., so Congress, assuming there are still 535 Americans qualifying to serve in Congress, will have to do something to make sure enough people are paying into social security, medicare, welfare, and other entitlement programs. Instead of doing the logical thing, adjusting services and revenue to meet the needs of a smaller population, Congress will opt to swing the borders wide open to replenish the population supply, letting in hoards of Allah-loving muslims, who will then set up shop, establishing Sharia law in every state of the union and in D.C.
Just so we’re clear, this is your argument. I think we’re done here.
What proof do you have that the fall in birthrates was due to the fall of traditional family structures? Since when is the social security system a good thing? What countries in Europe are you referring to? You continue to say things without backing them up, which is giving you less and less credibility. You claim Reality has said you have run out of arguments yet you have yet to make a cohesive argument with anything to back up what you have said. Then you go on to assimilate Reality’s comments to being they should have this because they’re American although there appears nothing in their posts implying such a thing. Also, why would you have to disclose your sexual preference to get a loan or job… wait, you DO NOT. Finally, now it seems you may/may not have removed a comment, or at the very least have censored Reality simply because you do not like their argument. You too are being childish simply because you do not like what others point out. This is not only weak but again hurts your credibility.
So it would appear from your last sentence that bigamy, polygamy, incest (presuming above 18) then are fine and government at no level should work to curb and end it? These arrangements make for healthy cultures, are good for women, teens, men? Think a minute before you go down this road to relativism. Do we want to be like parts of Afghanistan where 80 year old men marry five 12 year old girls at a time? There is no need for religious justification, thousands of years of experience have told humanity that these barbaric practices are unvcilvized and should be left in the ash bin of history.
I understand that these comparisons make some people uneasy but the simple fact of the matter is that should state governments be forced to recognize non-traditional marriages (in keeping with Lawrence v. Texas’s consensual adult standard) then what legal reasoning would prevent bigamy, polygamy, incest (as long as between consensual adults) and so forth? This is not esoteric but real. Obviously, a lengthier, more scholarly article could be done but the point of the piece is to let readers know that these ideas have unforseen consequences. For those who feign outrage that this will never happen or that homesexual marriage is in no way akin to polygamy, incest, etc, feel free to pound the table but there will be no legal reason why the latter can be prevented but the former may not. As for the decriminalization of adultery, no fault divorces, and so on, I would agree that those were much more consequential decisions and we would not be having serious discussions about upending traditional marriage without them. Those policy decisions have led us to this point but that is no rationale to further decimate the nuclear family, which has evolved over thousands of years of human history. Co-habitation is the proper route here, not opening the door to these uncivilized practices which the west rightly eradicated centuries ago.
Do you have any statistics from which to base your assumptions that there would be a rise/return of bigamy, polygamy, and incest? You say a 5th grader could do this type of research into the matter yet you yourself have failed to make even the slightest attempt to mount such a simple task. Please do this research to generate a decent argument to debate this issue, otherwise this is simply sounds like someone who just dislikes homosexuals.
Additionally, you make the argument this would lead to lowering of the age of consent but do not back this up. How and why would this happy, especially given the fact that over history the age has not only gone up, but it has also become more difficult for minors to enter any type of contract (which requires consent and includes marriage which is a contract). I will back this up with the fact that most states you cannot marry until 18 and if younger you need the consent of the parents or guardian.
Dear sir,
I demand that you return my most recent post to this page. It was my understanding that The Hayride was a reputable publication dedicated to open, robust debate on current issues. I would hate to find out that its publisher is attempting to stifle that debate.
I would also like an apology, which you may send to my private email address. I believe you have that on file from my previous postings.
Your post was not deleted. No apology is necessary or forthcoming.
Shame, sir. Shame.
As I said, no post was deleted, thus no apology will be given. So there is no reason for whining – certainly our readers won’t have any interest in it.
