Gay Infertility

In his article CA Legislation Would Require Insurance for Gay “Infertility”,Wesley J. Smith points out that “Legislation has been filed that would require group insurance to cover gay and lesbian infertility treatments just as they do heterosexual. But, as I note elsewhere, AB 460 isn’t limited to a finding of actual infertility. Nor does it require that gays and lesbians have tried to conceive or sire a child using heterosexual means, natural or artificial. Rather–as with heterosexual couples–merely the inability to get pregnant for a year while having active sexual relations is sufficient to demonstrate need for treatment, meaning if the bill becomes law, it would require insurance companies to pay for services such as artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc. for people who are actually fecund. Indeed, since the bill prevents discrimination based on marital or domestic partnership status, theoretically every gay and lesbian in the state could be deemed infertile for purposes of insurance coverage merely by the fact that they don’t wish to engage in heterosexual relations.”

Wow! That sounds like a Salvo fake add. Too bad it’s true.

Marriage: Union of Persons?

In the Question and Answer I did for the American Family Association about same-sex ‘marriage,’ I argued that marriage is not a union of persons, but a specifically sexual union between a man and a woman publically recognized because of its potential fecundity. But this raised a question: how do I know marriage is a union of a man and a woman? How do I know marriage is not simply a union of persons?

To answer this question, I did a Reductio ad absurdum on the opposite view. I asked my readers to consider what it would mean is marriage actually did mean the union of two consenting adults. I explained that there would then be only two options. I quote:
.

The first option would be that while marriage hasn’t always been the union of persons, this is what marriage ought to be now. The second option is that marriage always has been the union of two consenting adults.

If marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman, then saying that this discriminates against same-sex couples would be like saying that a club
which has always been for golf discriminates against tennis players.

Now if both these options are problematic—and I will argue that they are—the only option left is to say that marriage is not a union of persons per se, but the union specifically of a man and a woman.
.
So let me explain why the first option—that while marriage hasn’t always been the union of persons, this is what marriage ought to be now—is so problematic. The problem with saying that marriage ought to mean the union of persons while acknowledging that historically this just hasn’t been the case, is that the whole case for same-sex ‘marriage’ then collapses. This is because 99% of the case for same-sex ‘marriage’ rests on the notion that what is being sought is not a qualitative change to the definition of marriage but simply a quantitative enlargement of the pool of people allowed to marry. But if we acknowledge that up to now the institution of marriage has never meant a union of persons, then that is essentially to concede the argument, since it implies that no one has been discriminating against couples of the same sex any more than they have been discriminating against an individual who wishes to “marry” himself or individuals who might wish to include polyandry in the definition of marriage. If up to now marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman, then while we might be able to speak of a government discriminating against a black man by denying him the right to marry a white woman, it would not be coherent to talk about government discriminating against people wanting to marry someone of the same sex since such a contingency is incoherent according to the terms of the institution itself. Indeed, if marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman, then saying that this discriminates against same-sex couples would be like saying that a club which has always been for golf discriminates against tennis players. The only way to get around this and to still maintain that marriage has previously referred to a union of a man and a woman would be to simply assert that the definition ought to be changed. That would be like saying that the golf club ought to become a golf-and-tennis-club. But this is not what is being pushed, because if it was, then it would negate the claim that homosexuals have been victims of unequal treatment. In reality they are no more the victims of unequal treatment than tennis players who are told they can only play golf at the golf club.
.
The other option left is what I mentioned a minute ago, namely that marriage has not previously referred exclusively to the union of a man and a woman, but that it always has been the union of persons. That would be like someone claiming that the golf club had actually always been a golf-and-tennis club. Now suddenly the issue becomes an empirical question that can be verified on historical grounds. Someone taking this position would need to maintain that the gender of the persons has always been accidental in an Aristotelian sense. But notice what follows — We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons; that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is, but additions to it; that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the “union of persons” happened to be members of the opposite sex; that “man and wife” were never something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species of the genus “union of persons.” These are historical claims that we can verify empirically, in the same way as we could verify it if someone claimed the golf club had always been a golf and tennis club.
.
As we look at the facts, we find that this has never been how the institution was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome, which might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of persons. Given the fact that it was only fifty years ago that marriage stopped being understood in conjugal terms, it simply will not do to say that “man and woman” has always been a subset of “persons.” Ergo, those who take the view that marriage always has been the union of persons are pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history, the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has actually always been the union of persons. That would be about as absurd as saying that everyone in the golf club had really belonged to a golf-and-tennis-club or a golf-and-water-sports club or a golf-and-chess-club without realizing it.
.
Let’s be clear, the fact that marriage has never been understood as a union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty. However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge since their case for “equal access” depends on maintaining some degree of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. They want to appropriate these norms to themselves without having the courage to admit that what they are really doing is restructuring, rearranging and changing the essence of the institution itself.

