Ms. Sharpf asserts in her letter:

The homosexual movement is saying that the moral laws designed by man are better than the laws that God gave us to live by, and everyone should just accept that, live by them and "shut up."

This illustrates the paranoia of the religious right. Nobody wants to force Ms. Sharpf to accept their sexual morals or to abandon the moral laws that (she believes) "God gave to us to live by". Rather, we feel that Ms. Sharpf's beliefs that God disapproves of same-sex marriage (or anyone else's religious beliefs about marriage) should have no role in formulating public policy.

Our society has substantial disagreement about exactly constitutes "the laws God [or gods, or no god] gave us to live by", but yet we need to formulate government policy together. We can get into a never-ending theological fight, or we can base our government policies on protecting individual rights and advancing the common good, leaving the enforcement of some of "the laws God gave us to live by" to our families, religious communities, or individual consciences. That's not saying that "the moral laws designed by man are better than the laws that God gave us to live by", that's just saying some should play a role in public policy and some shouldn't.

Furthermore, Ms. Sharpf asserts that children of same-sex marriages

will know no boundaries on sexual behavior.

This is nonsense. Yes, they probably will have different boundaries on sexual behavior than Ms. Sharpf. But that's very different than having no boundaries.

It's similar to the stupid use of "family values" to describe conservative values and "values voters" to describe the conservative Christian segment of the electorate. The implication is that those who disagree lack values. I find this offensive: I have strong values, values which include rejecting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I googled Ms. Sharpf and came up with a few wonderfully amusing nuggets she had posted:

First, she has a webpage at: http://www.honestyshome.com/AboutBev.html. This site includes the following "Prayer for America: "Father, in the name of Jesus, I pray for the great sleeping giant, the church. I pray she would awake to righteousness and holiness in every denomination, in every body of believers, and slumber no longer.

I pray we would begin to unify under the blood-stained banner of the cross and preach the gospel of the kingdom clearly and boldly.

I pray that we will not only stand up and speak up but that we will begin to reap a great harvest in our nation, bringing multitudes to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I pray that You would restore a social conscience to our nation, that our nation would be restored to godly integrity and excellence, so that our children and our citizens can be proud to be called citizens of America.

May the revival of the saints be so all-encompassing that it effects the spiritual complexion of our entire nation and influences our politics, our economy, our media and our entire society.

In the name of Jesus, Amen"

She is also a big supporter of "Restore America" as well.

...and I'll give HER $100 if she can demonstrate that her godly values are closer to the gospel Jesus than Adolf Hitler! Which monies will also go unclaimed!

Thx for the URL!

"Father, in the name of Jesus, I pray for the great sleeping giant, the church. I pray she..." Ms. Sharpf

"..she..". That's interesting. The church is a she. I did not know that.

"PHOENIX -- Arizona voters will decide again in November whether to change the state's constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

<h1>A 16-4 vote by the state Senate on Friday night sends the gay marriage ban to the ballot. It had previously been approved by the House. "</h1>

Another state bites the dust. From law to Constitution. States rights, baby!

You want proof of all the harm caused by gay marriage? It's all laid out here.

I'll accept the money at my Paypal account.

Yes, here we have a plea for the social control that religionists have tried to assert for thousands of years. Lies don't hold up to knowledge and truth, they never have. Every advance of mankind has been accompanied by turmoil within organized religion as preachings adjust to undeniable truth... what is blasphemous one day is not only recognized as common the next, but as an ever- present and cherished element at the core of our daily lives. Dogmatically what happens when values of love and messages of peace are contorted into rally cries of hate and lust for revenge? Why, we rally 'round things like "the blood stained banner of the cross". How human sacrifice. Sorry, I like to think we can can get beyond all that, as we must if we are to survive as a species.

Hey, Carl,

When we lived in Paso Robles (A Little Bit of Texas in the Gut of California) one of the most articulate advocates of same sex marriage was our VERY conservative Republican realtor. "It's all about economics," he liked to say... and then he echoed your sentiments: "More marriages = more divorces = more homes on the market & more people looking for new ones."

Of course, if you're a free market conservative you could see that as an economic benefit which would offset what Ms. Sharpf sees as obviously dire and ugly social consequences.

I dunno. Whatever, I'm getting married in October and Ms. Sharpf can come by an burn a cross on my lawn for Thanksgiving if she wants to.

"I'm getting married in October and Ms. Sharpf can come by and burn a cross on my lawn for Thanksgiving if she wants to."

That's MRS. Sharpf to you sonny -- "Ms." is just plot by those nasty feminists to raise women above their station as helpmates and promote lesbianism and abortion. And after all, just as Jews are perfected by accepting Christ, women aren't complete until they're joined to a Man.

Can I say "joined"?

Portia DiRossi's pending nuptials have caused me unending pain and suffering.

Within a decade, gay marriage will be commonplace in the U.S. It WILL be the LAW of the LAND. So, the bigots will have been beaten.

However, for me... that is not enough. I want justice for the years of bigotry and betrayal. Years of building up the structural violence that has been done to a class of people. When will that day come?

Liberalincarnate:

Probably never. Have blacks been compensated for the years of structural violence against them? Have women?

After the bigots are beaten, they will stop (overtly) being bigots and people will pretend they were never bigots (see William F. Buckley, Jr.). Once in a while, some idiot will say something to remind everyone that a lot of people used to (overtly) be bigots, and that person will be ostracized for doing so (see Trent Lott). But as far as payback goes, the best you'll get is that our descendants will wonder what was wrong with us for allowing crap like Measure 36 to be passed.