You have drawn a false conclusion. You are so desperate to keep homosexuals out of the mainsteam of American life that you make up statements to suppor your position. RAF
As we are not sure what happened to my last post, having mysteriously disappeared, I will endeavor to again respond to the Publisher’s post beginning with: “And you have zero idea what the Establishment Clause actually says.”
1) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .” And I just quoted that from memory. While the plain language of this portion of the First Amendment seems to apply only to Congress, it has been interpreted over time to apply to any state actor, the reasoning being that the purpose of the First Amendment would be lost if it only applied to congressional enactments. I believe this is one case where we can all agree that a functional reading of constitutional text is superior to a literal one.
The Establishment Clause largely came about in response to the UK’s state-sponsored Church of England; America’s founders, while almost exclusively Judeo-Christian, envisioned a nation where all religions would be welcome and no single religion or denomination would be superior to any others.
Modern Supreme Court jurisprudence is firm on the safeguard against the government establishing a religion, even indirectly. The landmark case of Lemon v. Kurtzman provides an appropriate test that has led to reasonable results over time, allowing an equal playing field for all religions and preventing the favoring of one religion over another. The “Lemon Test”, as this evaluation has become known, examines government actions touching on religion in three ways: 1) The government program/enactment must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) The principal or primary effect of the benefit can neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) There is no “excessive government entanglement” with religion. Two examples of cases reviewed under Lemon are McCrery County v. ACLU (holding that the Ten Commandments displayed alone above the entrance to a courthouse was not permissible under the Establishment Clause) and Van Orden v. Perry (holding that a Ten Commandments monument, displayed on state grounds as part of a host of other non-religious monuments, was permissible).
But this clause naturally creates tension with the second religion clause, Free Exercise (. . . “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof . . .), also recited from memory. A 1990 Supreme Court decision would have solved your concern of the “Islamification” of the U.S. but for Louisiana’s recent action to invalidate that decision in this state. Employment Division v. Smith held that neutral laws of general applicability do not offend the Free Exercise of religion, and any state action falling into this category will only need to withstand rational basis review (that the enactment is rationally related to a legitimate state interest). State actions almost always meet the rational basis standard. Under this decision, if Muslims were to immigrate to Louisiana, there would be no legitimate change in the function of society, as these Muslims, regardless of their beliefs, would be required to abide by all Louisiana laws of general applicability just like you and me.
However, last year, a group of legislators, led by the Louisiana Family Forum, got together to change that law for Free Exercise claims under the state constitution. Now, in Louisiana, if your religious free exercise is substantially burdened, even by neutral law of general applicability (mandatory car insurance, criminal laws, zoning, etc.), the state has to meet what is called “strict scrutiny review” for the law to apply you (narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest). It is nearly impossible to meet the strict scrutiny standard, leading Justice Black to comment that strict scrutiny is “strict in theory but fatal in fact.”
What I mean by all of this is that you should not worry about the government doing anything to establish Islam as a national religion or adopting Sharia law in any way. But what you should be worried about is the large number of religious exemptions from general laws that Muslims could enjoy in Louisiana, largely because of actions by people on your side of the gay rights debate. Therefore, if indeed gay marriage will lead to enormous Muslim immigration, your side has created the problem of which you are so terrified.
2) While I believe Questions has done an excellent job of rebutting your argument in my absence, I just want to add this to confirm the absurdity of your logic. You say that allowing gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples will lead to the Islamification of America. Is it that making homosexuality socially acceptable will cause more people to be gay? Will it turn straight people gay? Will it make straight people not want to get married? I’m not following your logic here.
Your causal chain appears to be this: gay marriage = straight people not wanting to marry = less heterosexual sex = fewer babies = depletion of the American population (now pushing 400 million, btw) = panic as to how to maintain social security/medicare/welfare = Congress, instead of reducing the programs accordingly, flinging open the borders to allow for all sorts of immigrants, even from terrorist nations = Christians becoming a minority = Sharia Law. Am I getting this right?
Cheers.