Salient on Same-Sex Marriage

Salient, the student magazine of Victoria University has done a feature on same-sex marriage “Going to the Chapel

It’s reasonably balanced although, as with their article on same-sex adoption, it includes a number of commentators who support the notion, but limits opposition commentators to one – us!

However, it’s still a reasonable article and worth a read. Here’s an extract

Family First has frequently expressed opposition to same-sex marriage. McCoskrie argues that including couples of the same sex within marriage would infringe on traditional definitions of marriage. He contends that, “Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone.”McCoskrie does not think that prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminates against the gay community. He also questions whether the ‘all love is equal’ campaign is a sound one in support of same-sex marriage. “Same-sex people cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of people. A five-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man cannot marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish.”
Hague emphatically rejects the view that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine marriage. “On the contrary, I maintain that any state sanctioning of relationships that exclude some couples who love each other is cheapened by its embedded prejudice. Marriage is worth more and is more meaningful if all couples who love each other can marry.” The symbolism of denying same-sex couples the right to marry is important, according to Hague. “Making the ultimate form of state approval of a loving relationship unavailable to same sex couples signals very powerfully that we remain second class citizens, with our relationships not as valuable as those of our heterosexual fellow citizens.”

Share

27 comments for “Salient on Same-Sex Marriage

  1. Simon Fraser
    16 August 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Hi,
    I read your articles on the web and I believe that we are doing something very wrong. That is we are referring to same sex unions as marriage. This is not marriage this is a legal union. I think we are doing a gross injustice to normal heterosexual marriage when we refer to the legal union as marriage. We are helping the same sex, legal unions cause by elevating the legal union to marriage level. Please cease using the marriage term on your website and start using the legal union or similar term. It is my opnion that we are playing into the same sex unions’ hands when we use this term.

  2. Bob
    16 August 2011 at 4:10 pm

    You’re right. As we say, “same sex marriage” is an oxymoron of terms.

  3. BenLW
    17 August 2011 at 9:43 pm

    “He points to a “huge quantity of research [and] studies” that shows the stability of the married couple exceeds that of other familial units.”

    I’m not entirely sure how that is relevant? The research relates to marriage vs non-marriage, not straight vs gay. There seems to be a huge amount of variables in that research.Relevant research would be Straight couple(married or not), with no children against long-term gay couples with no children. That would check the stability of the comparable relationships, and conclude whether a gay/straight relationship is more stable. Or research comparing long-term gay couples with children (who would be the closest comparison to married couples) against married couples with children. Is that kind of research available?

  4. Bob
    18 August 2011 at 12:49 am

    No – the research relates to marriage – as always and historically defined as ‘woman and man’. Marriage has never been about man and man, or woman and woman.

    See http://www.nzmarriage.org.nz for all the evidence

    Studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable child outcomes from homosexual parenting have critical design flaws. These include non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, failure to account for confounding variables, and perhaps most problematic – all claim to affirm the null hypothesis. Therefore, it is impossible for these studies to provide any support for the alleged safety or potential benefits to children from same-sex parenting.

  5. BenLW
    18 August 2011 at 3:40 am

    That last paragraph is identical to the comment left by “amy” on the salient site – Are you two the same person? Or did she quote you? Are you quoting from the same source?

  6. BenLW
    18 August 2011 at 3:55 am

    I read through the report. Every piece of evidence relates to married vs non-married. Not one piece of research seems to deal with gay relationships.

    I think you’re measuring apples with oranges. If you aren’t you have to answer the question: Why are gays and co-habiting couples identical? Surely they give different statistics?

  7. Bob
    18 August 2011 at 11:28 am

    Quoted her – because it’s true.

  8. Bob
    18 August 2011 at 11:29 am

    Of course it doesn’t deal with same sex relationships. The research report is on marriage

  9. BenLW
    18 August 2011 at 7:51 pm

    So let me get this clear, you area against allowing non-married/Gay couples from adopting, because research suggests it is better for children to be raised in a home with a married couple. You do have evidence precluding non-married couples from adopting, but no such evidence against gay couples?

  10. Stephen.H.
    18 August 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Thank you gentlemen for this, after all I guess if law-makers do re-define “marriage” all existing marriages will be void because the contract is altered.

  11. Bob
    18 August 2011 at 11:50 pm

    Kids have a right to a mum and dad. We all acknowledge the issues with fatherlessness. We shouldn’t deliberately set out to create motherless or fatherless children. It may happen, but we should never intentionally do it.

  12. BenLW
    19 August 2011 at 3:44 am

    “We shouldn’t deliberately set out to create motherless or fatherless children”

    Your conclusion does not follow from your premise –
    1. Marriage is superior to single or cohabiting couples in terms of outcomes for children
    2. Children should be paramount
    Conclusion: Gays should not be allow to adopt.
    Your evidence does not make any mention of gender, or gay/lesbian.

