Response to Minnesota Marriage Minute video, Episode 18

Minnesota for Marriage has another video out, Episode 18. Once again, they're abusing statistics.

Give it a look, if you haven't seen it yet.

The question they're addressing today is

“Aren’t committed gay and lesbian relationships just the same as marriage relationships?”

They, of course, conclude that there's something very different about committed same-sex relationships.

No doubt many gay and lesbian couples profess love for one another but studies of gay relationships show that they are fundamentally different than the marriage relationship.

Really? Well, let's what these studies say.

"Marriage is characterized by by a lifelong commitment of both love and fidelity. Indeed, fidelity is universally expected in marriage, however, fidelity and monogamy are fundamentally lacking in many gay relationships. One recent study by gay researchers at San Francisco State University found that only 45% of gay male relationships are based on an expectation of monogamy. Other studies have put the percentage of gays and lesbians in open relationships as high as 75%. The New York Times wrote an article about this entitled "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret." The article said that couples having sex outside of their marriage might point the way for the survival of the institution. Dan Savage, a prominent gay sex counselor, is an outspoken advocate of open relationships, not only among the gay community, but among married heterosexual couples as well. He says, quote, "Monogamy is ridiculous and people aren't any good at it. We're not wired for it, we didn't evolve to be. It's unnatural, and it places a tremendous strain on our marriages, and our long-term commitments to expect them to be effortlessly monogamous." This attitude by the nation's leading media and gay advocacy voices shows how redefining marriage will impact all of society. If marriage is redefined to be genderless, our marital expectations will be challenged and the norm of monogamy and fidelity will be undermined. This would have profound adverse effects on children, parenthood, social responsibility, and the public good." 

So, what's wrong with their argument? Several things. First, take a look at "Indeed, fidelity is universally expected in marriage. . ." All you have to do is look at any polygamous culture (such as some in the Middle East) to falsify that statement. Or, you could look right here in the United States. Wikipedia cites numbers of 15% of married hetero couples having agreements that would allow extramarital sex (unfortunately, the most recent study on the issue that Wikipedia cites is from 1983, and when I poked around on Google Scholar for more recent studies about hetero open relationships, I was unable to find anything useful. Perhaps someone else knows of something?).

Second, they don't actually address the New York Times article they cite (found here). They simply take it as a given that the article is clearly wrong. Some passages from the article:

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

[. . . ]

According to the research, open relationships almost always have rules.

[. . . ]

A couple since 2002, [Chris and James] opened their relationship a year ago after concluding that they were not fully meeting each other’s needs. But they have rules: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. “We check in with each other on this an awful lot,” said James, 37.

Notice that it's not exactly willy-nilly, sex with whomever they please when they please.

That transparency can make relationships stronger, said Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology.” 

“The combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust,” Mr. Quirk, of Oakland, said. 

“The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

Yeaaaaaa. . . . What's the divorce rate right now? Among heterosexual couples? Even if they can't agree with having open marriages, I suspect that an awful lot of couples could learn a thing or two about openness, honesty, trust, and communication from couples that have successfully negotiated open relationships. At any rate, Yanta did not address the reasons the New York Times said that open marriage may show a way to save the institution of marriage.

Now, the Dan Savage part annoys me for a couple of reasons. One, is it shows Dan Savage using the naturalistic fallacy when he calls monogamy "unnatural." I could just as easily say "Using chemotherapy to treat cancer is unnatural, therefore, using chemotherapy is bad." More importantly for this post however, is the implicit assumption by Yanta and Minnesota for Marriage that Dan Savage speaks for the the LGBT community. He doesn't. Yes, he's prominent. However, Pat Robertson is also prominent, but he does not speak for the entire Christian community. Even the Pope doesn't speak for every Catholic.

