On “Homophobia” Accusation & the Gay Marriage Debate
Last March, I pointed out why I don’t use the word, “homophobia,” a term which many gay people and even those in the media use to describe anti-gay attitudes:
Simply put, I don’t like the word. I understand that it means an aversion to homosexuality and gay people, but as a lover of words, I also know that it is derived from Greek words meaning same (”homo”) and phobia (”fear”) so it really means fear of sameness whereas I believe that most people described as “homophobic” are really afraid — or incapable — of understanding, appreciating and/or accepting difference.
Reading Mark Steyn’s America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It , I learned that he also has difficulty with the word:
“Homophobia” was always absurd: people who are antipathetic to gays are not afraid of them in any real sense. The invention of a phony-baloney “phobia” was a way of casting opposition to the gay political agenda as a kind of mental illness: don’t worry, you’re not really against same-sex marriage; with a bit of treatment and some medication, you’ll soon be feeling okay.
While I do believe there are people who harbor a fear of gay people, I think Steyn is onto something. I’ve been amazed to discover the number of people who cast those who favor the traditional definition of marriage as “homophobic” or “anti-gay.”
It seems that all too many use the term “homophobia” to dismiss the opponents of same-sex marriage. If they were serious about gay marriage, instead of bandying about this term, they would make an effort to understand their adversaries’ arguments and then take the time to rebut them.
Anything-”phobia” is supposed to mean: an irrational fear of that thing. Some people - not many, but some - display an antipathy toward, or fear of, homosexuals that is indeed irrational. Borrowing “homo” from “homosexual”, then “homophobia” is a valid coinage, to name irrational fear of homosexuals.
Having said that: I concede your main point. “Homophobic” has sadly and stupidly become an all-purpose dismissal, one over-used by gays who are too plain lzay (and/or hateful) to bother understanding their opponents.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2008 @ 4:43 pm - May 28, 2008
(sorry, typo, “lazy”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2008 @ 4:53 pm - May 28, 2008
I think it depends on their reasons for being against same sex marriage, is it rational or irrational? I agree that the term gets thrown around a lot and pretty loosely, but it is sometimes apporiate to use. Some people do hate and fear gay people for the fact that they are gay, and sometimes it is irrational.
Can you have rational support for being against gay marriage? Yes, I just happen to think there are more rational reasons for having it. Economic, social, religious, and so on.
Though I do have a question? Is it a rational position to just use your religious beliefs to determine public policy? Just because a verse in the Old Testament says it is wrong for two men to lay with one another, is that enough reason, or viable reason, to deny people the ability to marry?
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 28, 2008 @ 5:20 pm - May 28, 2008
ILC, I agree that there are those who harbor an irrational fear of gay people, but believe the term “heterophobia” might better describe them as they fear us because we’re different (from the Greek “heteros”) from them.
That might be truer to the Greek root words, but grant that might be confusing to modern ears.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 28, 2008 @ 5:25 pm - May 28, 2008
I credit you for looking at most issues with the same logic and slow consideration a scientist employs in reading evidence for and against a current theory; however, I am beginning to believe you give way too much credit to folks who oppose gay marriage. True, a few give the issue the same scientific approach you do; however, the vast majority of straight people who oppose gay marriage have actually given it very little thought. Their education on gay marriage is based on jokes they heard in Middle School and sermons likening homosexuality to all other “choice” sins, such as lying, stealing or cheating on your spouse. Their opposition to gay marriage is a knee-jerk reaction based more on “Have you heard the one about two Polish gay guys who wanted to get married?” than on any understanding that homosexuality is natural. 90% of straights still believe that men “turn” gay because they were bad at sports, molested or just had bad luck with women. And while those few who give the issue serious thought may not be “homophobic”, their opinion — when all the “reasoning” is stripped away — almost always comes down to “the Bible tells me so so I’m going to come up with reasons to believe it.” As a young man, my religion was the basis for my opposition to gay marriage. Now that I’m older, I have very little tolerance for religious bias on the issue.