"The church is "the bride of Christ", don'tcha know?" Doretta

That's deep. Still doesn't mean the church is a 'she', or rather, not only a 'she'. The church includes both men and women. I guess in this instance, 'bride' includes both 'she' and 'he'.

So in her Prayer for America, posted by Don:

"Father, in the name of Jesus, I pray for the great sleeping giant, the church. I pray she would awake to righteousness and holiness in every denomination, in every body of believers, and slumber no longer." Ms Sharpf

...she could have substituted 'he' for 'she', and still have been correct, but I suppose doing so might make some believers a little uncomfortable with the resulting image of men being brides too.

correction: Still doesn't mean the church is a 'she', or rather, only a 'she'.

Hi, Burl Ross here. Just want to thank everyone for their comments and support for my effort to find at least one harmful effect of gay marriage. I have received additional pledges from anonymous donors, uping the reward amount by several hundred dollars. But so far Bev Sharpf is the only claimant, and her argument that apparently there were never any imperfect or unhappy children until gay marriage came along seems not to be supported by, you know, the history of civilization. The post from mathematician Carl Fisher pointing out that more marriages = more divorces has an inescapable logic to it, and I consider him the top contender for the reward at this point, although Douglas K has also made a strong showing with his link to that very convincing YouTube video. Thank you both. My wife says she should get the $100 because this whole gay marriage issue is distracting me from other household chores, which may lead to our divorce -- also a valid argument. Editorial cartoonist Mike Luckovich published took a stab at the reward with "Wedding Competition" on June 18th (Google it), in which a morose heterosexual couple looks on at a flamboyant gay wedding, the woman commenting, "We can't compete with this!" Odd, isn't it, that for all the national press this issue has garnered over the past eight years (and more!) no broadcaster or pundit or politician has ever forced an anti-gay marriage interviewee to answer this question? I think my $100 is safe, but please do keep those entries coming!

I may just have to claim that reward...

How should I get a hold of Ross? Not that I really expect that I will be given the $100 if I show proof, but who knows?

Well, even though I support gay marriage, I'm going to take a shot at the $100.00 (more now?).

Here's how gay marriage will do great harm to the common welfare: since married people in general pay less taxes than their single brethren, allowing gay marriage will result in more married people, hence less government revenue. That means that the government will have to cut spending or raise taxes.

Cutting spending almost always means the loss of important programs that people rely on (K-12 education, food stamps, etc.). Raising taxes, unless it targets just the top 10%, means less money in the pockets of decent hard-working Americans. That's a general cut in everyone's standard of living.

So that's my shot at the $100.00. Gay marriage = slashing important government programs, or gay marriage = lower standard of living.

Now that I think about it, I could make a similar argument about gays having/adopting children. Man, I should become a right-wing propagandist.

I think a good rule of thumb in filtering out crackpot attempts at the "prize" like Mrs. Sharpf's is to look for an argument against gay marriage that wasn't used as an argument against interracial marriage a few decades ago.

I recall when the Loving vs. Virginia hyseria was at a fever pitch, the conservatives claimed that the institution of marriage would be thrown into complete chaos, states would lose the ability to decide institutional racism for themselves (which was, apparently, their right), and children would be confused to the point of insanity... if people of different races were allowed to get married.

Now they're re-hashing the same lame arguments all over again.

I agree JHL. I have been saying for a while now that gay marriage may well follow a similar path to that of inter-racial marriage. Five to ten years from now, all but a handful of states will likely allow gay marriage at least by some name or another.

Not to be a downer, but the danger in all of this is that we're buying into the argument that civil marriage is only legitimate if it doesn't cause any harm. What happens if in a few years a larger study is published that shows that kids who grow up in gay households do have some social problems? It's not that far-fetched given the anti-gay bigotry that still exists in schools and particularly organized sports. Or what if gay marriages in MA or CA start having higher divorce rates than straight marriages? Again, not an off-the-wall possibility if you consider that many gays who have been denied a fundamental right for so long may rush into marriage before the right is taken away.

Instead of arguing that we should allow gay marriage because it does no harm, we should instead argue that it's a matter of fundamental fairness. Even if some harm does come from it, gays should have the same right to enter into potentially harmful unions that straights do. No one questions the societal value when a man and woman want to get married. No one should question the societal value of gay marriage either.

AJ526 says, "How should I get a hold of Ross? Not that I really expect that I will be given the $100 if I show proof, but who knows?"

Well, I'm right here. What is your proof? I'm giddy to see it.

By the way, to JHL's point, David Reinhard also submitted an answer -- polygamy and incest. No proof, of course, but in my letter to him in response (which the O did not print) I substituted the word "interracial" wherever he used "same-sex", and it came out like this: "The point is that once legislators, judges and other interracial-marriage advocates head down the path of redefining marriage to include interracial couples, there's no consistent principle that would restrict marriage to couples or consenting adults unrelated by blood." This reveals the 1950's version of this ludicrous right-wing argument.

Miles says, "Instead of arguing that we should allow gay marriage because it does no harm, we should instead argue that it's a matter of fundamental fairness."

I am not arguing that we should allow gay marriage because it does no harm (it's a matter of fundamental fairness, as you say), I'm merely asking the opponents of gay marriage to show proof of the harm they say SHOULD disallow it. The point is that anti-gay activists are stating, without a shred of proof, that there is harm NOW, right NOW, and no one is asking what that harm is. Until now. Later on, when/if a study shows that gay marriages are just as prone to divorce as straight ones (as if that's a "harm"), then let them try to make the argument that gay marriages should be disallowed -- without getting rid of all those divorce-prone straight marriages as well.