However, what's really wrong with this video is that the argument it makes and conclusion it draws really aren't connected. Let's assume for the sake of argument that an important quality of marriage is monogamy and not having sex outside your monogamous marriage, i.e., fidelity (note that being polyamorous, I obviously don't truly agree with that, but I'm willing to see what it does to the argument). Nothing in the New York Times article or the quote by Dan Savage, nor in the statistics quoted by Yanta, demonstrates that same-sex relationships are inherently different from heterosexual relationships. All it demonstrates is that a large number of homosexual people (and also some heterosexual and bisexual people) do not yet accept the idea of monogamy as a value. If Yanta's argument could be said to demonstrate that gay relationships are inherently different from straight relationships because a percentage of gay people are in open relationships, then Yanta's argument must also be said to demonstrate that straight relationships are inherently different from straight relationships because a percentage of straight people are in open relationships. That seems a contradiction, wouldn't you agree?

The importance of fidelity is separate from whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, and judging by the prevalence of adultery (without an agreement to be open), is a point that you would need to make to the heterosexual couples at least as much as you would to gay couples. Many same-sex couples would (and do) actually agree that fidelity and monogamy are important (25% - 55%, based on Yanta's own stats), and may very well join you in making that argument. That is, if you weren't sidelining them by claiming that their relationships are obviously inherently different from yours, or inherently wrong.

(As I was writing all of the above, another thought occurred to me. Is it possible that one of the reasons a larger percentage of gay relationships are open is precisely because gay relationships are marginalized by mainstream society? If you're being told that your attractions and relationships are wrong even though it is simply a part of who you are, and you are not harming anyone, then I would not find it at all surprising if that led to you being willing to buck society by trying out new relationship models.)

Minnesota Marriage Minute video, a response to Episode 17

Minnesota for Marriage has released Episode 17 of their Minnesota Marriage Minute video series, this time addressing the question:

Shouldn't marriage be redefined to accommodate the growing number of children of gay and lesbian couples?

Obviously, their answer is going to be "No." The interesting part is what reasons they give for saying "no," through the voice of Kalley Yanta. Yanta starts by saying that there are actually very few same-sex couples raising children, only 22% of same-sex couples in fact, using numbers from the Williams Institute at UCLA. It appears that Yanta's numbers may be out of date, actually, as the number is actually closer to 17%. The US Census Bureau (which the Williams Institute based some of it's numbers on) found some errors and revised their numbers in Sept, '11. The Williams Institute prepared a new snapshot using the revised numbers. Yanta does also use some numbers pulled from the Census data.

So, basically, when I checked the numbers and did the math, I came up with 0.21 percent of households in the US are same-sex households, and 0.04 percent of the total population is a same-sex couple raising their "own" child (which the Census defines as "never-married children under 18 who are sons or daughters of one partner or spouse (Person 1) by birth, marriage (stepchild), or adoption."). These numbers are lower than the ones Yanta uses, which of course she would undoubtedly believe strengthens her argument, which goes like this:

Why should the definition of marriage, which has served us so well, be redefined for the 99.88 percent of households, in order to accommodate the desires of the 0.12 percent? 

That's her entire argument. Well, let's consider an analogous situation. Prior to Loving v. Virginia in 1967, multiple states had laws on the books that banned interracial marriages. Just as today, we have laws banning same-sex marriage. Loving v. Virginia overturned the laws banning interracial marriage, and three years later the US Census Bureau conducted the census of the US. In 1970, the total population was 203,392,031, and the number of interracial marriages was approximately 65,000. That's a percentage of 0.031. That's less than the current percentage of same-sex couples (since same sex marriage is only legal in a handful of states, compared to interracial marriage being legal in all states in 1970, I'm using the figures for total same-sex households, not just those legally married; it's certain that many of those unmarried same-sex couples would like to be married, but cannot be legally). I don't have numbers for how many of those 65,000 interracial couples had children, but obviously the percentage of the total population would have been less than the percentage of same-sex couples with children in 2010.

So, why was it ok to redefine marriage in 1967 to accommodate the desires of 0.03 percent of the population (or less, if you just look at whatever number had children)? Equality, of course.

No matter how small a particular sub-population is, we do not have a right to deny that population equal rights with the majority. Ever. One of the strengths of a republic like America is that the minority is protected from an absolute tyranny of the majority. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be. That's what the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, and the "balance of powers" is supposed to help ensure. This is part of what the Supreme Court recognized in 1967, and why they overturned the miscegenation bans that were in place at the time.