  13. BenLW
    19 August 2011 at 3:46 am

    When governments change minimum wages, which change the contracts of workers, the contracts are not suddenly void.

  14. Bob
    19 August 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Hey Ben

    Perhaps you could provide evidence of a same sex couple where there’s a mum and a dad 🙂

    I don’t expect to hear from you!

  15. BenLW
    20 August 2011 at 1:46 am

    “Perhaps you could provide evidence of a same sex couple where there’s a mum and a dad”
    I’m confused? I said your conclusion doesn’t logically follow from your evidence, as your evidence doesn’t make any reference to gender. You don’t seem to have addressed that issue?

  16. Bob
    20 August 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Marriage is about gender.

    You simply won’t acknowledge that marriage is about gender – one man, one woman. That’s the source of your confusion.

  17. BenLW
    21 August 2011 at 12:17 am

    “You simply won’t acknowledge that marriage is about gender – one man, one woman. That’s the source of your confusion.”

    I think you’ve misinterpreted my questions. The evidence you point to measures Married vs non-married. Both these categories include heterosexual couples – so gender has not been isolated as a variable which affects outcomes for children. Therefore, you cannot come to a conclusion of gender (gay/straight) based on the evidence provided.

    I’m not attacking you, only trying to gauge the legitimacy of the connection between your evidence and your conclusion (as a proper social scientist should!)

  18. Katie
    21 August 2011 at 1:19 am

    First, quite aside from the fact that the nzmarriage site you cite is a interest of the Focus on the Family and Covenant Keepers associations (alongside other traditionally anti-gay marriage activist organisations), and thus has about as much scientific gravitas as the Historical Revisionists…
    My boyfriend has two mommies. He is very well-adjusted, gainfully employed, and mentally sound, despite the lack of a father in his life. That you insinuate that he must be otherwise smacks just short of insult. I could point out how time and time again, it has been noted that the sex of a parent is not significant in determining a child’s development as a functioning member of society (rather, their character is the defining parameter). But that’s not why I’m posting here.
    You demand evidence of a same-sex couple with a ‘mom and dad’ – I’m going to assume you mean a couple with defined, gendered roles. You also imply that it is an impossibility. Funnily enough, I’m going to attempt to show you why you are correct.
    The father is a successful doctor, who raises pigs and mucks about on a farm all day when not administering to children in their little country town, and collects Star Trek memorabilia with a worrying religiousness.
    The mother manages the household, cooks and cleans, and played the larger part in nurturing me and my sister, when not enjoying mid-century lounge tunes (like Acker Bilk).
    My ‘mother’ is a man. My ‘father’ is a woman.
    This example presents two gender roles in what you might consider the wrong sexes. In fact, the sex doesn’t matter. By extension, neither do the gendered mannerisms. My mother has many feminine traits, as much as she has masculine ones – she loves pre-impressionist art, for example. My father likewise can be considered ‘mannish’ – he loves Italian motorcycles. More often than not, there is no such thing as defined ‘gender’ anywhere, much less in marriage, and the places you find both sexes sticking to what we call gendered roles are in environments or cultures where it’s considered ‘deviant’ to be otherwise, whereupon those traits not considered appropriate are hidden from public scrutiny. Note; ‘hidden’, not ‘eliminated’.
    Sorry, I guess that got a bit turgid. I’ll summarise:
    The point I’m trying to get across here is that women and men parent much the same as each other; and in the case of -good- parents, -regardless of sex-, where one parent ‘falls short’, the other tends to ‘make up’, no matter what area (gendered or neutral) they fall in.
    So, you are correct. It is impossible for Ben to give you a same-sex couple with a ‘mom or dad’, by any definition you care to shoulder – sex or gender.
    As a finisher, I would like to say that I should hope society wouldn’t deny my parents a right to marriage if my father were a woman and still loved my mother. And they won’t, thank goodness, at least not as time goes on. The drumbeat of human progress is constant. The gay rights movement is alive. As surely as those deviant, race-spoiling blacks were allowed to marry whites, so too will those deviant, god-defying gays follow suit.

    Heck. I did say I wasn’t going to post about why children are no worse off under same-sex parents than heterosex, but… I hate to leave without something more than my being lippy.
    I’d better pop at least a little literature in here, while I’m at it. I doubt I’ll convince you – but this isn’t about convincing you, this is about rebuttal. So maybe someone else will read this, and I’ll have done something.
    The following show that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents.

    http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdf

    http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

    The following show that there is no sound evidence to the contrary regarding the above statement. Note; One of these is only a brief.