Here is a collection of evidence and studies relating to your question:

“...Gay marriage "will do great harm" to the common welfare. Really? Name one. Seriously. I have $100 for the first person who can document "harm" to the common welfare or to the illusory "institution of marriage" caused by the legalization of gay marriage.”

I’m not here to have personal argument, or yelling match. I am simply doing as you requested and stating the empirical evidence. Please let me know if there are any other studies you would like to see.

All the best,

Jared

Homosexual marriages are short lived.

In a study (1) of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s, researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not." A 1970 study in San Francisco (2) found that approximately 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone. In 1977, the Spada Report (3) noted that only 8% of the gays in its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a live-in lover. The same year (4) over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: "Do you consider or have you considered yourself 'married' to another [homosexual]?" Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said "yes." The authors noted that with "gay male couples, it is hard to even suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to find a clear pattern of 'categories' emerging from the answers to the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In fact, no such pattern emerged." In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample (5) of almost 8,000 heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together was 9.8 for the married, 1.7, for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5 for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.

Variety Over Monogamy

In 1987, only 23% of gays in London (6) reported sexual exclusivity "in the month before interview." In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada (7) said that they were in monogamous relationships. In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays (8) were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and 29% only "casual sex." The authors reported that "there were almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of casual-only partnerships as into them." In 1993, a study (9) of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only 14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year. The vast majority had multiple sex partners. In 1994, the largest national gay magazine'° reported that only 17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a monogamous relationship. Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the typical 'rules.' Only 69% of Dutch gays" with a marriage-type 'partner' actually lived together. The average number of "outside partners" per year of 'marriage' was 7.1 and increased from 2.5 in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year. Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than traditional marriages? At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate many, many 'divorces.' At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These typically dissolve in one to three years. These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, both long before and during the AIDS epidemic. This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in marriage laws.

The Danish Experience

In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. (12) The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.

Studies show homosexual marriage is hazardous to one's health.

Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that 'committed' or 'coupled' homosexuals are more apt to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than are 'single' gays. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases. In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gays in San Francisco (13) who claimed to be in "monogamous relationships" were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had engaged in biologically unhealthful activity during the past year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous v. 2.2% of the unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% v. 19.6% claimed to practice oral-anal sex. In a sample of London gays (6) in 1987, those infected with HIV were more apt to have regular partners than those not so infected. In 1989, Italian researchers (14) investigated 127 gays attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady partners v. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The investigators remarked that "to our surprise, male prostitutes did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous six months) carried the highest relative risk." During 1991-92, 677 gays in England (15) were asked about "unprotected anal sex." Those who had 'regular' partners reported sex lives which were "about three times as likely to involve unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as 'casual/one-night stands."' Sex with a regular partner "was far more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating high-risk behaviour." A 1993 British sexual diary study (16) of 385 gays reported that men in "monogamous" relationships practiced more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It concluded that "gay men in a Closed relationship... exhibit... the highest risk of HIV transmission." In 1992, a sample (17) of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that "gay men in primary relationships are significantly more likely than single men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse." Similarly, a 1993 sample (18) of gays from Barcelona, Spain practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with casual pick ups. Even a 1994 study (19) of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that "the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,... was very consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the relationship grew."

Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians. In 1996, (21) Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality." The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage, established by a nationwide federal government survey (22) of 6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report (23) higher rates of violence, a rate of about 20% to 25% per year. When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian relationships, the following evidence emerges: In 1987, (24) 48% of 43 lesbian, and 39% of 39 gay Georgia couples reported domestic violence. In 1988, (25) 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted upward for reporting by only one partner in the couple (i.e., "only one side of the story"), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year. In 1989, (26) 284 lesbians were interviewed who were involved "in a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship" during the last 6 months. Adjusted for reporting by just one partner, an estimated 43% of the relationships were violent in the past year. In 1990, (27) nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles reported domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had children living with them, 11 lived in "violent" and 11 in "nonviolent" relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic violence. Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.

Homosexuals make poor parents.

Fewer than 20 empirical studies have been done on homosexual parents. These studies have been small, biased, and generally fail to address many of the traditional concerns regarding homosexual parenting. However, the limited evidence they have generated supports what common sense would expect. The largest study, (30) and the only one based on a random sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to:

report having had sex with a parent, experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter, be sexually molested, become homosexual or bisexual, and report dissatisfaction with their childhood.

The various studies, (31) added together, suggest that the children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than children raised by the traditionally married. Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue, (32) that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested. Finally, substantial evidence (31) suggests that children of homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and taunted by their peers.

