Terry,

I enjoy reading your blog, and I’m in agreement with you on many issues, but I think your arguments in this post don’t withstand scrutiny.

Your argument that “fullness of marriage” is not achieved until the couple produces a child is weak, and you contradict that in the later paragraph. Otherwise, you’d claim that a woman who’s unable to get pregnant, or a man who’s infertile shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

As to your assesment of the low birthrates in Europe: I’m from Northern Europe, and I can say with confidence that gay marriage is not even in the top 10 factors affecting low birth rate. Gay marriage is is not even allowed in Italy, which is a strongly Catholic country.

There are over 150,000 adoptable children in the U.S.. Why don’t all the people touting the “traditional marriage” step up and provide a home for those kids? It’s despicable that children would rather be left institutionalized in the bowels of the foster care system than be adopted by gay couples who would provide a loving, stable home.

By Stormare Mackee on 10.27.06 7:52 am

[...] Terry Frank says: It�s pretty simple. If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, then you need to vote �Yes� on Amendment #1. And if you believe the marriage vote isn�t really that important, then just look at this week�s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling. For the second time, black robes have ignored the will of the people and forced a legislative body to act on same sex unions. [...]

By SayUncle » Vote No on 1 on 10.27.06 9:07 am

“If marriage is redefined as pleasure and emotion, then who is going to care for us in our old age?”

I thought this is what the body of Christ, the ekklesia–the called out–is for. The early church shared all their possessions in common and took care of each other. Those who had need did not do without because their brothers and sisters in Christ–their extended family–helped them in their need. I’m sure that the early church did not exclude the childless couples from their fellowship. Too bad that Christians don’t feel the same way today.

By JMG on 10.27.06 10:32 am

Stormare and Uncle–I’ll respond to your thoughtful posts later. Obviously, for time and space, I did not address all aspects of the arguments and because I’m at work at this moment, it will take a bit longer than I’m able.

But JMG, your asssertion that I’ve somehow excluded childless couples from the body of Christ is lunacy–and shamefully, is the placement of words and thoughts that you’ve transferred upon me. I didn’t morally lecture about marriage–please don’t do the same.

I wrote: I don’t believe that marriages must produce a child to be a marriage–but its ability to is its very essence.

If the ability to produce children is not at the core of marriage–then what is? I hear arguments all the time about “same sex couples.” But if emotion is indeed the governing prinicple, then why limit marriage to couples? Why not polygamy, family members, etc.?

I offered my definition of marriage. We can continue to discuss if you offer yours.

By Terry on 10.27.06 11:22 am

You are a bigot.

“If the ability to produce children is not at the core of marriage–then what is? ”

The core of marriage, as Ephesians tells us, is that the marriage relationship is a microcosm of Christ’s sacrificial relationship with the Church.

I and many other childless Christian couples are as much the essence of Christ-centered marriage as any family with a dozen kids.

You can’t face your own bigotry, Terry, but it’s there.

By Katherine Coble on 10.27.06 11:44 am

It’s funny Katherine, that I hear over and over how to leave the “Church” and “religion” out of marriage. But who brought in their religious views? You did, my dear.

Preach elsewhere.

By Terry on 10.27.06 11:47 am

Is this tired argument STILL going around? Geez, bigots aren’t as creative these days I guess.

If one operates on the assumption that the purpose of marriage is children and all marriages which cannot produce children should therefore be banned, one CANNOT logically exclude sterile or elderly people from such a marriage ban.

Further such a ban must logically exclude couples of the same-sex who have children via either adoption, artifical means, or from previous relationships. And before you try to argue that a gay union can’t produce a child, answer me this: Can a virgin become a mother?

By dolphin on 10.27.06 12:09 pm

You’ve got to be kidding. That’s your response to Katherine’s real pain and hurt about how you just redefined her and other couples who suffer from infertility right out of “real families”? “Preach elsewhere.”?

You strongly implied in this post right here that infertile couples aren’t real families and you’d sit there and deny it? Your words are right there for everyone to see.

I’m trying to not let my anger at your cruel dismissal of Coble’s points color my response to your post, but it’s difficult.

I find it hard to understand why, when you say something that can clearly be read as you saying that infertile married couples aren’t real families, you can’t just apologize or go back and reword the post so that what you mean is more clear.

Your flip “my dear” makes me think that you actually enjoy hurting people’s feelings.

That’s pretty disgusting.

By Aunt B. on 10.27.06 12:21 pm

Terry, you are unbelievable in your truculence and obstinacy.

You screwed up. And badly. You are trying to justify male-female marriage (a blatantly religious concept) without a religious framework.

Fine, we’ll leave religion on the back burner, even though you yourself said

“While marriage is for many like myself, a religious institution,”

thus acknowledging that your view of marriage is religious.

By Katherine Coble on 10.27.06 12:26 pm

Katherine, Having struggled–as a family, with infertility, I sympathize with your feelings on this subject. At the risk of seeming indifferent to offending you–that’s not my intent, I feel like Terry’s central point deserves defending.

It appears your squishiness on the political issue of homosexual marriage–and maybe your general spite for Terry Frank, has slanted your view on what she wrote. Child-bearing is the “essence” of marriage, though it isn’t necessary for marriage. The Biblical metaphor of Christ and the Church is just that, a metaphor, so the fact that “children” aren’t mentioned in the sections referencing Christ and His bride does not prove that child-bearing isn’t the essence of marriage. Indeed, there is much in Scripture about the Church’s fruitfulness, and fruitfulness is biologically-speaking what child-bearing is. In sum, I think that Scripture supports traditional marriage as the ideal for “being fruitful and multiply[ing],” but that doesn’t mean–in my opinion, that a God-honoring marriage or even a “fruitful” marriage requires children.