Consider
what it would mean is marriage actually did mean the union of two
consenting adults. There would then be only two options. The first
option would be that while marriage hasn’t always been the union of
persons, this is what marriage ought to be now. The second option is that marriage always has beenthe union of two consenting adults.Now if both these options are problematic—and I will argue that they
are—the only option left is to say that marriage is not a union of
persons per se, but the union specifically of a man and a woman.

So let me explain why the first option—that while marriage hasn’t
always been the union of persons, this is what marriage ought to be
now—is so problematic. The problem with saying that marriage ought to
mean the union of persons while acknowledging that historically this
just hasn’t been the case, is that the whole case for same-sex ‘marriage’ then collapses.
This is because 99% of the case for same-sex ‘marriage’ rests on the
notion that what is being sought is not a qualitative change to the
definition of marriage but simply a quantitative enlargement of the pool
of people allowed to marry. But if we acknowledge that up to now the
institution of marriage has nevermeant a union of persons, then that is
essentially to concede the argument, since it implies that no one has
been discriminating against couples of the same sex any more than they
have been discriminating against an individual who wishes to “marry”
himself or individuals who might wish to include polyandry in the
definition of marriage. If up to now marriage has always meant the union
of a man and a woman, then while we might be able to speak of a
government discriminating against a black man by denying him the right
to marry a white woman, it would not be coherent to talk about
government discriminating against people wanting to marry someone of the
same sex since such a contingency is incoherent according to the terms of the institution itself.

Indeed, if marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman,
then saying that this discriminates against same-sex couples would be
like saying that a club which has always been for golf discriminates
against tennis players. The only way to get around this and to still
maintain that marriage has previously referred to a union of a man and a
woman would be to simply assert that the definition ought to be
changed. That would be like saying that the golf club ought to become a
golf-and-tennis-club. But this is not what is being pushed, because if
it was, then it would negate the claim that homosexuals have been
victims of unequal treatment. In reality they are no more the victims of
unequal treatment than tennis players who are told they can only play
golf at the golf club.

The other option left is what I mentioned a minute ago, namely that
marriage has not previously referred exclusively to the union of a man
and a woman, but that it always has been the union of persons. That
would be like someone claiming that the golf club had actually always
been a golf-and-tennis club. Now suddenly the issue becomes an empirical
question that can be verified on historical grounds. Someone taking
this position would need to maintain that the gender of the persons has
always been accidental in an Aristotelian sense. But notice what follows
– We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always
been a variant of the union of persons; that biology and the possibility
of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is, but
additions to it; that consummation was never central to the completion
of a marriage since only practical when the “union of persons” happened
to be members of the opposite sex; that “man and wife” were never
something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species
of the genus “union of persons.” These are historical claims that we can
verify empirically, in the same way as we could verify it if someone
claimed the golf club had always been a golf and tennis club.