<hr/>

References 1. Weinberg, M.S. Williams, C.J. Male homosexuals: their problems adaptations. NY: Penguin, 1975. 2. Bell, A. P. Weinberg, M.S. Homosexualaies NY:Simon Schusver, 1978. 3. Spada, J. The Spada repon. NY:Sigmet, 1979 4. Jay, K. Young, A. The gay report. NY:Summit, 1979. 5. Blumstein, P. Schwartz, P. American couples NY:Morrow, 1983. 6. Hunt, A. J., et al. Genitourinary Medicine, 1990, 66, 423427. 7. Orr, K., Morrison, K. Doing it in the 90s. Univ. Toronto Laval Universities, 1993. 8. Kippax, S., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 257-263. 9. Osmond, D. H., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1994, 84, 1933-1937. 10. Lever, J. Advocate, Issue 661/662, August, 23, 1994, 15-24. 11. Deenen, A. A., et al. Archives Serual Behavior,1994, 23, 421431. 12. Wockner, R. Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 1997, 26. 13. McKusick, L., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1985, 75, 493-496. 14. Franceschi, S., et al. Lancet, 1989, 1, 42. 15. Dawson, J. M., et al. AIDS, 1994, 8, 837-841. 16. Coxon A.P.M., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 877-882. 17. Hoff, C.C., et al. I Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 1997, 14, 72-78. 18. Wang, J. et al. Soc Sci Med, 1997, 44, 469-77. 19. Stevens, P. E. Soc Sci Med, 1994, 39,1565-78. 20. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. L., Wellum, S. The longevity of homosexuals. Omega, 1994, 29, 249 272. 21. Holt S. Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay Lesbian Times, 9126196, p. 39. 22. Sorenson, J, et al.. Amer I Public Health. 1996, 86, 3540. 23. Ellis, D. Violence Victims, 1989, 4, 235-255. 24. Gardner, R. Method of conflict resolution correlates af physical aggression victimization in heterosezual, lesbian, gay male couples. Unpub Doc Dis, U Georgia, 1988. 25. Waterman, C.K, et al. J Sel Research 1989, 26, 118 124. 26. Lockhart, L.L., et al. I Interpersanal Vialence, 1994, 9, 469492. 27. Coleman, V. Violence in lesbian couples: a berween groups comparison. Unpub Doc Dis, CA Sch Prof Psych:LA, 1990. 28. Merrill, G. Press release from National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco various inteniews in November, 1996 with senior author Memll, Jem Lynn Fields in Chicago, Bea Hanson in New York. 29. Anti-Lesbian/Gay Violence in 1995. Horizons Community Senices. Self published. 30. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents, Adolescence, 1996, 31, 757-776. 31. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Did the APA misrepresent the scientific literature to couns in suppon of homosexual custody? I Psychology, 1997, 131, 1-20. 32. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents: a natural comparison. Psychol Repts, 1997, in press.

<hr/>

empirical evidence my ass. This is all copy and pasted from sites like the Family Research Institute and other blatently heterosexist and bigoted organizations that hide their prejudice behind "science". Over half the articles used wouldn't apply today due to being way too old. The culture of the modern LGBT community is constantly changing as the social climate around then changes. Health and disease studies from the 80's and early 90's are extremely skewed for the worst as during that time sex education for the LGBT community was severly lacking (it still is in my opinion) and many many things changed after the onset of AIDS. As for demestic violence and parenting. I am suprised you would even try siting Dr Don Cameron. Wasn't he kicked out of the American Psychological Association for gross ethics violations? Again, at the end of the day this is all copy and pasted talking points from some sort of "Our version of family is the only version acceptable" Institute that either cherry picks the quotes to make them sound best for their agenda or they just recruit someone that can legally put the term Dr. in front of their name and have them conduct a biased survey with biased results.

Regardless of whether you like the source, Jared's evidence appears legit. Congrats Jared! Don't spend it all in one place!

Miles and Burl, you say that gay marriage is "fundamental fairness". If someone fell in love with a horse or a dog, would it be "fundamental fairness" to let them get married too?

If gay marriage were natural, wouldn't gay couples be able to reproduce?

There is another negative effect of gay marriage! If gay marriage is legalized, people are going to start demanding marriage with their pets. Can you imagine the chaos? Companies are going to have to pay for employees "spouses" vet bills...

If you decide for some reason not to give the money to Jared, I will accept it.

Marshall,

Unless you show evidence to the contrary, I am sorry, but you cannot disprove my evidence. You cannot simply say "that is not good evidence." Bro, that's not how logical arguments work. It's a form of an Ad Hominem argument to attack the source rather than attack the evidence. Along your line of argument you also make the error of a Genetic Fallacy. And...following these, your argument also commits the errors of Guilt By Association and of Poisoning the Well.

I have answered the question asked. Unless you can specifically and empirically deny or refute something I stated, it does no good to rant.

AJ526, your sick argument was actually brought up in the 1960s... that if we started allowing white people to marry black people, the next "logical" step was that they would want to start marrying animals.

Didn't happen then; won't happen now.

Jared, it's like this:

Hey. I just found a "study" that says that Jared is, in fact, a horse. (Source: Me, BlueOregon, 6/30/08.)

Well, you may disagree with my assertion, but you can't deny the evidence. After all, it's been written down.

So therefore, as a horse, Jared is unable to hold property in the State of Oregon and thusly ineligible to receive the $100 prize. Bummer.

I was just using that as an example. It seems rather an extrem example, but than I could definitely imagine pet owners trying to use that to get benefits for their pets.

Heterosexual marriage IS natural and has been practiced for thousands of years. Homosexual marriage is not.

I definitely believe it is better for children to have a father and a mother who stay together for their whole life. I don't think there are many who would disagree with this.

Another Blog has researched the activities of the xtians behind this.

JHL, I strongly disagree with anybody who made that argument in the 60's. Racism is one of the things that really makes me upset. I also believe that homosexuals should be treated equally. It would make me very upset to see a homosexual discriminated against as well.

But homsexual marriage should not be forced upon society. I believe, though I have no evidence right now to prove it, that several powerful societies such as Gommorah, Rome, and Sodom collapsed soon after recognizing gay unions/marriage. I certainly do not want to see tht happen to America.

Perhaps using the example of somone wanting to marry their pets was not the right thing to do. I don't know. It just seems like that might be a valid point. Maybe I am wrong.