By Ned Williams on 10.27.06 12:28 pm

squishiness?

By Katherine Coble on 10.27.06 12:47 pm

I did not mean to imply that you would exclude childless couples from fellowship in the body. I should have inverted my last two sentences, so that my “Too bad” comment referred more clearly to the idea that more Christians today don’t live and share with each other in the way that early Christians did.

I did not comment on your definition of marriage. Perhaps I should have quoted only the last part of your sentence. My comment was directed toward your idea that we are supposed to have children so that they can take care of us in our old age. This idea seems to make children into a commodity–which, in fact, they were back in bible times. The way to perpetuate a family’s legacy and wealth was to have many children, preferably sons. However, Jesus taught us that we do not need to depend on our “legacy” when we are in fellowship with other believers.

By JMG on 10.27.06 12:51 pm

Aunt B: I never said anything about “real families have children.” You should really read twice before reacting.

You and Katherine are swimming in emotion on this one– even though you have admitted that you’re trying not to. I wrote a defense of a policy decision. I stayed away from religious views–views by the way, that Muslims, Jews, Christians, et al all share.

Governments make decisions every day on what is best for the longevity of society. And recognizing marriage as an institution between one man and one woman is best for the longevity of society. That is my position as well as opinion, and I stand by it.

I’m not sure Aunt B, how you would expect me to carry on a discussion with someone who begins her post with “you are a bigot”? How about asking a question? Or having a discussion?

Say Uncle completely disagrees with me…so does Stormare…but they didn’t resort to name calling in order to voice disagreement.

By Terry on 10.27.06 12:53 pm

JMG,
Of course, it is not insignificant that children caring for their parents made it into the Big 10.

Kat,
“Squishy” is often a matter of perspective. I think it applies in this situation because I perceive you are discounting Biblically-informed values as a basis for crafting public policy. (I probably should have simply said, “your position on the political issue . . .” but the snark monster got me. I apologize.)
That being said, my view is that supporters of homosexual marriage have to put forth a compelling rationale to re- (I would say, “un-”) define marriage, and the reasons I’ve heard aren’t compelling. I don’t think that what the Bible says about this or any issue is dispositive in the public policy realm.

By Ned Williams on 10.27.06 1:02 pm

JMG: I understand your point now. And yes, it is quite the shame that we don’t care for each other more. But that is one of the downfalls of government getting into the charity business. Too often we look to a government office instead of each other in times of need.

But I don’t think it is unrealistic to assume that we were intended as Ned pointed out, that we are to be fruitful and multiply. We each shall have two childhoods–in the beginning and in the end.

Ned: With reference to your personal struggles, I’m hopeful that you understand my point–and it appears you do. Namely, that the essence of marriage stems from the ability to have children–ability meaning that a child requires a man and a woman, no matter how far removed via science.

By Terry on 10.27.06 1:27 pm

I think you will find, Ned, that I have not voiced my personal opinion on the marriage amendment anywhere on the internet, nor do I intend to.

By Katherine Coble on 10.27.06 1:27 pm

“, that the essence of marriage stems from the ability to have children”

There it is again.

How is that not bigoted?

By Katherine Coble on 10.27.06 1:28 pm

Katherine,
Sorry if I misinterpreted your use of the term “bigot”–in your post (at your blog) and in your comment here, challenging Terry’s post in defense of traditional marriage.

I also interpreted this comment to Terry: “How dare you, in your crusade to propell a religious institution into the realm of the State,” to mean that you thought advocacy (Terry’s in particular) for Amendment One was a “crusade” to “propel” religious views into law.

If I misread your opinions, I apologize, but surely you have an opinion on it?

By Ned Williams on 10.27.06 1:39 pm

My reference to bigotry is solely in regard to my situation. I’m not gay. I’m childless. To say that my marriage is less than, that my family is less than because I cannot have children is a bigoted position.

Terry herself said

“While marriage is for many like myself, a religious institution, ”

So for me to say that Amendment One is in part propelling a religious institution into the realm of the state is merely an acknowledgment of Terry’s self-stated belief that marriage is religious yet nevertheless she is asking the State to take a position on it.

Do I have an opinion on Amendment One? Yes. Will I share it with the Internet? No.

God hasn’t called me to do that. I serve God first, my opinions are far down the list.

By Katherine Coble on 10.27.06 1:59 pm

Katherine–marriage is religious for many including me, but yet I can argue as many atheists and non-Christians do across this nation. Many argue for laws and constructs for the futherance of “civil society.” I don’t have the expectation that my religious views should speak to the secular in this nation, which is why I don’t generally argue them with regard to the government recognized institution of marriage.
My point was nothing more than being honest about holding my views on personal religious grounds as well.

As far as “serving God first,” I guess you imply the rest of us expressing our opinion are not?

Can you provide a definition of marriage Katherine, that is not religious?

You seemed so wrapped in you…can you not argue for a policy decision that might benefit others 100 years from now? Or is it just about you?

By Terry on 10.27.06 2:10 pm

Okay.

By Ned Williams on 10.27.06 2:10 pm

Terry and I disagree on this amendment and the related issue, this issue is very close to me, but I’m not on here calling her names. That accomplishes nothing.

A few days ago, Bill Hobbs posted something I wrote about my gay sister and my feelings about this amendment. I wrote a longer essay on the subject last year, for publication elsewhere. I noticed that Hobbs’s blogosphere critics (”he’s too partisan,” and worse) did not comment on Bill’s willingness to allow his personal blog to be used for a controversial, graphic opposing view. I knew Bill would be open to that balance, because he is a journalist, but still, that is his personal blog, reflecting his personal views, and he didn’t have to do it. He knew I wouldn’t be upset if he didn’t post my say. Hobbs gets a bad rap from some that he doesn’t deserve. I’m tired of the personal attacks in blogdom.