As we look at the facts, we find that this has never been how the
institution was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome, which
might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of
persons. Given the fact that it was only fifty years ago that marriage
stopped being understood in conjugal terms, it simply will not do to say
that “man and woman” has always been a subset of “persons.” Ergo, those
who take the view that marriage always has been the union of persons
are pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most
of human history, the laws, customs, culture and language built up
around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage
actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has
actually always been the union of persons. That would be about as absurd
as saying that everyone in the golf club had really belonged to a
golf-and-tennis-club or a golf-and-water-sports club or a
golf-and-chess-club without realizing it.

Let’s be clear, the fact that marriage has never been understood as a
union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty.
However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a
novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage
as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is
something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge
since their case for “equal access” depends on maintaining some degree
of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. They want to
appropriate these norms to themselves without having the courage to
admit that what they are really doing is restructuring, rearranging and
changing the essence of the institution itself.

- See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/04/qa-about-same-sex-marriage#sthash.Q6yhveq2.dpuf

Consider
what it would mean is marriage actually did mean the union of two
consenting adults. There would then be only two options. The first
option would be that while marriage hasn’t always been the union of
persons, this is what marriage ought to be now. The second option is that marriage always has beenthe union of two consenting adults.Now if both these options are problematic—and I will argue that they
are—the only option left is to say that marriage is not a union of
persons per se, but the union specifically of a man and a woman.

So let me explain why the first option—that while marriage hasn’t
always been the union of persons, this is what marriage ought to be
now—is so problematic. The problem with saying that marriage ought to
mean the union of persons while acknowledging that historically this
just hasn’t been the case, is that the whole case for same-sex ‘marriage’ then collapses.
This is because 99% of the case for same-sex ‘marriage’ rests on the
notion that what is being sought is not a qualitative change to the
definition of marriage but simply a quantitative enlargement of the pool
of people allowed to marry. But if we acknowledge that up to now the
institution of marriage has nevermeant a union of persons, then that is
essentially to concede the argument, since it implies that no one has
been discriminating against couples of the same sex any more than they
have been discriminating against an individual who wishes to “marry”
himself or individuals who might wish to include polyandry in the
definition of marriage. If up to now marriage has always meant the union
of a man and a woman, then while we might be able to speak of a
government discriminating against a black man by denying him the right
to marry a white woman, it would not be coherent to talk about
government discriminating against people wanting to marry someone of the
same sex since such a contingency is incoherent according to the terms of the institution itself.

Indeed, if marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman,
then saying that this discriminates against same-sex couples would be
like saying that a club which has always been for golf discriminates
against tennis players. The only way to get around this and to still
maintain that marriage has previously referred to a union of a man and a
woman would be to simply assert that the definition ought to be
changed. That would be like saying that the golf club ought to become a
golf-and-tennis-club. But this is not what is being pushed, because if
it was, then it would negate the claim that homosexuals have been
victims of unequal treatment. In reality they are no more the victims of
unequal treatment than tennis players who are told they can only play
golf at the golf club.

The other option left is what I mentioned a minute ago, namely that
marriage has not previously referred exclusively to the union of a man
and a woman, but that it always has been the union of persons. That
would be like someone claiming that the golf club had actually always
been a golf-and-tennis club. Now suddenly the issue becomes an empirical
question that can be verified on historical grounds. Someone taking
this position would need to maintain that the gender of the persons has
always been accidental in an Aristotelian sense. But notice what follows
– We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always
been a variant of the union of persons; that biology and the possibility
of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is, but
additions to it; that consummation was never central to the completion
of a marriage since only practical when the “union of persons” happened
to be members of the opposite sex; that “man and wife” were never
something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species
of the genus “union of persons.” These are historical claims that we can
verify empirically, in the same way as we could verify it if someone
claimed the golf club had always been a golf and tennis club.

As we look at the facts, we find that this has never been how the
institution was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome, which
might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of
persons. Given the fact that it was only fifty years ago that marriage
stopped being understood in conjugal terms, it simply will not do to say
that “man and woman” has always been a subset of “persons.” Ergo, those
who take the view that marriage always has been the union of persons
are pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most
of human history, the laws, customs, culture and language built up
around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage
actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has
actually always been the union of persons. That would be about as absurd
as saying that everyone in the golf club had really belonged to a
golf-and-tennis-club or a golf-and-water-sports club or a
golf-and-chess-club without realizing it.