Comment by MikeInSedona — May 28, 2008 @ 6:03 pm - May 28, 2008
Mike, part of the reason that most opponents of gay marriage can’t articulate their reasons very well is because society has only had to grapple with this issue in the last 10-15 years. Marriage has evolved from a tribal-religious context where grunts of affirmation were often enough.
If we allow gay marriage, why not also allow polygamous or incestuous marriages? I can give you good (I think) reasons for continuing to ban both. I am a gay marriage supporter and have thought long about the various distinctions, definitions and reasons involved. Again, most people haven’t. They only perceive a slippery slope that (as far as they can see) will surely have to end in polygamous or incestuous marriages. That’s a concern we should learn to address.
We worsen their fears if/when we demand State marriage licenses as an alleged “right* - i.e., under the logic of “rights”, the polygamists and incesters will obviously demand their “rights” next. We could start by acknowledging that a State license for hunting, driving, marriage or anything is a privilege, not a right - and then give the positive reasons why we (gays and lesbian couples) should have the privilege.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2008 @ 6:48 pm - May 28, 2008
“Take back the phobia!” Also, “Take back the hate!” - hate being another word (emotion) the left thinks it has figured out, has exclusive rights to.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — May 28, 2008 @ 6:51 pm - May 28, 2008
Why does anyone have to defend their view of traditional marriage.
That’s the defaut!
If some folks want to trample over what many people find sacred then its up to them to pursuade the majority.
What absurd… people want to make marriage into something it has NEVER been before, and they think the traditonalists have to prove something.
How arrogant..a nd that is a major component why peolpe instinctively oppose gay marriage.
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 9:18 pm - May 28, 2008
How is gay marriage “trampling” over it, Vince? That part is never explained. It takes nothing from heterosexuals.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2008 @ 9:36 pm - May 28, 2008
Because marriage is between a man and a woman.
That’s what marriage has always been.. and it is the time-tested best way to have childern. And it should be the model that society encourages.
Gay marriage will destroy that model… so as if the state of youth isn’t bad enough , things will be even worse for them as it becomes “everything goes” there is no standard to live up to. Gay Marriage is not going to led life-long gay relationships.. get real.. it will serve to further trivialize what marriage… even more than it is now.
Yes I’m gay.. but I don’t think this life is the way everyone should live. I have no problem with it for myself.
Birth control and abortion is resulting in the annihilation of the European people and culture by depopulation and Isalmic colonization.
Did anyone ever think that was going to be the result of the pill? Of course not. I dont think people even think much about that now. It was in 2001-2002 when I realized the trouble that Europe was in that I decided to be against gay marriage.
There are things that are better left alone. especially when it comes to the most critical resource taht any nation has.. it’s future generation.
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 10:00 pm - May 28, 2008
I don’t grudge critics of abortion (or, in its extreme, abortion on demand) when they call the 30 or so million American children killed off in this way since the 1970s “a holocaust.”
No species has ever undertaken such wholesale slaughter of its offspring.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — May 28, 2008 @ 10:16 pm - May 28, 2008
Um, gay marriage isn’t.
Again, how? You haven’t explained a causal mechanism; you’ve merely repeated your original assertions. Here are mine, again: Gay marriage prevents no heterosexuals from conceiving children. Gay marriage does nothing to heterosexuals. That heterosexuals lives / reproduction should depend on what gays do, one way or the other, is counter-intuitive, shall we say.
How, again?
Ah, here we are. The “slippery slope”. But please see #6, where I express some sympathy for that argument and stress that gay marriage advocates must (and in my view, can) do a better job of addressing people’s concerns in that area.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 28, 2008 @ 10:19 pm - May 28, 2008
I think you are overstating the reason to preserve traditional marriage as only being tied to religion. I have heard many times, that it is best for society to have children raised by their biological parents. And that society is stabilized when men and women live with one another and moderate each others’ extremes.
That all great religions of the world have come to the same conclusion, does not make religion wrong or evil.