I believe I hold the truly conservative view on this marriage amendment/gay issue, but in the current milieu, my view is deemed liberal. That’s okay. I have a hard time with these labels, because they have no clear meanings. But the human brain seeks to categorize and organize, and we try to line people up in an order that makes sense to us. People and life are not that simple, though.

Those with “liberal” views are too often the most intolerant of others’ views and feelings and the least able and willing to deal with and tolerate the complexities of people like me who are a mix of views, though we’re probably the majority. Something does not compute there.

The “conservative or “conservative libertarians” or “conservative” whatever bloggers have been the most civil and generous to folks like me. I’m not the only one who’s noticed that.

Each of us thinks one or another is dangerously wrong about some things, we feel compelled to get our truth out there, but in the end, and you realize this the older you get, it’s important to treat others with respect. Even if you are a warrior.

By Donna Locke on 10.27.06 2:38 pm

“erry and I disagree on this amendment and the related issue, this issue is very close to me, but I’m not on here calling her names. That accomplishes nothing.”

Calling someone a bigot is not name-calling. It’s identifying a position. From where I sit, her position on marriage is bigoted (non-tolerant) against the childless.

“As far as “serving God first,” I guess you imply the rest of us expressing our opinion are not?”

You are free to infer that. I’ll post about it at my own place.

“Can you provide a definition of marriage Katherine, that is not religious?”

Since I have elected to not state my position on this issue for personal and familial reasons I will not do so here.

“You seemed so wrapped in you…can you not argue for a policy decision that might benefit others 100 years from now? ”

Cui bono?

By Katherine Coble on 10.27.06 2:57 pm

“No matter how scientific and modern we become, producing children still requires the unique union of man and woman.”

“Successful societies encourage the bearing of children and the responsibility to care for them. Governments can gear laws towards encouraging and rewarding behaviors and institutions, like marriage, that are good for society–that perpetuate the very existence of society.”

“There is no denying that the future of a society–its population, its economy, its health care, its very existence–depends upon the bearing of children to operate that society.”

How do we get babies? All together now, “SEX!”

I’ve read this post through a few times now and I keep seeing the same thing over and over again. Children come from marriage. Like this quote:

“The fullness of marriage is not achieved with the swapping of rings and the symbolic kiss, but rather when the union results in the bearing of a child.”

And I keep thinking of the old adage, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”

Neither granting nor denying gays the right to be married will have any affect on babies being born and our society continuing on. People have sex everyday. Unmarried people have sex everyday and I would venture to guess that everyday somewhere in the world, an unmarried woman gets pregnant. The institution of marriage does not inherently determine whether or not our species will propagate.

People were having sex and making babies and getting married long before there were governments to regulate it all. A constitutional ammendment isn’t going to change what happens between a man and woman or between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. And it certainly will not lead to the demise of our species. That is a pretty far fetched prediction.

By malia on 10.27.06 3:08 pm

>

I am not quite sure I see your reasoning re: gay marriage as somehow cutting short or otherwise negatively affecting the longevity of society.

If you are saying that having children is the crux, for lack of a better word, of marriage and that couples having children is the main contributor to the longevity of society, then how is allowing gay marriage taking away from that?

The hetero marrieds will still have kids regardless of what the gay marrieds are doing, right? It’s not as if gay marriage is suddenly going to dry up the formerly fertile eggs of all the hetero women.

I’m poking at you a little, I know, but I feel like there’s an unspoken issue here and I want to guess that it’s “gay sex is icky” but I am not going to put words in your mouth since, obviously, you didn’t say that. I am just interested in your views on how banning gay marriage adds to the longevity of society or, conversely, how allowing and accepting gay marriage takes away from that longevity.

Are you worried that all this rampant gayness is going to make heretofore hetero folks suddenly jump ship to gaydom and beyond? I can’t see if you are making another point or not so I’d be interested in your response.

By Vix on 10.27.06 5:17 pm

Sorry, btw. I was trying to quote this paragraph but I messed up the coding:

Governments make decisions every day on what is best for the longevity of society. And recognizing marriage as an institution between one man and one woman is best for the longevity of society. That is my position as well as opinion, and I stand by it.

By Vix on 10.27.06 5:18 pm

I’ve been too busy to visit your site, Terry, for a while. May I bring some light to this discussion?

Philosophically, the discussion hinges on absolutes. Do absolutes exist? Absolutely! To argue that nothing is absolute is an absolute contradiction. As Mason said to Dixon, “We have to draw the line somewhere!”

Logic involves the definition of terms. Marriage is defined by God (the Ultimate Absolute) and society as the recognized union of one man and one woman. Since this is the a priori meaning of marriage, nothing else can be marriage.

Since this is the case, one cannot redefine marriage! If one calls an apple an orange, the apple does not change. Nor can the orange become an apple.

Furthermore, if one tries to redefine marriage by calling so-called loving relationships marriage, then, logically, anything goes! The slippery slope will prevail.

Today, two men or two women may “marry.” Tomorrow, a man may “marry” several women, or vice versa. Next week, a man may “marry” a boy. Two weeks from now, a group of men may “marry” a group of women. Next month, a group of men may “marry” each other. A year from now, a man may “marry” his dog–or his truck! No one can say what is wrong, for no line can be drawn–logically.

In sum, marriage is by definition the union of one man and one woman! Anything else is a perversion.

The opponents of marriage should prepare to eat the putrid stew that they are cooking, if, God forbid, they should prevail.

(See appalachianirishman.blogspot.com/2006/06/marriage-melee.html.)