Minnesota Marriage Minute video response

For those of you not aware, this November in Minnesota there will be a question on the ballot for voters to answer:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

If approved, the Minnesota Constitution would be amended to include the following in Article XIII:

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

Leaving the question blank counts as a "No."

Now, it's already illegal in Minnesota to marry a same-sex partner. Supporters of the amendment have pushed this Constitutional amendment to prevent lawsuits from overturning the current law, and to prevent the legislature from changing the law, as happened in New York last year. It's a preemptive strike. The group Minnesota for Marriage has been campaigning to see the amendment passed, and one of the things they do is post YouTube videos called "Minnesota Marriage Minute" videos that lay their case out in short little segments. I'm going to address some of those videos in this and future posts. I won't address them all, because some are simply informative, like the first video that lays out basically what I just said. I'm also not going to necessarily address them in the order they were given.

First up, let's look at Episode 5. 

In this video, they ask "What is the common good of marriage?" The answer they give is:

"Well, marriage serves a vital and universal societal purpose to channel biological drive and sexual passion that might otherwise become socially destructive into enduring family units that have the best opportunity to ensure the care and education of any children produced by that drive and passion."

Kalley Yanta, the host, follows that up with a quote that she says is from the Supreme Court,

"marriage is '. . . fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race'"

but doesn't cite which case. My own search indicates it may have come from the decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967), in which the court overturned a conviction of miscegenation (interracial marriage), and with it, declared all anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. The part that Yanta seems to be quoting says:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

So, yes, the Supreme Court has said that marriage is fundamental to humanity's existence. It also said that it's essential to the pursuit of happiness by free men, and that the freedom to marry or not cannot be infringed by the State. They were speaking of race, of course, but I don't find it much of a stretch to apply to same statements to same-sex attraction. But I guess that's what we're arguing about, isn't it?

Let's look more at what Yanta says. A little later on, she gets into defending the idea that children do best in a marriage between their biological parents.

"The overwhelming body of social science evidence establishes that children do best when raised by their married [biological] mother and father"

Except, that's wrong. The consensus of the scientific community is that there is no evidence to suggest that being raised by a homosexual parent, or two same-sex parents,  is detrimental to children's well-being (yes, that link is from Wikipedia; follow the citations). It's true that the data is not as good as one might like, but every study to date, despite the problems they have with sample size and other things, points to children doing just fine when raised by same-sex parents, even when compared to children of heterosexual parents. It is true that children of divorced parents tend to have more issues, and possibly children of single parents, but that is not an argument against same-sex parents. A couple other links for you to peruse: Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: A Review of the Literature, and a Google Scholar search for "children of gay parents."

Yanta then goes on to say:

"No matter ones view of homosexual marriage, it is undeniable that every child born into a same-sex relationship is intentionally denied the love and affection of one of her biological parents."

But that alone is not enough to deny parents the right to marry the person they love. Interestingly, that same argument could be applied to arguing against giving unwanted children up for adoption, or sperm banks for couples in which the father is infertile, or surrogacy in cases where the woman in a hetero relationship is infertile. In each case, a child is intentionally denied the love and affection of at least on biological parent. Is Minnesota for Marriage going to argue that these are bad things?

Look again at the what they call the common good of marriage:

"Well, marriage serves a vital and universal societal purpose to channel biological drive and sexual passion that might otherwise become socially destructive into enduring family units that have the best opportunity to ensure the care and education of any children produced by that drive and passion."

Other than sexual passion, it's unclear what other biological drive Yanta and the Minnesota for [Straight] Marriage group is referring to here, but I'm going to guess 'procreation' based on the context of the whole video. Certainly that's a position I've seen before when looking at arguments against same-sex marriage. It's definitely true that many gay people have desires for children, and raising a family. Same-sex attraction doesn't change that aspect of human nature. But given that there's no evidence that being raised by same-sex parents is detrimental to children, how is it that same-sex parents could not do this equally well when compared to heterosexual parents? Indeed, it would appear they're already doing it well.

And yes, for now I'm ignoring whether that's actually a good definition of the common good of marriage, or not.

So, what are your thoughts on this video?