Arguing in favor of gay marriage by bashing the opponents isn’t going to work. Denying a minority the ability to change a millenia of human tradition is not fearful, hateful or mean.
By these standards, not only am I homophobic, I’m a racist, a misogynist and an antisemite to boot.
Comment by Leah — May 28, 2008 @ 10:24 pm - May 28, 2008
ILC: Uh.. I just shrug at that.
Um because gay couple is not a man and a woman.
This is getting silly.
You keep asking me how .. how.. but what you’re responding to were my how’s.. so you’re recurrsively asking me “how”.
You need it to explained why broadening the defintion of marriage leads to its trivialization? To me it’s common sense. Marriage is what it is because it’s one of the most difficult standards to live up to.
The bottom line is.. the people in this country don’t want it.
It’s up to you to change their mind.
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 11:14 pm - May 28, 2008
People, I think, are going overboard with the doom day theories about gay marriage. We have had gay marriage in the world, we have it in Mass. and in Canada to name a few. Gay Marriage has had very little effect on the institution as a whole because not every gay person is going to marry…so like less than 8% of total marriages would be gay marriages.
I guess I have a hard time listening to these Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. True but marriage is not the same institution as it was or did it mean the same thing among all cultures. Some men could have more than one wife and some could only have one, some could only marry in their own religion or their own country, or race. Marriage has been an evolving institution and one that has been broadening through history.
Maybe if we didn’t attach so many benefits and special government status to being married, we wouldn’t have these issues now.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 28, 2008 @ 11:17 pm - May 28, 2008
The reason why people are “overboard” is because the Courts are provoking them.
If the Courts didn’t have total contempt for the voters then there wouldn’t have been any marriage amendents.
You guys dont get it, do you? People do not want the Courts overstepping their bounds and imposing law from the Bench.
Why you think turning marriage into abortion is a good thing is beyond me.
You want gay marriage.. then pass a law. Dont go to court. The going to court thing is what is polarizing people.
Comment by Vince P — May 28, 2008 @ 11:28 pm - May 28, 2008
Not everyone who supports the idea of gay marriage or civil unions agrees with the methods being used by activists or agrees with the “judicial activism” of some of these courts.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 28, 2008 @ 11:53 pm - May 28, 2008
NG: YOu’re right.
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 1:01 am - May 29, 2008
Sorry, but I call B.S. Have you ever read some of the whacko stuff that gets put out there any time a law is passed? All the stuff around the laws in, just to take a completely random example, California this fall? Those laws were passed by a standard legislative process and the spokespeople of the (for lack of a better word) Christianist right went nuts over them. From downright crazy accusations of trying to seduce children, to wild accusations of trying to teach kindergartners how to have sex, their reaction was not tempered by the fact it was not a court decision but a legislative and gubernatorial action. (By the way, I’d say the extremity of the reactions is classic homophobia, as per, ILC’s definition.)
Going to court is not the biggest (and certainly not the only) source of displeasure from most of the polar people I hear from the anti end. Sure they use that argument when they can (because it resonates), but really the biggest bug they seem to have up their butts is the mere existence of openly gay people and the provision of any legal protections, no matter how popular (and these did have popular support).
That stated, I also find fault with this line of reasoning:
While that is generally the case, there have always been notable exceptions. The abolition of slavery for example was against the will of “the people” for a long time (and against the will of the majority in southern states, more specifically, as time passed). However, I think we can all agree that it was wrong, can’t we?
But for a great many years, a person against abolitionism could have stated, just as you did, “The bottom line is the people in this country don’t want it.” It’s called a bandwagon fallacy when used in a debate, and we don’t generally accept majority support as an indication of a correctness of an action, just the popularity.
Now, as I said, certainly in a majority of cases, it is a valid (often, in fact, the only valid) reason to pass a law. But because we agree that there are cases where it isn’t, that citation is not sufficient proof of the correctness of any particular law.
I’m sure we disagree as to whether or not a court had the right to take action and whether it should have done so. But that’s a different argument. I just want to point out that mob rule is one of the things the founders also wanted to prevent, along with autocracy. It’s a fine line to walk oftentimes. I think we can agree on that.