By mfearghail on 10.27.06 7:33 pm

Terry – setting my own stupid snarky stuff aside, I have to start by saying that I think a heckuva lot of Kat. We disagree on many more things than we agree, but I can say that if you know Kat, you know that Christianity is very important to her. Her Christian walk is transparent and radiant. Her marriage is very much a part of her Christian walk. When you stated that having children is the very essence of marriage, you are telling Kat that her Christan walk is incomplete and will be forever less-than-whole.

Can’t you see how hurtful that is? Instead of lashing back with patronizing and churlish responses, how about trying to understand how your words affect Kat, a person who very much wanted to have children.

I understand you were making a ‘larger’ point..but when a person tramples another person on the way to that point, I’m not sure the Golden Rule has been applied. Kat wasn’t saying YOU don’t serve God first, she was saying that it is not necessary to have kids to serve God first. It is your blog, and ipso facto, a lot of this is about you, but please have a little more consideration and understanding of a very dear person.

thanks for listening. For what it’s worth, I’m right down the line with Glen Dean on his reasoning to vote ‘NO’ on Amendment One. Say Uncle is also spot on, on this issue as well, imo.

Hey Donna – (sorry Terry to use your blog for a communication means, but I don’t think Donna has her own blog)..why don’t you have your own blog (if you do, I apologize, I’d love to know what it is). We’re definitely ‘apart’ on some issues around immigration, but I’d love to hear other stuff you have to say, including the topic you bring up in this blog.

By john h on 10.27.06 9:30 pm

While I believe that marriage is properly between a man and a woman, I don’t believe that the government should be in the business of encouraging anything. I like the idea of civil unions. I like them so much that I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely even for straight couples. I think the Christian church should have the basic view of the Catholic church, If you didn’t get married in church, you didn’t get married.

Also I don’t like to think that the marriages of Brittany Spears or Brad Pitt are the same thing that I have with my wife. Those are civil unions not marriages.

Civil unions could be used by straight individuals who never find someone that they love romantically, but have lifelong friends/roommates that consider to be family

By Emmett B on 10.28.06 3:24 am

Too many posts to catch up on–I’ll try to address the general theme of most in a post.

John H–I’m weary of hearing about “Kat’s” feelings. “Kat,” as well as you, spend your “Christian walks” taking jabs at me on a regular basis. I’m the great Satan.

I’ve got no problem with this–that’s the game for some folks. But please, don’t try to pull some “Christian walk”, higher ground kind of routine when rudeness is your habit. If she can’t argue or discuss the issue without having a tantrum, then that’s her problem not mine.

I wrote a piece about marriage and society, its longevity, etc.

You and Kat like to make this an argument about protestant evangelical versus liberal mainline denominations. I haven’t argued about marriage based on Christianity–but we can have that argument if you like. Both of you need to stop using your “faith” as a shield against my post. Argue its points if you’re able. But your tactics are transparent.

By Terry on 10.28.06 5:46 am

No Terry, you aren’t the great Satan. Mark Rose is the great Satan. You’re just an imp.

By john h on 10.28.06 8:12 am

“Kat,” as well as you, spend your “Christian walks” taking jabs at me on a regular basis. I’m the great Satan.”

I’ve mentioned you twice in a year. If that’s your definition of “regular” than I hope you consider more fibre in your diet.

And I have answered your points, haven’t I? I thought I had. Which point remains unanswered?

By Katherine Coble on 10.28.06 8:17 am

Oh, and thanks, John, for the nice things you said about me.

By Katherine Coble on 10.28.06 8:19 am

Looking at the time on Ms. Frank’s last post, I could attribute that to a lack of morning coffee. Doesn’t help explain the others, though.

Donna: Bill Hobbs regularly refuses to put up posts from people with whom he disagrees. He just likes you.

By Brady Keys on 10.28.06 10:58 am

John H, thanks, but no, I don’t have a blog, though Hobbs and others and others have tried to get me to start one. I reserved a blog on Blogger a year and a half ago and never activated it. Some people doubt this, but I do have other interests besides immigration control!

I do so much writing in my “real” life that the thought of adding a blog to that seems like a buswoman’s holiday to me. Still, I do feel the need to write a blog and address some issues in Maury County and also keep some politicians’ feet to the fire on immigration, though a roll of duct tape and a car trunk might work better.

But here’s an e-mail address for me:

windwatcher8 at yahoo dot com.

By Donna Locke on 10.28.06 5:57 pm

[...] Terry Frank (Frankly Speaking) recently wrote a post where she proposed an interesting theory of marriage: The fullness of marriage is not achieved with the swapping of rings and the symbolic kiss, but rather when the union results in the bearing of a child. No matter how scientific and modern we become, producing children still requires the unique union of man and woman. [...]

By » Does having kids mean you’re truly married? CrashintoLove.com: reflections on life, love, and family — a smalley blog on 10.28.06 11:26 pm

Katherine wrote:

Calling someone a bigot is not name-calling. It’s identifying a position. From where I sit, her position on marriage is bigoted (non-tolerant) against the childless.

Isn’t that a stupid position? Ergo, if your position is stupid, does that in turn make you stupid?

Calling someone a bigot is name calling, stupid.

By Property Rights on 10.29.06 7:53 pm

Stormare:
There are over 150,000 adoptable children in the U.S.. Why don’t all the people touting the “traditional marriage” step up and provide a home for those kids? It’s despicable that children would rather be left institutionalized in the bowels of the foster care system than be adopted by gay couples who would provide a loving, stable home.

While children should be adopted, I can’t see the reasoning here. It’s reverse logic…in other words, there are children available so let’s change marriage? I don’t necessarily believe that the children in need of homes are the result of the failure of traditional marriages.

Stormare, I’m also going to address the other issues you raised in a post.  Please let me know what you think.  T.F.