Let’s be clear, the fact that marriage has never been understood as a
union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty.
However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a
novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage
as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is
something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge
since their case for “equal access” depends on maintaining some degree
of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. They want to
appropriate these norms to themselves without having the courage to
admit that what they are really doing is restructuring, rearranging and
changing the essence of the institution itself.

- See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/04/qa-about-same-sex-marriage#sthash.Q6yhveq2.dpuf

Consider
what it would mean is marriage actually did mean the union of two
consenting adults. There would then be only two options. The first
option would be that while marriage hasn’t always been the union of
persons, this is what marriage ought to be now. The second option is that marriage always has beenthe union of two consenting adults.Now if both these options are problematic—and I will argue that they
are—the only option left is to say that marriage is not a union of
persons per se, but the union specifically of a man and a woman.

So let me explain why the first option—that while marriage hasn’t
always been the union of persons, this is what marriage ought to be
now—is so problematic. The problem with saying that marriage ought to
mean the union of persons while acknowledging that historically this
just hasn’t been the case, is that the whole case for same-sex ‘marriage’ then collapses.
This is because 99% of the case for same-sex ‘marriage’ rests on the
notion that what is being sought is not a qualitative change to the
definition of marriage but simply a quantitative enlargement of the pool
of people allowed to marry. But if we acknowledge that up to now the
institution of marriage has nevermeant a union of persons, then that is
essentially to concede the argument, since it implies that no one has
been discriminating against couples of the same sex any more than they
have been discriminating against an individual who wishes to “marry”
himself or individuals who might wish to include polyandry in the
definition of marriage. If up to now marriage has always meant the union
of a man and a woman, then while we might be able to speak of a
government discriminating against a black man by denying him the right
to marry a white woman, it would not be coherent to talk about
government discriminating against people wanting to marry someone of the
same sex since such a contingency is incoherent according to the terms of the institution itself.

Indeed, if marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman,
then saying that this discriminates against same-sex couples would be
like saying that a club which has always been for golf discriminates
against tennis players. The only way to get around this and to still
maintain that marriage has previously referred to a union of a man and a
woman would be to simply assert that the definition ought to be
changed. That would be like saying that the golf club ought to become a
golf-and-tennis-club. But this is not what is being pushed, because if
it was, then it would negate the claim that homosexuals have been
victims of unequal treatment. In reality they are no more the victims of
unequal treatment than tennis players who are told they can only play
golf at the golf club.

The other option left is what I mentioned a minute ago, namely that
marriage has not previously referred exclusively to the union of a man
and a woman, but that it always has been the union of persons. That
would be like someone claiming that the golf club had actually always
been a golf-and-tennis club. Now suddenly the issue becomes an empirical
question that can be verified on historical grounds. Someone taking
this position would need to maintain that the gender of the persons has
always been accidental in an Aristotelian sense. But notice what follows
– We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always
been a variant of the union of persons; that biology and the possibility
of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is, but
additions to it; that consummation was never central to the completion
of a marriage since only practical when the “union of persons” happened
to be members of the opposite sex; that “man and wife” were never
something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species
of the genus “union of persons.” These are historical claims that we can
verify empirically, in the same way as we could verify it if someone
claimed the golf club had always been a golf and tennis club.

As we look at the facts, we find that this has never been how the
institution was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome, which
might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of
persons. Given the fact that it was only fifty years ago that marriage
stopped being understood in conjugal terms, it simply will not do to say
that “man and woman” has always been a subset of “persons.” Ergo, those
who take the view that marriage always has been the union of persons
are pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most
of human history, the laws, customs, culture and language built up
around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage
actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has
actually always been the union of persons. That would be about as absurd
as saying that everyone in the golf club had really belonged to a
golf-and-tennis-club or a golf-and-water-sports club or a
golf-and-chess-club without realizing it.