Comment by PSUdain — May 29, 2008 @ 1:54 am - May 29, 2008
NOTE: The above is not to say that there don’t exist people who are aggravated by it. The simple fact, however, is that the majority of people who actively and loudly crusade and polarize against it would do so regardless of the origin of a pro-gay action.
Comment by PSUdain — May 29, 2008 @ 1:57 am - May 29, 2008
Well the simple fact that Anti-gay-marriage amendments only get proposed or put on ballots in respoonse to a court somewhere imposing it on a State is proof enough that people are generally not that concerned about.
But when the courts preempt the voters, then the voters have to protect themselves.
This isn’t “mob rule”.. if anything it’s Leftist mob rule.. the Leftist activists and the Leftist lawyers go to the Leftist judges to get NEW policy made (as opposed to striking down unconstitutional law).
gay marriage is NEW policy. courts are not the proper place to do this sort of thing. the fact that they do do is is a fault in our system. I know if I was in the Executive branch i would ignore the judgement based on my obligation to protect the constitution.
Comment by Vince P — May 29, 2008 @ 2:14 am - May 29, 2008
Indeed. GPW has written at length against imposing gay marriage from the bench. And so have I. And Vince has been around here enough that yes, he should know that.
You mean, broadening WHO can be included in it would lead to its trivialization? How?
Really, Vince, you’re taking a counter-intuitive position and refuse to explain it. When inter-class or interracial couples were allowed to be married, did that trivialize marriage? Please don’t just keep repeating your original assertions.
And that destroys heterosexual marriages… **HOW**? “Destroy: verb: To put an end to the existence of something by damaging or attacking it” - Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2002. Vince: What heterosexual marriages will END, or vanish, or go “poof”, or never take place, or be attacked / damaged, because a committed gay couple proclaims its commitment, and gets some form of State recognition for it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 10:53 am - May 29, 2008
I’d really like to see the debate on SSM prolonged as long as possible, mainly because I fear what the gay-activist-establishment will move onto afterwards. After all, you can’t expect professional activists to give up their well-paid sinecures and find real work. I imagine the next step will be the pursuit of restrictive speech-codes like they have implemented in Canada that defines any criticism of homosexual behavior or any disagreement with the gay activist agenda as criminal hate-speech.
Comment by V the K — May 29, 2008 @ 11:57 am - May 29, 2008
GPW:
I think the question of homophobia comes about since the arguments against same-sex marriage are selective. If the traditional understanding of marriage were so important, why aren’t the people who oppose same-sex marriage vigorously opposing divorce? Divorce is a radical departure for an institutional that is supposed to be “until death do us part.”
As for the best environment for children, I was raised in an adoptive family that was a superb environment for three children. Clearly, children can be raised by non-biological parents and do fine. Again, if the desire is to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents, shouldn’t there be an effort to limit adoptions and single-parent families?
The argument from tradition is weakened by the fact that so many other deviations from tradition are allowed and no one raises a fuss over them. Such silence raises the possibility that the tradition argument is a stalking horse for the issue of homophobia. If a person is going to argue tradition, to do so selectively weakens his case.
There is the argument that the legistlature should define marriage, and I agree that is the best way to proceed, but such an argument is about procedure and not over the merits of allowing same-sex marriage.
As for calling people on their homophobia — it has some, but limited effect. The problem is that when you point out the logical inconsistencies in anti-same-sex marriage arguments, you get nowhere with some people since it is homophobia that grounds their opposition. If a person comes from the perspective that gays do not have equal right and liberties, there is no way to argue with that. It is a foundational premise.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 29, 2008 @ 12:40 pm - May 29, 2008
When inter-class or interracial couples were allowed to be married, did that trivialize marriage?
I have never heard of skin color or relative income level preventing a couple from producing and raising their own children, or requiring them to use artificial and other legal instruments to do so.