By Terry on 10.29.06 9:07 pm

Vix–I see what you’re saying. But I don’t think you can change what marriage is and not expect to weaken it.

If the prevailing aspect of marriage is “love” then I don’t see how you can stop any and all forms of “marriage.”

How do you tell the bisexual and the polyamorous “no.” Why not relatives? I think in this sense, marriage is weakened. It becomes either economic, or emotional. What do you think?

By Terry on 10.29.06 9:11 pm

Emmett–I understand your point–and it is probably the most intellectually honest reason for supporting civil unions. However,I believe that marriage is so far reaching–that I don’t think government can get “out of the business” of marriage in a way that allows the “religious” to have their marriages. What shall we teach in schools, for instance?

They’re questions to ponder. Feel free to disagree–let me know what you think.

By Terry on 10.29.06 9:16 pm

Malia: You wrote:A constitutional ammendment isn’t going to change what happens between a man and woman or between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. And it certainly will not lead to the demise of our species. That is a pretty far fetched prediction.

No, a constitutional amendment will keep a few black robes from doing exactly the opposite of what the people vote on.

And yes, I’m not naive. I know people have sex and babies outside of marriage. But those babies don’t have the same benefits of a mother and father…not health, not wealth. It doesn’t mean there can’t be exceptions. And our nation probably doesn’t do enough to reward marriages that maintain a commitment to rearing their children.

As far as the end of a society, well…see Rome.

By Terry on 10.29.06 9:20 pm

Donna (warrior)-Yes, I read your piece on same sex marriage on Hobbs site. It was well written and though I disagreed, as you do with my piece, I respect your opinion. It didn’t occur to me to bash you!

By Terry on 10.29.06 9:29 pm

Brady: Looking at the time on Ms. Frank’s last post, I could attribute that to a lack of morning coffee. Doesn’t help explain the others, though.

Yep, I pretty much do all my blog work very early in the morning–and no, by then I had my second cup of coffeee.

Got any better arguments than a problem with when I write?

By Terry on 10.29.06 9:31 pm

“Got any better arguments than a problem with when I write?”

Nice job. That was a pretty smooth way to dismiss Brady. I love that tactic. Taking sarcasm seriously in order to completely defang it. The only problem with that is when people take you seriously in return. Makes you look kind of foolish.

Just out of curiousity, do you really think the problem he was commenting on was the time of day you do your writing? Or were you just going for a flippant response so you could pretend he was calling you out for a nasty attitude?

By W on 10.30.06 8:24 am

Terry, you still have not answered the major question at hand.

If marriage is all about popping out kids, then do you support a ban on allowing straight couples enter into childless marriages? I can’t see how your answer can logically be anything but yes.

By dolphin on 10.30.06 11:02 am

Dolphin–Of course not…I addressed your point in my post. But the union of a man and woman can produce a child…the union of two men and two women cannot. My argument goes to the heart of the union–not the technicalities of infertility or inabilities…or even desire.

By Terry on 10.30.06 11:14 am

[...] I was struck by something a commenter (Donna Locke) said on an October 27, 2006 weblog post by Nashville blogger Terry Frank: I do so much writing in my “real” life that the thought of adding a blog to that seems like a buswoman’s holiday to me. Still, I do feel the need to write a blog and address some issues in Maury County and also keep some politicians’ feet to the fire on immigration, though a roll of duct tape and a car trunk might work better. [...]

By Mother Tongue Annoyances » "Real Life" vs. "Internet Life" on 10.30.06 12:01 pm

Mr/Ms W: Here is Brady Keys comment in its entirety:

Looking at the time on Ms. Frank’s last post, I could attribute that to a lack of morning coffee. Doesn’t help explain the others, though.

Donna: Bill Hobbs regularly refuses to put up posts from people with whom he disagrees. He just likes you.

Now where does he address any issue that you say I have dismissed? I tried my best to answer any points raised…but saying I hadn’t had my coffee is not really an issue, is it?

By Terry on 10.30.06 12:02 pm

So the demise of an empire run by lunatic Caesar’s is a bad thing? Rome’s empire may have fallen, but Rome is still there and hmmm….so is the Vatican! Catholic capital of the world, condemns gay marriage…and still has a thriving society. Sorry Terry, your position still has holes.

By malia on 10.30.06 4:01 pm

If marriage is based on the ability to make babies, would you not have a problem with lesbian marriage if science produced a way for the two women’s DNA to be exchanged and one or both of them become pregnant? Then they too would have the same ability to make their own babies that heterosexual marriages have.

By Supere on 10.30.06 10:37 pm

As a bisexual, non-religious woman in a child-free-by-choice marriage with a man, I obviously find significant fault with this logic and this defense of policy, but the strongest five are these:

1) The idea that marriage must be defined around the bearing of children, thereby invalidating childless and child-free couples, including those who are physically unable to reproduce, those who are past child-bearing age, those who choose not to have children for health reasons, financial reasons, or any of dozens of other sound reasons.

2) The idea that same-sex couples are somehow less valid than mixed-sex couples, and less deserving of social support and the myriad legal protections well above and beyond relevance to parenting that marriage affords couples.

3) The idea that religion should enter into a policy definition of marriage in a nation whose concept of government is predicated on separation of church and state.

4) The idea that children should be borne to provide care to their aging parents, rather than supporting real social services that provide care for aging people regardless of their parental status.

5) The idea that same-sex couples that choose to raise children (by adoption, from previous relationships, through artificial insemination, or any other means), and more importantly, the idea that their children are somehow not deserving of the rights, protections, and opportunities afforded by marriage.

I appreciate the opportunity, Terry, to post my response in your blog. It’s not a freedom everyone in your position would grant to dissenters, so as much as I disagree with what you said and how you said it, I applaud your support of this debate. Thank you.