Let’s be clear, the fact that marriage has never been understood as a
union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty.
However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a
novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage
as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is
something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge
since their case for “equal access” depends on maintaining some degree
of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. They want to
appropriate these norms to themselves without having the courage to
admit that what they are really doing is restructuring, rearranging and
changing the essence of the institution itself.

- See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/04/qa-about-same-sex-marriage#sthash.Q6yhveq2.dpuf

 

Five Gay Marriage Myths

Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship

We tend to think of language as something posterior to thought. A thought comes into your mind and then you find the right words to express it. Anthropologists and neuroscientists are currently doing some fascinating work on the relationship between thought and speech and have discovered that things are a little more complicated. Speech does not merely proceed from our thoughts like a one-way street. Rather, researchers have been finding that there is also traffic flowing in the other direction: how we speak affects how we think about the world on a level that our conscious minds may never even be aware. As psychologist Lera Boroditsky put it in a Wall Street Journal article summarizing some of this research, “the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express”.

There are fascinating examples of this from all over the world, but the phenomenon is just as evident close to home. In the last forty years, we’ve seen how the way people speak about unborn children (i.e., calling them “foetuses” or “lumps of tissue” instead of babies) has had an unconscious effect on how so many people think about the ethics of abortion. Or again, how we think about homosexuality has been enormously influenced by pairing homosexuality with words that already had a positive semantic range, such as gay. In David Kupelian book The Marketing of Evil, he showed that these and many other language shifts did not just happen, but arose out of a deliberate strategy for changing the way Westerners perceive certain key issues.

By introducing changes in how we speak, the media often changes how we think.

The same thing is now occurring in the debate over same-sex marriage. Almost without anyone taking notice, our society has begun to talk about marriage as a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship, rather than a union of a man and a woman. Never before has marriage been spoken about in this way and the implications are profound. Because of how the brain works, this shift in how we talk about marriage has been attendant to a shift in how we think about marriage. Unconsciously we begin wondering: if marriage is really the union of persons in a committed and loving relationship, why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to participate in this institution?

As same-sex marriage was discussed in the public discourse of various English-speaking countries (first Canada, then Britain, and now America), it was almost universally taken for granted not simply that marriage ought to refer to the union of persons, but that the essence of marriage always has been the union of persons. As a result, less and less people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual. Continue reading

Gay ‘Marriage’ and the Slippery Slope

If there is anything defenders of gay ‘marriage’ hate, it is ‘slippery slope’ arguments. The notion that gay ‘marriage’ is objectionable because of where it could lead is an argument automatically presumed to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration.

Not too long ago a friend and I were having a friendly debate about gay ‘marriage’ and I pointed out that as soon as gay ‘marriage’ is legalized, countless other perversions will follow in its wake. My friend looked over at me, and said with a smile, “You do know, don’t you, that it’s a fallacy to make slippery slope arguments?”

Well, I guess I never got the memo.

It is true that when defenders of traditional marriage used to warn about the dire consequences that would follow same-sex ‘marriages’, their arguments were rather speculative, sometimes wildly so. That is why I have never found it very useful to warn that same-sex ‘marriage’ will lead to people wanting to marry their bicycles or dogs.

Over the last few years, however, it has become unnecessary to make speculative slippery-slope arguments because we have already started down the slippery slope.

Gay Marriage is Just the Beginning

By surveying what has been happening in those nations that have already legalized gay ‘marriage’, we begin to get a picture of the slippery-slope the world has already started descending down. Consider only a few examples which might be easily multiplied:

As more nations jump on the gay ‘marriage’ bandwagon, we should expect to see many other perversions introduced. Gay ‘marriage’ is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards sexual anarchy. (This does not even include the slippery slope towards totalitarianism, as gay ‘marriage’ leads to more and more freedoms being eroded. That is a different topic and one which I have addressed in my article ‘Will the Real Enemies of Liberty Please Stand up’ and ‘Gay Marriage Threatens Civil Liberties.’)