Furthermore, all of those groups had demonstrated that they perfectly understood the concepts of responsibility and monogamy that underpin marriage, and in fact were already practicing them within their own structures, creating, perpetuating, and nourishing the social order that marriage both represents and reinforces.
What trivializes marriage is adding a group of people that do not practice monogamy or commitment as a rule already and have no incentive to do so, thus making marriage into a matter of convenience rather than a respected institution that represents the affirmation and commitment to a set of existing values.
For example:
As they saw it, one enduring lesson of heterosexual marriage is that lifelong monogamy is unrealistic for most people — especially men. “Most straight people like to talk a great game about monogamy,” Brandon A. said. “But what are they actually doing? Many of them have affairs at some point or break up because they want to sleep with somebody else. We’re two guys, we’re in our 20s, we haven’t been sexual with that many people, and to pretend like we’re never going to want to experience sex with another person until the day we die doesn’t make sense to us. We’re open to exploring our sexuality together in a way that makes us both comfortable.”
Aside from the obvious interpersonal problems, the social reason for monogamy in marriage is simple and basic — multiple sexual relationships disrupt family structure and children born out of wedlock are in what amounts to limbo. Hence, laws and marriage have been structured to strongly discourage such things.
However, for gays and lesbians, there is no social consequence or reason not to be promiscuous; hence the attitude as seen above that rationalizes promiscuity and makes it perfectly acceptable within marriage.
In short, ILC, the argument that the gay community “needs marriage” to stop it from being promiscuous, to force it to take responsibility for its actions, and to get it respect and dignity is perhaps the strongest argument AGAINST gay marriage. Marriage will not do one thing to stop these behaviors; all it will do is allow for married promiscuous, irresponsible, disrespectful, and undignified gays.
THAT is what will trivialize marriage.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2008 @ 1:08 pm - May 29, 2008
If the traditional understanding of marriage were so important, why aren’t the people who oppose same-sex marriage vigorously opposing divorce?
Um, by and large, they DO.
It’s only the liberal groups that demand marriage for all that also demand no-fault divorces and no punishments for adultery.
Again, if the desire is to ensure that children are raised by their biological parents, shouldn’t there be an effort to limit adoptions and single-parent families?
If you’ll note, the same groups are also against a) having children out of wedlock and b) strongly support adoption being limited to married heterosexual couples.
In contrast, the liberal gays and lesbians who insist their children are “damaged” by having unmarried parents fully support and endorse having children out of wedlock and single-parent adoption.
If a person is going to argue tradition, to do so selectively weakens his case.
Then proponents of gay marriage should also argue for incest, polygamy, and other departures from tradition, lest they be accused of arguing “selectively”. They want to throw out tradition as a valid reason; they should throw it all out.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2008 @ 1:15 pm - May 29, 2008
Well, that ignores several thousand years of human history!
Those gay or lesbian couples who marry, are practicing commitment by definition. (Think about it.) Also, you’re judging people by group identity, not as individuals, which from what I understand is pretty non-conservative.
An argument that is NOT on the table here.
C’mon NDT, you’ve got to stop throwing me such softballs.
Evidence? Note: A serious proposal from a major party to end no-fault divorce, in America or a major State, would be acceptable evidence.
Again, an argument not on the table. “Departing from tradition” is NOT why I support gay marriage. Also, as I stated at #6, a State marriage license (for anybody) is a privilege not a right. The State, in my view, can always democratically exclude whomever it wants. My argument is merely that its exclusion of committed gay couples is stupid. Excluding polygamists and incest couples remains smart, for reasons you outline and several other reasons.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 1:57 pm - May 29, 2008
P.S. “Stupid”, why? I may as well add that bit of explanation.
Let’s go back to what a State marriage license is for. It’s a way for 2 unattached, unrelated, grownup people to legally declare themselves as a family unit, gaining both rights and responsibilities, which then function as incentives for the 2 people to act in ways that preserve their new unit. Why would the State do this? It achieves these goals:
(1) Stable environment for the kids, if any.