By Kate O' on 10.31.06 11:26 am

Wow, I can’t even begin to get my head around all of the folks in here who have so disassociated themselves with reality. People, the whole point of marriage is family and family means children. Marriage for love is a totally new concept that has only be fostered over the last century. We can also see the astounding results of that shift in ideology, namely high divorce rates and declining birth rates.

Personally I find the idea of childless marriage to be the most selfish possible act in all of humanity. You were blessed with life, cared for and raised by your family, and then given a loving companion and you selfishly horde that gift with no intention of sharing it.

I truly pity each and every one of you that believes it isn’t your number 1 duty to produce children if you are married. This world isn’t just about trips to Europe (or wherever is the object of your wanderlust), nights out with friends, great food, or the other experiences you seek. Its about giving back as well. It is about giving your time to your children, teaching them, watching them grow and providing the sanctuary in a tough world. You have a debt to repay. And fortunately for you, you are loved so much by your creator that the debt is even more rewarding in its repayment.

To break it down a bit, answer the following question. What is the worst thing that could happen to any of us? I think “not existing” is quite possibly the answer we’d all give. Now, imagine if your parents had been a selfish as you are today. Not one of you would be here had that been the case.

Share the most precious gift you have been given. And, bravo, Terry for saying what needed to be said.

By Novanglus on 10.31.06 1:14 pm

Novanglus wrote:
Wow, I can’t even begin to get my head around all of the folks in here who have so disassociated themselves with reality. People, the whole point of marriage is family and family means children.

Actually, one could argue that the whole point of marriage is male dominance and property rights, but there is such diversity of opinion about the origins of marriage that a debate about it is pointless. And regardless of its origins, institutions get updated to match the times (dowry, anyone?), or they become meaningless or irrelevant.

Personally I find the idea of childless marriage to be the most selfish possible act in all of humanity.

Really? I find this notion silly, and have ever since I first started hearing it at least 10 years ago. Since when is it selfish NOT to want something? Moreover, in comparison to common reasons for WANTING to have children, the most common reasons for NOT WANTING to have children are often selfLESS and altruistic. It’s a ridiculous argument anyway, since to dismiss a vast group of people (those without children) with one critique (selfish) is an overgeneralization, no matter how you defend it.

And after telling me I’m selfish for NOT wanting to have a child, are you now going to tell me that a same-sex couple is selfish for WANTING to have a child?

I truly pity each and every one of you that believes it isn’t your number 1 duty to produce children if you are married.

Please don’t trouble yourself. We don’t need your pity.

This world isn’t just about trips to Europe (or wherever is the object of your wanderlust), nights out with friends, great food, or the other experiences you seek.

Sorry, but no. You don’t get to define for me what “this world” is about. Who’s going to measure the value to society of my volunteer efforts versus someone else’s parenting? Who’s going to create a universal metric that determines the goodness we each bring to the world by who we are and what we do? You can say “God,” but if you presume to speak for a god, you better be prepared to be doubted as an authoritative source.

And the point of all this, again, is: does this mean that a same-sex couple can’t or shouldn’t make the decision to raise a child? Again, are you telling me they’re selfish for wanting to?

Its about giving back as well. It is about giving your time to your children, teaching them, watching them grow and providing the sanctuary in a tough world.

And who’s going to provide sanctuary and support to the children of same-sex parents? They exist, you know, even if some would prefer to legislate them out of their minds.

By Kate O' on 10.31.06 2:47 pm

But the union of a man and woman can produce a child…the union of two men and two women cannot.

Can a virgin become a mother?

My argument goes to the heart of the union–not the technicalities of infertility or inabilities…or even desire.

There simply can logically be no such distinction. Either the point of marriage is children or it is not. If marriage is about children (and marriages that do not bear children should be banned), then all couples who cannot or will not have children must be banned from marriage. If children are not required for marriage, then there must be more to it then that. There are no technicalities.

Your argument falls apart under even the most basic of scrunity. You say your argument goes to the heart of the union but if a child is the heart of a male-female union, then any male-female union that doesn’t produce a child is therefore invalid in your view (which also means in your viewpoint they must be excluded from marriage).

By dolphin on 10.31.06 10:11 pm

Wow, one self-evident truth stated in Terry’s post (that marriage’s “essence” is procreation) has really attracted some attention. THE BOTTOM LINE(s): Society gives a special status to traditional marriage because of the important/crucial role it plays in producing future members of the society. If re- or un-defining trad’l marriage causes it to stop providing those benefits the benefits, then there is no reason to give it the special status. Advocates of homosexual marriage have to convince the rest of us that it is in our interest to expand/redefine the institution of marriage.