Dealing with a few secular arguments against same-sex marriage (part 3a, of however many parts it takes)

This is part 3a of this series, with the "a" because I'm going to have to deal with this paper in multiple parts. It's a paper written for the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. In fact, here's the suggested citation they give at the download page:

Girgis, Sherif, George, Robert and Anderson, Ryan T., What is Marriage?. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155

It looks so official! *ahem* Let's get to the arguments, shall we?

A central question for the authors is "what is marriage?" It's a good question. They argue that based on the definition, and what follows from it, is that marriage is, and can only be, between one man, and one woman. So let's look at their definition.

As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity.14 All three elements point to the conjugal understanding of marriage. (pg 252)

This then is their view of traditional, or what they call "conjugal," marriage, as opposed to "revisionist" marriage, which is

Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable.(p246)

I think you know which view I'm most in support of, yes? Well, let's examine their definition in more detail.

As regards point one, "a comprehensive union of spouses," they say

Marriage is distinguished from every other form of friendship inasmuch as it is comprehensive. It involves a sharing of lives and resources, and a union of minds and wills—hence, among other things, the requirement of consent for forming a marriage. But on the conjugal view, it also includes organic bodily union.(p253)

"Organic bodily union," if it's not clear, refers to sex. Specifically, penis-in-vagina-intercourse sex. This is necessary, they say,

. . . because our bodies are truly aspects of us as persons, any union of two people that did not involve organic bodily union would not be comprehensive—it would leave out an important part of each person’s being. Because persons are body‐mind composites, a bodily union extends the relationship of two friends along an entirely new dimension of their being as persons. If two people want to unite in the comprehensive way proper to marriage, they must (among other things) unite organically—that is, in the bodily dimension of their being.(p253)

 But why straight sex? You guessed it: babies.

But what is it about sexual intercourse that makes it uniquely capable of creating bodily union? People’s bodies can touch and interact in all sorts of ways, so why does only sexual union make bodies in any significant sense “one flesh”? Our organs—our heart and stomach, for example—are parts of one body because they are coordinated, along with other parts, for a common biological purpose of the whole: our biological life. It follows that for two individuals to unite organically, and thus bodily, their bodies must be coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole.

That sort of union is impossible in relation to functions such as digestion and circulation, for which the human individual is by nature sufficient. But individual adults are naturally incomplete with respect to one biological function: sexual reproduction. In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman’s bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one—they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together—in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one’s heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction. . . . bodily union involves mutual coordination toward a bodily good—which is realized only through coitus. And this union occurs even when conception, the bodily good toward which sexual intercourse as a biological function is oriented, does not occur. In other words, organic bodily unity is achieved when a man and woman coordinate to perform an act of the kind that causes conception. This act is traditionally called the act of generation or the generative act;15 if (and only if) it is a free and loving expression of the spouses’ permanent and exclusive commitment, then it is also a marital act. 

Because interpersonal unions are valuable in themselves, and not merely as means to other ends, a husband and wife’s loving bodily union in coitus and the special kind of relationship to which it is integral are valuable whether or not conception results and even when conception is not sought. But two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate.16 This is a clear sense in which their union cannot be marital, if marital means comprehensive and comprehensive means, among other things, bodily.(p254-255)

To recap, marriage has to involve sex, that sex must be of the type that would be used to reproduce, because bodily union, which is necessary for a "comprehensive union," has to have some good that it aims toward, and the only available good to consider is reproduction. But interpersonal unions are still valuable in themselves!

Well, here's a problem, or several. Sex has multiple goods available to it, and reproduction is not the only one available. Among these goods are intimacy, shared pleasure, bonding, stress relief, and other possible benefits. Every one of these, on their own, would be a good worth aiming toward. Taken together, I'd say they are far and above being equal to reproduction as a good toward "which their bodies can coordinate." I don't really need to remind people that the brain and the body are intertwined and interwoven, and that what affects one affects the other, do I? Placebo effect, anyone? Sex can be completely valid as a means to those ends, and never mind that it's just fun.

Furthermore, if you have no intention of reproducing at the time you're having sex, or perhaps are not even capable of reproducing, then why should the mere doing of an act which could, at another time, lead to reproduction, matter as a means of "comprehensive union"? Believe it or not, not every heterosexual or bisexual person finds penis-in-vagina intercourse to be the most meaningful or intimate sex act. For example, I've met several people who consider oral sex to far more intimate than vaginal intercourse, and in fact have a sort of "meh" emotional reaction to vaginal intercourse.