(2) Creating a mini-welfare system, where the 2 people are each other’s first line of defense if anything bad happens, instead of becoming dependents of society.
Excluding gay couples is stupid because the same advantages are to be gained for the State, or for society, by including gay couples and their children - keeping in mind that thousands of whom can and do already have children by various routes. In other words: a State license for committed gay couples would objectively strengthen families, and the entire institution of marriage.
Excluding polygamists and incest couples, however, is wise because (as previously noted) their relationship configurations are either inherently sexist (as in male-dominated polygamy), or inherently UN-stable (as in polyamory), or inherently unnecessary and worth discouraging (as in the case of incest couples, 2 people *who are already* a family). In other words: a State license for polygamous or incestuous setups would objectively weaken families, and the institution of marriage.
Note that none of the above rests on anybody’s alleged “rights”. The people get to decide (through democratic / legislative means). They can decide stupidly, excluding gay couples from marriage. Or they can decide intelligently, including gay couples in marriage. Whatever. They can even decide to include polygamous or incestuous situations, if they want. But that would be extra stupid.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - May 29, 2008
P.P.S. and then I’ll stop. I want to amplify something about this point:
Note that socialism weakens families. Socialism creates a situation where everyone is a dependent society; therefore, they can flip the finger at their families - and correspondingly, they can’t expect much from their families. Welfare programs literally pay teenage girls to have kids out of wedlock. That’s why marriage and family decline in socialist-welfare countries. NOT because gays get in on it.
Also, socialism makes people feel like their lives have no opportunity, hope or purpose, which is why they reproduce less on average. Again, it’s not about ‘teh gays’. The idea that masses of straight couples change their actions (one way or the other) because of how their society treats its gay minority (one way or the other) is counter-intuitive at best.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 2:39 pm - May 29, 2008
(aargh… sorry… “a situation where everyone is a dependent *OF* society”)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 2:40 pm - May 29, 2008
ND40:
I see no evidence of your assertion that gays and lesbians are promiscuous as a rule (or that heterosexuals are not promiscuous as a rule). If not practicing/believing in monogamy disallows a person from marrying, then such a standard needs to be applied uniformly across the board.
Also, I do no see any campaigns underway to amend state constitutions to forbid divorce or efforts to make sure that the few adultery statutes that remain on the books are enforced. Absent such evidence, no one can say that people opposed to same-sex marriage are also opposed to adultery and divorce.
As for selectively arguing from tradition, it is a logical fallacy to argue that supporting same-sex marriage indicates support of incest, polygamy, etc., etc. To maintain so is an unsupported flight of fancy.
ILC:
While I agree that getting a marriage license is a privilege, it is a privilege based on a right (almost all privileges are grounded this way). For me, to argue that no rights inhere in the individual citizen is a path to totalitarianism where decisions get made in the interest of the state and not the individual. For me, the state is an apparatus that citizens devise to facilitate the exercise of their rights and liberties. But like all human-made gadgets, the state needs constant supervision so that it does not run amok and start perverting that which it was designed to protect.
Since same-sex marriage cannot be deomonstrated to cause measureable harm to society or tradition (unless the very fact of change is considered harmful), the state has no logical reason to prevent a citizen from exercising his right to marry the person of his choice (barring incest considerations or the inablility to consent freely).
The state, of course, can act illogically, and prevent same-sex marriage on the grounds of bias and prejudice, but it should at least be honest about its reasons.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 29, 2008 @ 4:05 pm - May 29, 2008
Some gays are promiscuous. The majority are not. So the majority should be denied same-sex marriage rights because of an irresponsible minority.
I intend to be married someday to a man. I will never betray his trust and I will expect the same from him. Should I be lumped in with that couple in the New York Times article?
And we’ve all seen how cavalier some heterosexuals can be with the promise to “love, honor, and obey.” Should all heterosexuals, like my parents, for instance, who have thus far kept up all the vows of their marriage, be lumped in with the cheaters and the “open marriage” types?