Nice post, Jared! There's a lot there to digest about the effects of gay relationships, gay parenting, etc, even if it is cut-and-pasted from outdated and perhaps biased sources. But my question is about the harm to society caused not by gay relationships and gay parenting but by the legalization of gay marriage. How do legally married gay couples compare with unmarried gay couples in terms of "harm to the common welfare"? How do the children of unmarried gay couples fare vs. the children of legally married gay couples? It's the legalization that is the issue here. If the righties want to argue that the legally recognized, protected family structure provided by marriage is WORSE for children and society than non-legalized family groupings, bring it on! I appreciate your input. No yelling match here. Best, Burl

I would say this is evidence of harm to society:

The Danish Experience

In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death. (12) The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women! Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.

Heterosexual marriage IS natural and has been practiced for thousands of years. Homosexual marriage is not.

1. Marriage isn't natural (though I do appraciate the institution)

2. Homosexual unions -- whether legally recognized or not -- HAVE been around for thousands of years. And if you say that "homosexuals should be treated equally," I don't understand why you would want to deny participants in a homosexual union the same benefits of those in a heterosexual union.

3. The instiutution of mariage as we know it today looks NOTHING like what it looked like throughout history. The logical extension of the "marriage has been so-and-so for thousands of years" argument is that fathers should be allowed to sell their daughters into marriage for land and political influence.

And please don't bring up the whole "ooh, it's not a biologically natural act" argument unless you're prepared to go on record supporting a ban on BJ's and birth control.

Do we know the age of the couples? Were they older couples who, after decades of being denied the right to marry, legally recognized their commitment to each other later in life, skewing the statistics? And where is the proof that any of these couples would have not ended up together if not for marriage. My guess is they would have lived together without any legal protections, risking not being at their loved one's bed as they died, had they not been allowed to marry.

How is age of death an argument that marriage causes harm? If we are going to go through this exercise (which I don't necessarily think is a positive thing, but nonetheless) can we try to remain rational in our arguments? age of death, citing a sample of 39 couples (what would that make the margin of error?!)...let's rise to a level that debates the merits of gay marriage, not the merits of gay people.

"I definitely believe it is better for children to have a father and a mother who stay together for their whole life. I don't think there are many who would disagree with this." AJ526

Disagree with what? Such a vague, non-specific statement means almost nothing. There are countless conditions and exceptions to what the statement refers to, and it does not indicate at all that gay marriage does harm to the common welfare. It's probably more true that many people have been hurt by taking the meaning expressed by statements like that and attempting to live by it or oblige others to.

"Unless you show evidence to the contrary, I am sorry, but you cannot disprove my evidence."

That makes the assumption that you have proven anything. I really don't think you have.

"You cannot simply say "that is not good evidence." Bro, that's not how logical arguments work"

I said nothing of the sort. I said "empirical evidence my ass"(1). Secondly, your not my brother and I also felt like I was being quite logical in my assesment of your post.

"It's a form of an Ad Hominem argument to attack the source rather than attack the evidence."

Your partially correct. Although I did question the evidence I was questioning the source as well. Although I wouldn't call it an attack. An attack would be to share my opinion of you being a douchbag(2). That sir is an attack.

"Along your line of argument you also make the error of a Genetic Fallacy. And...following these, your argument also commits the errors of Guilt By Association and of Poisoning the Well."

These are only "errors" on your Forensics Team. On a blog they are perfectly acceptable.

"I have answered the question asked."

Not Really

"Unless you can specifically and empirically deny or refute something I stated, it does no good to rant."

It does plenty good to rant. It feels good, it can be entertaining to watch others do it and sometimes it can even get some shit accomplished.

Lookey, sources. That must mean it's true

1) Collins, M. Blog Comment. http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/06/100-bounty-for.html#c120666532

2) Collins, M. Blog Comment. Blue Oregon. Right Now

Marshall, it's already been proven through "evidence" that Jared is a horse.

Don't argue with a horse, dude.

First of all, I was thinking about the example i threw out about people marrying their pets. That was not a valid arument, particularly since animals can not give consent.

Torridjoe, there is no contradiction. I said homosexual marriage IS not, not HAS not. I don't dispute the fact that homosexuality has been around for a long time.

Carla, I am glad we at least agree on one thing! Unfortuneatly I don't have evidence to show that it is better to have parents of opposite genders, I was just staing that that is my belief. Ws, yes, that was kind of a general statement. I think it is better overall for a child to have a father and a mother. If a man is raised with two mothers, how will he know what to act like in his relationships etc.?

JHL,

1. Do you have any reason to say marriage is not natural?

2. I do not think that homosexuality has been around aas long as marriage. 2.1 That is an argument I hear a lot. You can't give everybody everything they want, I could give dozens of examples of this.

3. Yes, just like everything else, there has been different ways of marriage throughout the years in different cultures.

I am opposed to civil unions/domestic partnerships, but I believe as far as being with people on their deathbeds or when they are otherwise ill etc., they should be able to let anyone they want to visit them. It shouldn't be up to the goverment to decide who can or can't. If someone wants their partner to be able to visit them, they should be able to. If someone wants their best friend to, they should also be able to.

Although this is a controversial topic, and can cause offense and division, I hope we can have conversations like these with a minimal amount of these. I believe that with an overwhelming majority of you, there is more that unites us than divides us. I sincerely hope that nothing I have said cause any offense or division. At the end of the day, we are all (or mostly) Americans and Oregonians and should be proud to be both.

This is all silly semantics. AJ526 has no better idea of what is "natural" or how long homesexuality has been around than anyone else. "Natural" is a matter of opinion. The first instance of homosexuality may be a fact, but it's one that's lost in the mists of time.