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract(This is my favourite! Do pick it up, if you have the chance. It should be at any Uni library, at least)

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

    http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf

  19. Jane
    21 August 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Marriage is defined as a man and a woman because it takes a man and a women to produce children. A woman and woman or a man and a man no matter how hard they tried can not do it on their own. Even with medical advances a woman still needs a man for inseminations therefore they still can not do it alone. Each part goes into making that child genes, characteristics, and interests pass down a child deserves the right to know both halves that made them whole. Yes there are those who do not make good parents but the child still has a right to having both a father and mother. Marriage should remain between a husband and wife. We only need to watch the news or read the paper and see the difference in just five years to what the break down of the family has caused children. Growing up is confusing as it is adding in more dimentions at choice is unfair to the child.

  20. Bob
    21 August 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Gosh Katie – quite aside from the fact that the nzmarriage site you cite is a interest of the Focus on the Family and Covenant Keepers associations (alongside other traditionally anti-gay marriage activist organisations), and thus has about as much scientific gravitas as the Historical Revisionists…
    That’s what you call ‘shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message’. But the message is backed up by solid independent peer-reviewed research – not advocacy research that you quote.

  21. Bob
    21 August 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Also – have a read of this superb research WHY GENDER MATTERS

    http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Home_files/21%20Reasons%20Why%20Gender%20Matters%28low%20res%29.pdf

  22. BenLW
    21 August 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Going from don’t shoot the messenger in the first line, then shooting the messenger in the last line (advocacy research) isn’t the best look.

    But you still haven’t addressed the point of the peer-reviewed research – it does not isolate gender as a variable (gender is part of both marriage and co-habiting couples), therefore you cannot make a conclusion based on gender from that particular research.

  23. Katie
    21 August 2011 at 6:33 pm

    The resource you cite is rife with subjective sources (ie. Mary-Louise Fowler, Ron Brookman, Dale O’Leary), to say nothing of the site you got it from (another heterosexual marriage interest site? We’ve done that already, haven’t we?), along with a mishmash of what is called ‘contextomy’; that is, drawing out of context conclusions as proof. In fact, the entire article is nothing more than a run-on of false attribution, fueled by plays on gender-politics and appeals to emotion.
    I was particularly disgusted at the section which treats trans-sexuality as a mental illness, when neither you (or many of the authors, I posit, to any credibility) could tell me the first thing about chromosomes, androgen receptors, or potential loss of sex-specific base distributions. But then, this isn’t about how I feel.
    Suffice it to say, this piece is not ‘research’, as you put it; You cannot expect to hold your source up in front of a sociocultural sociological/psychological peer-review committee without being laughed out of the room.
    You shouldn’t consider this comment a rebuttal, nor should you expect any further comment (from me, anyway), as you have now and before demonstrated an inability to conduct your research to acceptable standard. I hate to get into ‘mud-slinging’, but it has become evident that you are unreasonable. I would also advise Ben that it’s not good practice to try and reason with the unreasonable.

  24. Katie
    21 August 2011 at 6:50 pm

    I’m sorry for upsetting you, Jane. This is a topic you obviously hold close to heart, and I don’t blame you. Children should be worried about. But you cannot blame moral decay (or what is perceived as it’s decay) on something that has been soundly shown, time and again, not to have any detrimental effects on children or their development.
    My boyfriend knows both of the halves ‘that made him whole’, as you put it. But he doesn’t consider his biological father a true parent by any means. He certainly doesn’t feel deprived for not having known him all his life, and has expressed no desire to contact him. He -would- feel very deprived should either one of his considered parents (both women) leave his life, though – a feeling which is no doubt universal to all children, regardless of the gender or shared genes of their parents. Consider adopted children, for example – their parents may share not an iota of inheritable DNA configs. Does that make the love of the child for their parents, or the parent’s love for the child, any less valid?
    That’s not to say that another child in my boyfriend’s situation might want to contact their father, though. But if you make a broad generalisation by speaking for an idea – a hypothetical child who cries for a mother and father, when your example child does not exist – you do a disservice to all children and who they consider their real parents, by implying a child cannot or shouldn’t be fulfilled by having two same-sex and/or totally unrelated parents, and accusing them of deviance if they do have those feelings. A child needs parents – people who know they love them unconditionally, and in turn are loved. Gender (much less genes) doesn’t warp that kind of love.

  25. Bob
    21 August 2011 at 7:27 pm

    I forgot to recommend this site also

    http://www.nzmarriage.org.nz

  26. Jane
    21 August 2011 at 11:04 pm

    I never said I was upset just pointing out ‘it take two to tango’ if you know what I mean. That’s great the your boyfriend turned out well but unfortunately I too know people in a similar situation who didn’t. There is a reason people feel the need to research family trees there is a connection through biological family links. But the fact still remains men and woman need each other to create children. Yes I can blame moral decay from the break down of famalies you have entire generations of children lost because they don’t know who they are or where they come from. To be honest if the traditional family unit was more supported (granted there are circumstances such as death that are unforeseen) then there would be less children being placed for adoption. Coming from a back ground where I have been very involved in many schools for years I have seen first hand the confusing damage caused by confused children.

Comments are closed.