First and foremost, I am glad that we can agree to the meaninglessness of “family values.” I was not claiming that you had personally invoked the concept.

You said: “For how many generations does a homosexual “family” continue?”

This is not a fair question, because there is no reason to believe that gay parents are any more likely to raise gay children. If the vast majority of the world’s families have been straight, then the vast majority of the world’s gay people have been the products of straight parents.

But even if that were not true: Gay couples are (or should be) free to adopt, and straight couples are free not to have children. A “gay ‘family,’” then can go on just as long as a “straight family”–socially, if not genetically.

Or, to put it another way: Does a heterosexual marriage that produces no children destroy society?

You said that children “need a father and mother, not just a random set of two adults.”

On what do you base the assertion that a child needs one parent of each gender? I understand that it seems like common sense to many, many people–but lots of incorrect things have seemed like common sense over the course of human history.

I fully understand that the primary function of marriage is the raising of children, but why must they be the parents’ biological children? For example: Articles on the subject (including the Stephen Baskerville piece that you quoted this past October) do a good job of establishing why having a father figure is good, and why marriage is itself is good for men. But they make little attempt to explain why the father figure has to be the child’s biological father, or why stable homosexual relationships cannot “civilize men and control their promiscuity,” whereas stable heterosexual relationships can.

Two loving parents, regardless of their genders or sexual orientations, are not “just a random set of two adults.” I am aware that there is ample statistical reason to prefer stable, two-parent homes to single-parent homes. But I know of no study suggesting that children of stable gay parents are any worse off than are children of stable straight parents.

Regarding the CDC figures: I do not deny the flagrantly irresponsible behavior of many, many homosexual men. But I do not think that these men having unprotected sex with intravenous drug users are the same men who want to settle down, get married, and possibly adopt children. If we were to judge a group primarily by its worst members, then we would judge Evangelical Christians by the actions of Fred Phelps–and that would be completely absurd.

You said: “Comparisons to civil rights for blacks are inapplicable. Black skin is a genetic state of being, not a behavioral phenomenon.”

Dark skin is a genetic trait, but race is a social (and therefore behavioral) phenomenon. Race, as a concept, was created specifically to establish a “natural” hierarchy with those who created the hierarchy (White Europeans) on top. Blacks were not persecuted because they had dark skin, but rather because their dark skin was erroneously associated with cultural inferiority, or sinfulness, or stupidity.

To be Black, then, is not a “genetic state of being,” but rather a social designation–and in no sense is race more natural than sexuality. So my comparison to interracial marriage (not to civil rights per se, because there are no gay drinking fountains or gay lunch counters) remains intact.

You say that homosexuals “are completely free to enter into marriage like anyone else, with an opposite sex partner of their choice.”

I am familiar with this argument and, if I may be blunt, it is pure sophistry. I suppose that before interracial marriage was legal, one was still free to marry a person of one’s own race, just like everyone else. But that fact hardly remedied the need for interracial marriage.

So I pose the question to you again: Did free speech suffer when interracial marriage became legal?

Meanwhile, those who truly “are” homosexual (likely an extraordinarily miniscule subset of society) are completely free to enter into marriage like anyone else, with an opposite sex partner of their choice. Prop 8 does nothing to change that fact.

Comparisons to civil rights for blacks are inapplicable. Black skin is a genetic state of being, not a behavioral phenomenon.

The responses to all of your questions are contained in other posts on this blog. I haven’t invoked “family values” because I don’t know what it means.

The most obvious way in which homosexuality eviscerates a society is a biological fact of life. For how many generations does a homosexual “family” continue? If that glaring difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality isn’t enough, then there is the psychological and emotional fact that children — who, in the absence of heroic medical procedures can only be produced by hetero couples — need a father and mother, not just a random set of two adults.

Finally, there’s the relatively short-term public health issue involving HIV and other STDs. CDC figures are pretty staggering. In 2006, homosexual & bisexual men accounted for 53% of new U.S. cases of HIV when these demographics make up, at most, 2-3% of the U.S. population.

Each of these is an example of how homosexuality tends to destroy society, in the classical sense of “destroy” .

As far as the Troopergate affair, I was unaware that the legislature’s findings had been overturned. So that was a bad example to bring up. But you did not address my other points–namely, those about accusing Barack Obama of being a socialist, and those about the invocation of “family values.”

And this latter point, about “family values,” leads directly back to our disagreement about gay marriage. On what do you base the statement that homosexual relationships are “society-eviscerating?” Even putting aside the issue of gay marriage, what is it about homosexuality that you find so destructive?

I agree that a government has the right to promote certain kinds of relationships by the granting of special privileges (tax breaks, and so on). But, with gay marriage, we’re not talking about special privileges. We’re talking about people in stable, monogamous relationships who would like, for example, to be able to visit their significant others in the hospital in the case of serious illness.

So what is it about a stable gay relationship (and, yes, there absolutely is such a thing) that is so destabilizing? Granted, homosexual couples cannot reproduce. But they can certainly adopt, and there is no credible data suggesting that a child being raised by two gay parents in a stable household is any worse off than a child being raised by two straight parents in a stable household.

What, then, makes heterosexual relationships so much more valuable? I am not arguing this from a religious standpoint, mind you; the Bible is quite clear on the subject. I am arguing this from the quite separate standpoint of social policy.