We could argue all day about whether Jared is a horse and what constitutes a valid scientific study. That's the problem with siting sources that are outside of the mainstream. teh conversation devolves into opintless bickering about intent and bias.

My proposal -- that gay marriage would result in cuts to government programs or increases in taxes -- is the only one I've seen so far that is obvious, verifiable and logical.

AJ526--Homosexuals can currently get married.!!!..just not to other homosexuals. They can marry heterosexuals and make two people unhappy AND they can still have children that way. So how is this healthy and happy for all concerned? Do you know how many homosexuals have TRIED masquerading as hetereosexual and how many times that effort ended up in a divorce? But That kind of broken home impacting all involved is apparently OK?????

This article is a good resource. He has good opinions and cites sources.

TJ, if you are referring to: "Heterosexual marriage IS natural and has been practiced for thousands of years. Homosexual marriage is not." I was saying that homosexual marriage is not natural, not that it hasn't been around for thousands of years.

For one thing, I think DP's inadvertantly discriminate against non-homosexuals by giving rights to homosexuals that non-married non-homosexual people cannot have. For the most part, I believe that you shouldn't have to be married or have a DP to have most of those rights. Someone should be able to put in their will who they want to be able to make decisions for them, visit them etc. I do not believe that people in GP's should get pensions, health insurance etc. from their partner.

cc, What are you talking about?

Bert Lowry, you are right. I do not presume to know more about what is natural or how long homosexuality than everybody else. Also, I think natural can be a matter of opinion, though there is sometimes evidence to suggest whether something is natural or not. I don't think everything about marriage is "natural" necessarily, I do think that a lifelong monogamous heterosexual relationship is natural.

1. Do you have any reason to say marriage is not natural? Sex is natural, but marriage is a legal construct. Unless God created lawyers and marriage licenses (or unless they evolved from lower species over billions of years) marriage is not "natural".

I do not think that homosexuality has been around as long as marriage. Here's where the right-wing mind goes wacko. If they THINK it, it must be true. Evidence? What's that?

I believe as far as being with people on their deathbeds or when they are otherwise ill etc., they should be able to let anyone they want to visit them. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide who can or can't. If someone wants their partner to be able to visit them, they should be able to. If someone wants their best friend to, they should also be able to. I doubt you are aware of this, sir, but you are opposed to the Institution of Marriage. ALL marriage. Radical!! Extremist!!! Unpatriotic!!! Terrorist!!!!!!!! (See how that feels?)

Here's what I don't get about the "homosexual sex is not natural" (paraphrase, not a direct quote) argument...

OK, so what about a heterosexual couple? Should they have to sign an agreement not to engage in any oral pleasuring during the tenure of their marriage? After all, it's... not natural!

What about positions? It seems to follow that doggie-style came about long after the institution of marriage... thusly it should be enshrined in law that it's not allowed?

And the biological purpose of sex is to procreate, right? And we can't have married couples non-conforming our biological imperatives, so let's ban impotent people from getting married! Also ban birth control, right?

Maybe there should be Measure 36.2 which states that marriage is a union between "one man and one woman and they must have missionary sex only and have to have kids."

And the "lost revenue" argument is so bogus... I'm glad no one brought that up when they did away with the poll tax: "Gee black people... we think it's wrong that you have to pay to vote, but we really could use the money."

Bert Lowry says, "Allowing gay marriage will result in more married people, hence less government revenue. That means that the government will have to cut spending or raise taxes. Gay marriage = slashing important government programs, or gay marriage = lower standard of living."

Thank you, Bert. This is the best answer I have heard so far. It is obvious, verifiable and logical, as you say. However, since Republicans are in favor of slashing government programs and lowering our standard of living, they will see this outcome as HELPFUL to the common welfare, and therefore not HARMFUL, and harmful is what we're looking for. Nice try! Seriously, though, did you hear that the economy of California will be boosted by $648 million over the next three years due to wedding services to gay marriages? That's GOT to bring in enough tax revenue to at least balance the shortfall predicted by your theory.

Mr. Ross, you should read my above quotes.

1. AJ526, 2:19 p.m.,: "I don't think everything about marriage is "natural" necessarily, I do think that a lifelong monogamous heterosexual relationship is natural." Lawyers, liscenses etc. would be some of the things I don't think are natural.

2. I am not a right-winger, but I do not think that even all right-wingers think that anything they think is right, I certainly do not. I have no evidence on the history of marriage, I would have to ask a historian.

3. Burl Ross, 2:21 p.m., : "I doubt you are aware of this, sir, but you are opposed to the Institution of Marriage. ALL marriage. Radical!! Extremist!!! Unpatriotic!!! Terrorist!!!!!!!! (See how that feels?)"

Ummm... What was that all about? Where are you coming from? I do not want to participate in a shouting match either, but an as nice and respectful as possible debate about a controversial topic. Certainly not name calling.

JHL, I am here to discuss an issue on a political site, not to have graphic sexual conversation. If you must do that, there are probably a lot of sites more suited for that.

Carl Fisher: "If we allow more people to marry, we are increasing the divorceable population. More marriages = more divorces."

Carl, your logic is inestimable, and I would gladly pay out the $100 prize to you if you could convince the National Republican Party to campaign on a platform of making divorce of all kinds illegal as "harmful" to the common welfare. It would be worth $100 to see the multiple-divorced Republicans twisting themselves into knots trying to explain that dissolving marriages is NOT harmful to the institution of marriage, but creating more marriages IS.

Hey man, you're the one that brought up marrying animals.

This article is a good resource. He has good opinions and cites sources.