By Ned Williams on 11.01.06 1:27 am

Sorry I haven’t caught up with you in a while. The pot shots are coming in left and right huh? Where to begin ?
First off, most of your detractor’s comments come from the sound-bite snippet CNN society, meaning that they glaze over your post, get the gist, and then bash you out of full context. They are too impatient and shallow to READ all that you have said, chew it, digest it, then offer insight. You clearly offer as a pre-emptive apology of sorts that “I don’t believe that marriages must produce a child to be a marriage”. This is clearly addressed to those infertile couples unable to procreate. Am I wrong? People read, read, READ, READ, what Terry has to say before bashing away. The Amendment vote does not, to the best of my knowledge, define marriage as between one fertile male and one fertile female. Thusly, further discussion along this line is simply an opportunity to try to bash the shortcomings of the fact that Terry is posting a blog rather than writing a discertation for her master’s degree. All possibilities can not be covered in a short-frame. I believe the intent of Terry’s post is that marriage should be defined as the “in general” species specific idea that only male and female co-mingling may produce offspring and as such that the government sponsership of the primary foundation of the American family (marriage) should exist along a path that would ensure that the human race continue to exist.
Secondly, it seems to me silly that your detractors feed (like mold on cheese) on fringe tid-bits and semantics in some desperate lunge to justify their own postions, which in many cases, they are unwilling to share. Why do your detractors pick at your words? What is their motivation? Why are they unwilling to grant you any acknowledgement of even the slightest truth? Do they belive that by picking apart one sentence in your arguement, that they have somehow discredited your entire point of view, and therfor confirmed theirs? Is anyone with a fervent position to be labeled a “bigot” ? Should we all then seek to become “bigots” as it then carries no negative conotation, but rather signifies one as being steadfast ? Is non-tolerence really that bad (for instance I am intolerant of child molesters, bigot that I am) ? Face it Terry, I’m sure you are well versed in debate, these folks are simply attempting to peck away with semantics and personal attacks because they can not oppose your point of view with facts.
Thirdly, your post only addresses the social impact of the proposed Amendment. I appreciate that you offer for some who believe that religious values hold no rightful place in legislation, a palatable, plausible viewpoint for why this proposal is simply not a moral backlash. You offer to us a credible reason why it behooves society to foster a social focus on traditional marriage, the survival of the species. Some say that babies will be born whether gays marry or not. If, however, your position on homosexuality is similar to mine (that people choose to be gay), then to expand marriage to include homosexuals would force the educational system to include homosexuality and it’s functionality inside the classroom. This would likely then offer for our children the awkward choice of which relationship pattern they would then follow at a very impressionable age. It is reasonable to then say that some children will stray down the path of homosexuality, thus reducing birthrates.
And lastly, this….Malcolm Tent’s personnal perspective. Homosexuality is a mental difficiency. It is a sickness. The fact that homosexuals choose not to be treated for their illness is okay, I smoke cigarettes in spite of every reason I have not to. But if it’s okay to ban cigarette smoking from public buildings than it’s okay to ban homosexuality from Justice of the Peace’s office. Validating these individuals perversions could lead to second-hand homosexuality. I would encourage Tennessee residents to vote to keep some activist judge on his way out the door from ruling away hundreds of years of social morality with one gavel bang. I would further encourage Tennesseeans to write Phil Bredesen and ask him to fund homosexual treatment programs with the next surplus from the lottery.

Just my two cents
Malcolm

By Malcolm Tent on 11.01.06 3:42 am

You clearly offer as a pre-emptive apology of sorts that “I don’t believe that marriages must produce a child to be a marriage”.

This is why I’m trying to better understand her position. She’s been inconsistant. You CANNOT say that marriage means producing a kid while simultaneously saying that marriages do not have to produce children. If marriage requires the production of children, then couples who do not have children (for whatever reason) cannot be married. If marriage DOESN’T require children, then using children as an argument against marriage equality doesn’t follow. The reason people are harping on that partiular sentence is because it’s contradictory to the entire rest of her post.

If, however, your position on homosexuality is similar to mine (that people choose to be gay),

I’m curious as to your position as to people choosing to be straight. If you evidence that people don’t choose who they are attracted to, simply look at the multi-billion dollar fashion industry. If attraction was a choice we made, nobody would need to bother trying to make themselves look “good,” beause we’d all simply find someone we got along with and “choose” to find them attractive.

Homosexuality is a mental difficiency. It is a sickness.

This is a statement that has been refuted by every major medical organization. The evidence simply doesn’t back you up. It’s so without merit that it would be almost funny if it didn’t remind us of just how severe of a hatred still exists in the world.

By dolphin on 11.01.06 12:28 pm

At risk of speaking for Terry, which i would never attempt to do as her intellect greatly exceeds mine (in fact I should probably be stuck in Iraq), if you are trying to understand her position I can only offer my interpretation: Terry does not believe that childless marriages should be banned, only that the government should foster a policy which most greatly proliferates consumations that could potentially end in the continuity of the species.

Your example of the fashion industry is a poorly chosen one. The fashion industry makes millions by making people more attractive to the opposite sex for one reason, so that they will be chosen by a mate. Making yourself look “good” is the perfect example of how we DO choose what’s attractive.

Is it your assertion that people don’t choose to be homo-sexual ? That attraction is some sort of in-born baser instinct we have no control over. If this is the case is it your position that as such homo-sexuals should be considered biologically inferior as their baser instincts take them down a path that leads to the end of their genetic code? Perhaps homo-sexuals should be labeled as handicapped as they lack one of the basic elements of the human race (reproduction) genetically ? Should we discriminate against pedaphilia, polygamy, beastiality, necrophilia, etc. as it is your assertion that sexual attraction is inbedded in the genetic code? Pedaphilia, necrophilia, beastiality and other sexual proclivities are fully recognized as sexual disorders. The fact that the scientific community has placated the vocal homosexual communities desperate plea to be recognized as “normal” only further necessitates the need for such amendments as offered on the ballot. Yelling and screaming from the fringe can even turn a scientist away from the factual findings of a study. But we, as a society, will not be held politically hostage by the same politically correct garbage from a group of mentally deficient, morally corrupt, dissenters. I don’t hate homosexuals anymore than I hate people with cancer. I do however, despise the disease.

My two cents,
Malcolm

By Malcolm Tent on 11.01.06 2:25 pm

Terry does not believe that childless marriages should be banned, only that the government should foster a policy which most greatly proliferates consumations that could potentially end in the continuity of the species.

How does the marriage of a sterile couple “greatly proliferate consumations that could potentially end in the continuity of the species?”

The fashion industry makes millions by making people more attractive to the opposite sex for one reason, so that they will be chosen by a mate.