And how does the strength of a heterosexual marriage depend on the exclusion of homosexual marriage?
Socialism does weaken families. The welfare state and the so-called “Great Society” nearly destroyed the black family. We have seen that over the decades. Hispanic families are also at risk of going down the same rabbit hole.
The sexual revolution as a whole has done serious harm to sexual relationships, both homo- and heterosexual. Could gay rights have advanced without it? I would like to think that it could, but that’s academic. The radical, shrill, sleep-with-everybody, out-loud-and-proud types have harmed us by association, but they do not define us. I’d prefer to live a life of quiet dignity with my steady boyfriend.
Comment by Attmay — May 29, 2008 @ 4:57 pm - May 29, 2008
Socialism does weaken families.
And yet so many gay leftists will happily trade their economic and political freedom in exchange for a piece of paper from the government.
Comment by V the K — May 29, 2008 @ 5:30 pm - May 29, 2008
Almost. It’s an apparatus that citizens devise to *protect* the exercise of their rights and liberties from wrongdoers. I’m objecting to the verb “facilitating”, which hints at an expansive role for the State.
Sheesh, where have I done that?! My views are quite the opposite. Massive rights inhere in the individual citizen. Just not the “right” to compel the money, respect, etc. of other citizens.
Rights are from God (or Nature, etc). They may be covered by legislation, but they do not need to be. Usually, the hidden agenda of legislation is to restrict them. But a genuine moral right remains, whether the State recognizes it or not. The individual’s key right is the right to act as his or her conscience dictates (short of attacking another individual’s right to do likewise, e.g., their life, person or property).
Privileges are from the State - or rather, from the People, making their wishes known legislatively / democratically. If it always and inherently needs to be legislated, it’s a privilege. The privilege is and should be meaningless, without State legislation and enforcement.
Where does marriage fall? Well, two individuals always have the *right* to promise to help each other, to be faithful, etc. Promise-keeping resides within the individual’s freedom of action. But a State license recognizing their commitment as a fictive third legal entity, having its own interests and imposing new obligations on *THIRD PARTIES*, is not a right and never can be. Not since we had the American Revolution, abolishing the Divine Right of Kings. Such things must be democratically legislated.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 6:08 pm - May 29, 2008
P.S. So note the implication: Not even heterosexuals have a right to a State marriage license. For the State to legislate something called “marriage licenses” and hand them out to committed opposite-sex couples is merely intelligent, i.e., very desirable. It would also be intelligent and desirable for the State to hand them out to committed same-sex couples.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2008 @ 6:18 pm - May 29, 2008
Well, that ignores several thousand years of human history!
Actually, in that context, it’s a fine example of how laws rarely if ever change biology. You could ban miscegenation all you wanted, but it never stopped people from having interracial relationships or producing multiracial children. Conversely, laws will not make same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples; hence, a key difference.
Those gay or lesbian couples who marry, are practicing commitment by definition. (Think about it.)
Then, by that logic, Britney Spears’s measured-in-hours marriage was an example of her practicing and being committed.
Marriage does not have magical powers to make people committed, nor does the fact that you are practicing marriage mean you are committed — her example and that of the promiscuous gay couple I cited being quite demonstrable proof.
A serious proposal from a major party to end no-fault divorce, in America or a major State, would be acceptable evidence.
Goalpost move, ILC; “people who oppose same-sex marriage” was the original statement. I have the feeling that was done because people know what Focus on the Family’s, just to use an example, stance on divorce and adultery is, and don’t want to admit it.
What needs to be answered is what gays who demand marriage rights believe on divorce and adultery. Do you support and endorse no-fault divorce? Do you oppose enforcement of laws against adultery?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 29, 2008 @ 7:02 pm - May 29, 2008
Two things:
A.
The simple fact is that that isn’t true. There are plenty of states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws and/or amendments where there weren’t even pending cases, let alone a court decision. This is, in fact the case for the majority of them. Get your facts straight before you say things.