Regarding your other point. You said:

“The moment you legislatively declare homosexual union = marriage, all it takes is one hothead to file a lawsuit alleging hate speech or discriminatory conduct. Then courts take over and eviscerate free speech.”

I would oppose any attempts to limit speech, even “hate speech.” And the majority of those who support gay marriage, as far as I can tell, feel the same way. The “hotheads” you’re talking about are a small, shrill group of idiots doing a grave disservice to their cause. They do not represent the gay marriage issue as a whole.

Let me ask you this: Did free speech suffer when interracial marriage became legal? I know that this comparison may seem odd to you, but why is it odd? Both gay marriage and interracial marriage are about personal freedoms being more important than tradition. (You will still be free to live traditionally, but others may choose not to). In both cases, we’re not talking about what you are obliged to embrace, but only what you are obliged to tolerate.

I am extremely glad that we are able to disagree respectfully. I truly wish that the debate over this issue–as a whole–could consist of more respectful disagreement, and fewer acts of counter-productive aggression.

“The legislature’s inquiry, carried out by a special counsel, found that while she was within her rights as Alaska governor to dismiss Monegan, she had breached ethics rules by allowing her husband to badger officials into firing Mr Wooten.”

The finding of the legislative inquiry was specifically overturned by the Alaska State Personnel Board’s decision. Therefore — even if it were originally worth something (and arguably it wasn’t because of it’s biased provenance) — it is misleading to refer to that one-off inquiry as having any factual or legal merit.

You wrote: “My point was simply that we can enact gay marriage (or any other new legal concept for that matter), without necessarily listening to or involving such people [extremists].”

I respectfully disagree. The moment you legislatively declare homosexual union = marriage, all it takes is one hothead to file a lawsuit alleging hate speech or discriminatory conduct. Then courts take over and eviscerate free speech. This is a major issue.

But it’s also important to remember that the productive, society-stabilizing relationship between man and wife merits special legal recognition, whereas society-eviscerating homosexual relationships arguably do not.

You are right that, because Sarah Palin was not found to be in violation of any laws, it is incorrect to say that she was “found guilty” of anything. I apologize for misspeaking. I was referring to this element of the investigation (quoted from the article to which you linked me):

“The legislature’s inquiry, carried out by a special counsel, found that while she was within her rights as Alaska governor to dismiss Monegan, she had breached ethics rules by allowing her husband to badger officials into firing Mr Wooten.”

This breech of ethics was the “wrongdoing” to which I referred, and which Sarah Palin chose to ignore in her statements. Again, I apologize for being unclear.

If you would like to discuss my other points, then I would be very interested in having such a discussion.

Either way, thank you for your time.

You wrote:

For example, after she [Palin] was found guilty of wrongdoing in that whole “Troopergate” situation, she said that she was glad that she had not been found guilty of wrongdoing.

Palin was never “found guilty” of anything in the so-called “troopergate” affair. She was never tried for anything so it would have been impossible for her to be found guilty. In fact, the day before the election, Alaska’s State Personnel Board officially, explicitly cleared her of any wrongdoing in the matter.

It would be more accurate to say that the legislators who insisted on investigating her were found guilty of wasting taxpayer money for their own political ends.

I now understand what you are saying, and it does make sense. But (unless we are talking about secession here) the issue is substantially more complicated than diving people up on an ideological basis. There are serious problems with the idea of one state wanting to ignore the gay marriage of another state. For example, would a gay couple married in Southern California have their marriage recognized in Northern California?

So I ask you: Do you think that gay marriage–not anything that you assume would accompany the legalization of gay marriage, but gay marriage itself–would somehow prevent you from living as you choose to live?

Cosmo–

OK. Here are some ways in which Sarah Palin is a demagogue.

In terms of policy: Sarah Palin ran for Mayor as a “fiscal conservative.” She then increased government expenditures and, as a direct result, left the city in debt.

In terms of rhetoric: Sarah Palin repeatedly made appeals to small town honesty and openness, as opposed to Washington equivocation. She then equivocated, repeatedly. For example, after she was found guilty of wrongdoing in that whole “Troopergate” situation, she said that she was glad that she had not been found guilty of wrongdoing. Note that I am not invoking the scandal itself, but rather her highly equivocal reaction to it. So, regardless of whether you think that she abused her power in those firings, the point stands.

Further, regarding all of her comments about Barack Obama’s supposed “socialism,” always in the guise of quoting Joe the Plumber: Do you think that Sarah Palin actually considers Barack Obama a socialist? If not, then her appeal to peoples’ fear of socialism is demagoguery.

And while we’re on the subject of exploiting ill-defined ideologies: What is the actual meaning of “family values?” I have gathered from this board that the term includes an opposition to gay marriage (though no one here has yet made any attempt explain how gay marriage, in and of itself, undermines familial institutions), and I assume that the term also includes a Pro-Life stance.

But does it entail anything else? Can we agree on what is meant by it at all? If the term does not have a clear meaning, but is rather a squishy neologism meant to evoke some abstract sense of nostalgia for a simpler time, then any appeal to “family values” is a form of demagogy.

Defend that statement then, with facts, not tabloid news.