Exactly. However if mates could choose what they found attractive, there would be no need to “make people more attractive,” in fact one could not be made more attractive objectively at all. One would simply find a person they got along well with and decide to find them attractive.

Making yourself look “good” is the perfect example of how we DO choose what’s attractive.

On the contrary, making yourself look good an example of us choosing to emulate attractiveness, simply because we can simply decide what is attractive.

Is it your assertion that people don’t choose to be homo-sexual ? That attraction is some sort of in-born baser instinct we have no control over.

Yes, that is precisely my assertion. It’s one backed by basic common sense as well as a growing wealth of scientific data.

If this is the case is it your position that as such homo-sexuals should be considered biologically inferior as their baser instincts take them down a path that leads to the end of their genetic code

Hardly. Considering that homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom it seems overwhelmingly clear that homosexuality serves an evolutionary function. Perhaps population control, perhaps foster care (many gay animals have been observed caring for abandoned young of their species), perhaps to carry out activities that are important but unable to be attended to by those busy caring for offspring, perhaps it’s something that is yet unknown or (most likely) a combination of many, many facotrs. Either way, the fact that homosexuality is nearly a universality among animal life, it’s evident that it directly serves the evolutionary stability of the species and (along side reproductive members of the species) is like a NECESSITY to the continuation of the species. That’s basic evolutionary theory.

Should we discriminate against pedaphilia, polygamy, beastiality, necrophilia, etc. as it is your assertion that sexual attraction is inbedded in the genetic code? Pedaphilia, necrophilia, beastiality and other sexual proclivities are fully recognized as sexual disorders.

You ask and answer your own question. How quaint.

The fact that the scientific community has placated the vocal homosexual communities desperate plea to be recognized as “normal” only further necessitates the need for such amendments as offered on the ballot.

The scientific community can only put forward that which the evidence suggests. How does objective scientific data concluding that homosexuality is a naturallly occuring non-destructive phenomenon lead you to the conclusion that there is a need to write discrimination into the law in such a manner as to remove the humanity of an unfavored group. It stinks of seeking to create a “master race” of sorts.

I don’t hate homosexuals anymore than I hate people with cancer.

Then I suppose you are a great advocate of removing the human rights of cancer sufferers as well?

By dolphin on 11.01.06 4:03 pm

Dolphin you are completely absurd.

Do heterosexual or homosexual couples have higher birth rates? Do not make infertile couples (the exception) the rule of thumb here. You like to argue science, I assume you know the answer to this one. A policy encouraging which type of coupling would more likely produce more offspring?

You have stated that it is your belief that attraction is genetic in nature. Why then do some start with heterosexuality, turn to homosexuality, and then return to heterosexuality? I guess it’s a really static complex genetic code…LMAO. Why do people look for different qualities in a mate at different times in there life. You blindly assume that genetics is the factor and that enviroment does not change ones perspective.

I’d like to see you offer any animal species in which there are homosexual nannies. Having been raised on a farm I can clearly tell you we never had any bulls bottle feeding the calves whilst the mother was off at her day job. I’m not particularly interested in your crackpot “perhaps” theories. You are desperately reaching when you assert that homosexuality is universal throughout the animal kingdom. You can continue to harbor this misguided belief, but the rest of us believe or eyes.

On the contrary, the scientific community is the interpreter of what data “suggests”. You used the key termonology when you use the word “suggests”. This indicates that data on mental disorders is open to interpretation. I do not support the criminalization of homosexuality, in fact I support research into how we may battle the disease in an effort to create a “master society” free from illness. If a healthy, well adjusted race is a master race then I suppose I support one to include heterosexuals of all creed and color, free from mental disorder.

Lastly, that is simply put, reduction to the absurd. My comment was to hate the disease, not the patient. You, of course, pick and choose whatever you like as it fits your misguided view. Our society has taken drastic measures to finding the root causes of cancer and remove them in an effort to combat the disease. I, likewise, support efforts to eliminate enviromental conditions that may lead to the spread of the mental disorder that is homosexuality. I believe the prevailing attitude of the mental disorder that is homosexuality was summed up best by Dr. Ruth when she said “If it feels good, do it.”

By Malcolm Tent on 11.01.06 9:41 pm

Dolphin:
I do not wish to continue with this discussion any further as it has strayed off topic. I would like to tell you that like alcoholism, drug addiction and other socialogical diseases the first step for you, if you are a homosexual, is to admit you have a problem. There is help out there for homosexuals to help them beat this terrible disease and lead a full life. But unless they are willing to acknowledge they have a problem, the help, sadly, will never come. Same sex marriage is no more a cure for homosexuality than legalizing drugs is for drug addiction. If you or someone you know is struggling with a homosexual disorder please contact me through Terry’s blog and I will help you find help.

God Bless
Malcolm Tent

By Malcolm Tent on 11.01.06 9:57 pm

Malcolm,

I will agree with you on this. Discussion of the topic further is pointless. I cannot help you change to live a fuller, happier, hate-free life if you choose not to.

Hate will decrease your life-span as well as your overall quality of life. You can recover from hatred, but the first step is admitting that you have a problem. If you ever want to begin the road to recovery, let me know and I’ll be happy to work with you to once again become a happy, healthy well-adjusted individual.

I wish you all the luck in the future and sincerely hope you will be able to rid your life of the hatred that is currently blinding you.

By dolphin on 11.02.06 4:57 pm

For others, I found this interesting.

In such places where same-sex marriage has been a reality for at least a decade, heterosexual marriage rates have increased by between 10 and 30%, divorce rates are down, and child births out of wedlock have either decreased or slowed from their rate of increase prior to the establihsment of marriage equality.

By dolphin on 11.02.06 9:25 pm