This is why a real debate cannot be had on socially intense issues. I read the Focus on the Family "article" that AJ526 referenced. I can logically destroy every argument made in that piece. Every single one. Yet if AJ and I were having a beer together, would he agree with my logic? Never. We're pretending to debate "facts" when in reality we're debating values. And people's values are so caught up in their upbringing, their parents, their community, and their friends that it's almost impossible to change someone's values using facts.

If you start with the assumption that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, and deviant, it makes total sense that you would oppose gay marriage. Why legitimize something that is. . .just. . .wrong? If you start with the assumption that homosexuality is either 1) a natural occurrence or 2) a legitimate choice, then you will want to ensure gays and lesbians have equal rights in our society. Why would discrimination ever be okay?

We cannot win a social values debate using facts or studies or evidence. We can only win when enough people learn to accept, or at least tolerate, homosexuality. We're getting there, fast enough that the religious right is becoming apoplectic, but too slow for some of us.

We make progress when gays and lesbians and their families ask those around them for fairness. It's easy to deny equal rights to "gays and lesbians". It hard to deny equal rights to your coworker, your neighbor, or your son's friend.

JHL, just to be clear, I was being facetious. I do think there would be a loss of tax revenue, but I do not think that is a morally defensible (or even sane) reason to deny anyone civil rights.

I don't want you (or anyone) to think that I'm a money grubbing bigot.

I brought it up suggesting that if it was "fundamentally fair" for gay people to get married, would it be fundamentally fair for people to marry a dog or horse? I talked about people trying to get married to their animals for benefits, I did not go into sexual detail. I also later said that I should not have brought that up and it was not a valid point.

Carla, I appreciate your research, however, I do not believe that most of those are good things. For example, it puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that children are more likely to have same-sex relationships. I certainly don't think that is a good thing, and I know that you don't think there is anything wrong with same-sex relationships, but you think it is a good thing?

Another thing is that it says that they are more likely to be like their parents (i.e. sons behaving less masculine), you think that is a good thing???

I don't beleive I went into any "sexual detail," and I think that the point remains valid:

If the detractors of gay marriage want to bring up the "unatural sex" argument, then I think it's only fair to allow that heterosexuals might engage in what some people deem "unnatural sex" as well.

(And AJ, you certainly did step back from your comments; my original post wasn't for your benefit specifically... you might be the sanest person here that I don't agree with. Kudos.)

You are right Carl. If you aren't going to give the $100 to anyone, Burl, you probably shouldn't have offered it to begin with.

Thanks for your kind words JHL:-) We probably agree on a lot of things..

AJ526 -- Get yourself a sense of humor, man! (Another right-wing indicator.) Kidding! I didn't say you were a right-winger, I merely used your quote as an example of how the right-wing mind works (or doesn't, as the case may be). It would help if you would stop contradicting yourself within the same paragraph: "I do think that a lifelong monogamous heterosexual relationship is natural. I have no evidence on the history of marriage." Why bother to "think" something is true if you have no evidence or background to indicate that it is?

Another thing is that it says that they are more likely to be like their parents (i.e. sons behaving less masculine), you think that is a good thing???

If true, given the hyper-masculinity that is the norm in patriarchal societies, this is a good thing.

...then I think it's only fair to allow that heterosexuals might engage in what some people deem "unnatural sex" as well.

As a heterosexual, I admit to enjoying unnatural sex acts almost as much as the natural ones.

Carl-- "Ah but now you are changing the terms of the bet. The terms as I understood them were this: I have $100 for the first person who can document "harm" to the common welfare or to the illusory "institution of marriage" caused by the legalization of gay marriage. I don't need to convince the GOP to do anything. Just prove a great harm to the common welfare or to the institution of marriage."

And are more divorces (same percentage, just more) harmful to the common welfare? More divorces means more single people available for more marriages. Getting the Republicans, the guardians of our moral values, to advance legislation banning divorce as a harm to society would provide support for your apparent position that it is indeed a harm, that's all I'm saying. It isn't a requirement. There may be other ways of providing supporting evidence, but I haven't seen it yet. That's the whole point.

Interesting article about Rhode Island, but ultimately a technicality about the wording of the law defining marriage.

Miles said, "Instead of arguing that we should allow gay marriage because it does no harm, we should instead argue that it's a matter of fundamental fairness".

Well said. As long as "harm" is our focus, we will be besieged by "experimental evidence" that harm occurs.

I also admire Liberalincarnate's words: "I want justice for the years of bigotry and betrayal. Years of building up the structural violence that has been done to a class of people. When will that day come?"

I have noted, however, a sanctity deficit in my own marriage ever since I heard that gays could legally marry. I've also experienced a recurring desire to marry my pets. Whether this is a causal relationship I can only speculate, but I've submitted my hypothesis to the Family Research Institute.

Ok Burl, how about this one. I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but I think you do, and it will be interesting to see how you avoid paying up on this one:

Legalization of gay marriage in Multnomah County, San Francisco, etc. energized "values voters", pushing Bush over the top, especially in states where they had ballot measures similiar to measure 36 (the swing state of Ohio was one). This caused four more years of Bush/Cheney, which caused huge damage to the common welfare.

What say you Burl? You mentioned earlier that the amount got raised right? Wouldn't you agree that that caused harm to common welfare?

Some thoughts.

When I look more deeply at the word marriage I see three different things that get conflated. First is the natural pair bonding of Homo Sapiens for successful procreation and raising of offspring. Second is the religious sacrament of marriage which has it's own meaning within a specific religion. Third is the contract between the individuals being married and with the state (in the generic sense) that confers certain responsibilities and benefits on the parties involved.