But why is this? Why does same-sex ‘marriage’ lead to these other perversions almost as night follows day? In order to properly answer this question, we must consider the logic behind same-sex ‘marriage.’

The Logic of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

The campaign to change the definition of marriage revolves around certain principles which, once accepted, have wide ramifications in a host of other areas.

This became evident last year when the government of Britain released its consultation paper on same-sex ‘marriage.’ They continually presented the issue in terms of ‘equal access.’ In their simplistic and philosophically unsophisticated way, the issue was a straightforward question of fairness.

However, if we accept that the principle of equality means that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights as married couples (including the right to call their union a ‘marriage’), then in order to be logically consistent we would also have to say that a definition of marriage which includes both heterosexual and same-sex unions, yet excludes unions with animals or multiple partners, is also failing to provide equal protection under the law to someone or other. Indeed, if someone is bisexual, then in order for their sexuality to be fully expressed, their ‘marriage’ must include a minimum of at least one person from each sex. Thus, the argument that we should not discriminate based on sexual orientation, if carried to its logical conclusion, necessitates ‘threesomes’ at least.

The point is that any new definition of marriage the state may wish to impose on the public necessarily opens the door to an endless series of redefinitions in years to come. Unless the term ‘marriage’ is allowed to collapse into complete vacuity, it must include certain types of unions and exclude others. This is a point that most people accept, for most advocates of gay ‘marriage’ are still opposed to broadening the definition of marriage to include perversions such as polygamous unions, threesomes, bestiality or incestuous relationships. Nevertheless, it will become increasingly hard to argue against such exclusions once the logic behind calls for gay ‘marriage’ is accepted.

Remember, the main argument being used by the homosexual lobby is that of equal access. They are asserting that it is wrong in principle to exclude any two people from the institution of marriage if the two people love each other and desire to be married. As British MP Maria Miller said in her forward to the British government’s response to their consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’:

“Marriage is also an institution which has a history of continuous evolution…. So marriage in the 21st century is an inclusive, not exclusive, institution. It is available to all those over 16 who are prepared to make vows of life-long fidelity and commitment. Except, that is, if you happen to love someone of the same sex. This simply cannot be right.”

If Miss Miller’s logic isn’t an invitation to start down the slippery slope, then it’s hard to know what is. If marriage is to be a truly “inclusive” institution, then why choose 16 as an arbitrary age? Or again, if marriage is to be truly inclusive rather than exclusive, then is it really fair to limit marriage to a minimum of two people? If “love has no gender”, then why should it have a number? Or again, if the goal is to make marriage inclusive rather than exclusive, why are we not being consistent and calling for a removal of the ‘ban’ on brothers and sisters getting married?

Such questions, once dismissed as conservative scare-mongering, will soon be as much a part of the public debate as gay ‘marriage’ is now, for once you start down the slippery slope, it is hard to stop.

Doing the Family Thing

Another principle which is fundamental to advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ is that love creates the sufficient conditions for a marriage and a family, irrespective of gender. Essentially, it is the ethic of the Sesame Street song ‘Doing the Family Thing’:

Any group of people
Living together
And loving each other
Are doing the family thing…

It doesn’t really matter
Just who you’re living with
If there’s love you’re a family too…

A family can be
What it wants to be
‘Cause there’s all different leaves
On the family tree
And there’s all different types
Of families
Who are living together
And loving each other
Are doing the family thing
Doing the family thing
Doing the family
Doing the family thing

If love is all that makes a family, then where do you draw the line? Marcia Segelstein raised some disconcerting questions about this in her recent Salvo article, Family Skewed: When the Needs of Children Are Secondary to the Desires of Adults, Guess Who Keeps Losing?