In other words, I am forced to wonder just how boring and how limited the sex life of the authors must be, for it seems clear to me that sex in many (perhaps all) of it's forms, can lead to a positive good that has nothing to do with reproduction, that can therefore be a part of a "comprehensive bodily union," and is therefore completely "marital" -- when the couple is married.

Support education, and go against Perry's anti-LBGT stance

I don't normally promote Facebook pages, but in this case, I'll make an exception. I get to support high school education while going against Perry and his anti-LGBT stance? I'm all over that! 

One Million Strong Against Rick Perry

We have to do a project for high school. We have to run a campaign to support a politician or to go against. I choose to go against Rick Perry! For his stands on LGBT Rights!! 

Go there, "Like" the page, and help out. Maybe we can get this page to really hit one million!

Anti-gay bullying in Anoka-Hennepin School District

Amidst everything else, I've recently become aware of a horrendous issue in Minnesota's Anoka-Hennepin School District. It seems that the district has a "neutrality policy" in place that prevents teacher's and other staff from discussing LGBT issues.

 Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations. 

 This has contributed to an atmosphere of bullying in the district that has led to seven suicides attributed to bullying and harassment based on perceived sexual orientation or failure to conform to gender stereotypes. The school district does have an anti-bullying policy in place, and believes that is sufficient. Clearly, they are wrong. As Dale Schuster, a former student in the district, put it back in September 2010, “How do you stop the anti-gay rhetoric without explaining why it’s wrong in the first place?”

That's exactly it. It may seem like a good idea to avoid the issue by not talking about it, and to leave contentious issues such as LGBT lifestyles and rights to parental upbringing, and I can sympathize with the idea. It's the same basic thought that exists in many groups and families "We don't discuss politics or religion, and thus avoid fights." But this isn't a small private group or family, and the results of not talking about it are playing out under the noses of the staff. It's all well and good to say that bullying is bad, and as long as its reported we'll deal with it. But it won't be reported, not always, not even most of the time. If they bother to think back to their own days in school, staff knows this.

There's stigma attached to being a "tattle-tale." It's ridiculous, it shouldn't exist, but its there. While we can attack that stigma as well, we must still deal with the source and root of the harassment and bullying, and we can only do that by being willing to talk about it.

Here's the website for the Anoka-Hennepin School District that they've put up to deal with this. I suggest contacting them.

I have a question

And it's a serious question, because I really want to know:

Can anyone, anyone at all, show me a secular argument against same-sex marriage? One that doesn't rely on religion and "God said so"?

Let me know in the comments, please!

Marriage isn't about kids.

So, a Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio wrote an opinion piece at nydailynews.com. He's not happy about the passage of same-sex marriage rights in New York. His argument is summed up with this:

It is destructive because we fail to view marriage in the context of a vocation: a calling to participate in the great enterprise of forming the next generation.


Marriage is reduced to an empty honor.

Actually, no. Marriage is not just for "forming the next generation." If a man and woman get married who are incapable of having children, their marriage is NOT an empty honor. It will still (ideally) be a relationship built on love, trust, and respect. It will still be a visible commitment to the world of that relationship. It will be an opportunity to deepen their love, trust and respect for each other. It will be many things, but it will not be empty. Children are not the be-all and end-all of marriage, they aren't even the most important part of it. Marriage is not a job, it is not a calling, it's a relationship.

If marriage is just a job for creating kids, then who cares if you commit adultery? Just make sure you don't have kids doing it. If marriage is just a job for creating kids, then why not arrange marriages with an eye toward breeding kids with the traits we want? You know, like horse breeding. Indeed, if marriage is just a job for creating kids, let's start having interviews, and deny you marriage if you don't pass. You can put forth your qualifications in a resume: "good at child discipline, and believe in strict bedtimes." Don't forget periodic reviews! "Your child disobeyed an average of 2 times per week last quarter. What do you plan on doing to correct this trend?"

Marriage is a relationship. Whether it is good or bad has nothing to do with the gender of those involved. So how about we start showing a little fairness?