The second and third are not the same thing since it's certainly possible to be married in the eyes of the state without any religious sanction and it's possible to get a civil divorce and still be married in the eyes of the church if you don't take the necessary actions there as well.

So I would argue that any marriage licensed by the state is in fact a "civil union" since it doesn't require any involvement by religious authorities to be valid.

Regarding the "naturalness" of homosexual marriage, homosexual behavior is not uncommon throughout the animal kingdom. I've personally witnessed it in sheep and cattle. So why should homosexuality in humans be considered unnatural? And would you deny marriage to hermaphrodites? (I guess the PC term is intersexuals nowadays.) They have both male and female characteristics so how could it be natural for them to marry anyone?

We don't allow marriage of humans to animals for the same reason we set a minimum age for marriage between people. They are not capable of giving informed consent to the union. That is not true of adults.

AJ526-- "Ok Burl, how about this one... it will be interesting to see how you avoid paying up on this one: Legalization of gay marriage in Multnomah County, San Francisco, etc. energized "values voters", pushing Bush over the top, especially in states where they had ballot measures similiar to measure 36 (the swing state of Ohio was one). This caused four more years of Bush/Cheney, which caused huge damage to the common welfare. What say you Burl? Wouldn't you agree that that caused harm to common welfare?

That's a good one, AJ. The devastating harm to our country during the past four years by Bush/Cheney is undeniable, and it is likely true that the gay marriage issue did lure some values voters away from their Intelligent Design research for a moment(they were so close to a scientific breakthrough!)to vote for Bush. (They weren't needed, of course -- Bush stole Ohio and would have done so even without the values voters, but let's pretend for the sake of this discussion that he wouldn't have.) Even if everything you say is true, it's a bit of a stretch to equate the backlash against legalized gay marriage with the legalization of gay marriage itself. Legalized abortion does not cause exploding clinics and murdered providers -- the violence is a result of the backlash against legalized abortion by values voters.

There is another case like this actually. Three counties in California have stopped issuing marriage licenses to everyone -- gay or straight -- to protest legalized same-sex marriage there. This is "harmful" to the institution of marriage, right? But it is the backlash causing the harm, not the law itself.

"Ws, yes, that was kind of a general statement. I think it is better overall for a child to have a father and a mother. If a man is raised with two mothers, how will he know what to act like in his relationships etc.?" AJ526

AJ526, please read again; It's not uncommon for a single parent to provide both mother and father guidance to their children. You don't say it, but you must be thinking male, female, rather than mother, father.

For those people that really believe a child is better overall to have parenting of a mother and father in a female and a male body respectively, it shouldn't be much of a problem if the family has relatives, friends, and neighbors, assuming the mother/father personality/parenting instinct hasn't completely fled the human race in the area they live. A lot of kids find better, or at least complimentary father and mother roles amongst members of their community than they do in their immediate family.

But really, the ideal of a life partner two parent family led by a male and a female assuming father and mother roles respectively, seems to be much more of an ideal than a reality. Sticking together for life as a wedded couple is much more than many people can manage regardless of the gender makeup of the marriage. I figure a kid is lucky to get good parents, period. Forget worrying about whether they both happen to be male or female.

one way historians read law as evidence is that if something is forbidden by law, that generally means it is going on. People don't make laws against things that aren't happening.

i like that. the black market rule of evidence.

i've heard that marriage was developed around the same time that civilizations evolved to the point where people started to lay claim to land and other permanent property. marriage was essentially a mechanism to ensure that property ownership would transfer to a man's natural male heirs.

for many many centuries, poor people who didn't have wealth or land didn't get married. interestingly enough, even the church, let alone the government, weren't worried about getting involved in their affairs.

"Marriage was essentially a mechanism to ensure that property ownership would transfer to a man's natural male heirs."

Bingo. Marriage is primarily a property rights contract (in which "property" also includes offspring). How does a legal property agreement between two persons, same-sex or otherwise, harm society? It is the basis of our society. People who want to ban gay marriage are doing great harm to the common welfare!

Allowing gay marriage will harm the common welfare because those who are against it will find another scapegoat class of people to hate/discriminate/blame.

The common welfare has always seemed to require some class of minority people to blame for all the ills and problems of a society.

Allowing gay marriage will also harm the common welfare because the pandering of discrimination is big business. Certainly the demise of a "Non-Profit charity" qualifies as harm to the common welfare?

A small example is the Alliance Defense Fund. 2007 IRS form 990 indicates that the CEO and one vice president of the corporation earn in excess of $250,000.00/year each in salary. ADF spent more than $16,000,000.00 in fiscal year 2007. The ADF is a 501(c)(3) "charity". But is really the group of lawyers who file anti-gay rights suits across the country. They represent the plaintiffs in Lemmons v. Bradbury (our own Secretary of State).

Let's not forget that war profiteer/mercenary Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater Worlwide, is reportedly a major contributor to the ADF as is Bolthouse Farms. wiki ADF

Also profits from Amway may be diverted to foreign soil because Richard DeVoss, another major ADF donor and former finance chair of the RNC will need to find somewhere else to spend his money. wiki reference

This is just a small smattering of how the common welfare will be financially harmed, as these folks will have to find another scapegoat to make money from. Who will it be?

I could use the $100.00? I'm going to the DNCC in Denver in August as a Delegate.

"you don't make law to counter a nonexistent problem? Ha!"

Bad example, that's about half the laws CoP enacts now.

Shouldn't yuo be at work instead of blogging?

Oh, and after months Bev's house is still on the market. Stop by and say "Hi"!