But why stop at two? In 2007, a state superior court panel in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ruled that a child can have three legal parents. The case involved two lesbians, both legal parents of two children who were conceived using a friend’s sperm. The panel determined that all three were liable for child support. All three were the child’s legal parents. There have been similar rulings in Canada, and this year the California legislature approved a bill allowing judges to declare more than two parents for some children there. While Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, asking for time to consider all of its implications, activists have already promised to try again.

Speaking of more than two, the question of polygamy also looms. As the push for same-sex marriage continues, some legal analysts and other experts see polygamy as the next marriage battlefront. In a 2006 Newsweek article called Polygamists Unite!, one activist called polygamy “the next civil rights battle. . . . If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.”

From a legal point of view, it may be difficult to defend current laws against polygamy, given the success of the gay marriage movement….

Dr. Michelle Cretella, vice president of the American College of Pediatricians…describes yet another variation in the brave new world of family and parenting: the “bothies” movement. Similar to co-parenting, this configuration specifically involves a lesbian mom and a gay dad having a child together. The case of Bevan Dufty, a well-known gay rights activist, and lesbian Rebecca Goldfader made big news in San Francisco a few years ago when they decided to have a child together and share parental responsibilities. According to a story in the Bay Area Reporter, “both envision[ed] that their long-term partners would have parental roles and rights as well.” The piece went on to say that, according to the executive director of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE), the group “has several member kids known as ‘bothies,’ meaning they have two gay dads and two gay moms. Some of those families began as four-way agreements.”

Further Reading

Equality Police Want to Stop Princess Kate from Becoming Queen

MPs are trying to ensure that Princess Kate will never become queen, but will occupy the sanitized and politically correct title of “princess consort.”

The move to bring equality to the laws of succession governing the British throne, has taken a strange twist as a member of Parliament has proposed legislation that would prevent Princess Kate from ever becoming Queen.

John Hemming, MP, is attempting to add a clause to the Succession to the Crown Bill that would mean Princess Kate would be called “Princess consort” rather than Queen when Prince William ascends to the throne.

The proposed amendment is based on allegations that the current system is ‘sexist’ since it allows the wife of a King to be called Queen but it does not allow the husband of a queen to be called King. Mr Hemming said: “It’s not right that a Queen Regnant is treated as less important than a King Regnant.”

If the House of Commons agrees to add Mr Hemming’s amendment it to the Succession Bill, then the royal family could become the first victims of the British government’s attempt to ‘modernize’ the monarchy.

Further Reading

 

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Gender Wars

Earlier this month President Obama came out in support of gay ‘marriage.’ (Selections from the video in which he made the remarks can be viewed here). Moreover, the Presidents’ itinerary suggests that he will have more to say on the subject of same-sex ‘marriage’ in the days immediately ahead.
.
Everyone is talking about this announcement, together with the remarks of Vice President Biden that preceded it, as if it is a real shock. To those who have been carefully watching the president, however, it comes as no surprise. Last year President Obama told the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the federal courts.
.
DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and mandates that the federal government can only recognize a union between one man and one woman as being a ‘marriage’. DOMA also restricts benefits to married couples.
 .
The Attorney General also announced last year (on Feb. 23) that the President believes DOMA discriminates against homosexuals by denying them marital benefits.
.
The final stage in this process will either be for individual states or the federal government itself to grant legal recognition to same-sex ‘marriage.’ If and when that ever happens, we know from the example of Sweden what the result will be.
.
In an article I published earlier this week with the Colson Center, I showed that ever since 2009 when the Swedish government passed a gender neutral marriage law, allowing for homosexual “marriages,” the nation has been working overtime to try to eradicate gender distinctions from every other facet of life. There is a relentless logic at work. After all, if the distinctions between men and women do not matter with respect to marriage, then we might legitimately ask where you draw the line. If it is the case (as advocates of same-sex “marriage”, and now the President, argue is the case) that trying to preserve gender distinctions with respect to marriage is an act of discrimination, sexism, and bigotry, then why is it legitimate to maintain these distinctions in any area of life? That is the question Sweden is now asking, and the answers they are giving are hardly reassuring. To read my article about this, click on the following link:
.