Also, what for the same volume of clamor which occurs when laws pass (i.e. no jurisprudence involved)? What you say contradicts everything I’ve seen, including here in PA, where there was a push for an anti-gay marriage amendment with nary a lawsuit in sight.
B.
Once more, NDT, you make crass and spiteful accusations and allegations. You twist words, you call names, and you are being generally rude. Why can’t you keep a civil tongue. Why must you call us, “promiscuous, irresponsible, disrespectful, and undignified”? This is the very height of presumption, as you have never A. met any of us here, nor apparently B. met anything resembling a representative sample of gay people in this country. How many gay people do you know personally (i.e. in real life, not on the internet)? How many of them do you know to be, “promiscuous, irresponsible, disrespectful, and undignified”? How do you this to be the case? Are they friends? Acquaintances? Just people you know of?
As, has been said in fewer words, way to substitute stereotypes and ad hominems for an argument.
Ironic, considering the subject of the post.
Comment by PSUdain — May 30, 2008 @ 2:48 am - May 30, 2008
>The simple fact is that that isn’t true.
Prove it.
I’ll wait (not)
Comment by Vince P — May 30, 2008 @ 3:08 am - May 30, 2008
ILC:
I use the term facilitate since protecting rights and liberties often requires positive action and not merely passive defense on the part of the state.
As for for compelling respect, I agree that the state cannot do that, but the state does need to prevent people who do not respect others from interfering with those people’s rights and liberties. I may not respect racists, but that does not mean I have the right to interfere with their rights of speech or assembly.
In the same way, people may not respect gays and lesbians, but they should not be allowed to interfere with the right of gays and lesbians to marry and raise a family (which I believe to be a genuine moral right of all people) unless it can be shown that permitting gays and lesbians to marry and raise a family causes harm to society as a whole.
The state acknowledges this right (and the benefits to society of its exercise) by passing laws that sanction marriage and provide benefits to people who do get married.
As for imposing obligations: a person may not like interracial marriages, but if he lives in a society that permits them, then he must acknowledge them or leave that society if he is unable to get them de-recognized. The price of admission to civil society for an individual sometimes consists in having to acknowledge social arrangements that one may personally disapprove of or even abhor.
Conflict arises when society speaks in more than one voice. In New York State we have the interesting situation where the Assembly has passed same-sex marriage legislation that the Senate will not even allow to come to a vote.
At the same time, there are no laws prohibiting same-sex marriages legally performed out-of-state from being recognized in New York, and the Senate doesn’t have the votes to get a bill passed denying recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. now, both those for same-sex marriage and against it are turning to the courts because of this legislative constipation (I have always believed that a rule should exist that any bill brought before a legistlative body must be voted on before that particular session ends. We allow our legislators to skirt too many issues via the mechanism of tabling bills).
It will be interesting to watch this scenario play out as people attempt to reconcile the sexual orientation non-discrimination law passed by the New York Legislature with a possible ban on same-sex marriage recognition. (Another factor at work here is the effort of the Republicans to hold onto control of the State Senate. The reason that they will not allow a vote on the bill is that a couple of Republican senators from New York City would find their re-election efforts complicated if they voted against a bill that is now popular in their districts because of changed demographics).
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 30, 2008 @ 11:13 am - May 30, 2008
There are plenty of states that have passed anti-gay marriage laws and/or amendments where there weren’t even pending cases, let alone a court decision.
These states were being proactive in response to a decision in another state in which a judiciary imposed gay marriage through creative interpretation of the state constitution. It’s simply a different twist on something like Megan’s Laws, where states didn’t wait for high-profile cases to take action against something that they agreed they didn’t want.
Why must you call us, “promiscuous, irresponsible, disrespectful, and undignified”?
I cite an example of a gay couple flatly saying that they don’t care about monogamy, that faithfulness in marriage is just straight people lying, and that they will not allow marriage to prevent them from promiscuous behavior.
All you can do is whine about it being pointed out.
I also notice no one answered when I challenged them to present their beliefs on no-fault divorce and enforcement of adultery laws.
Meanwhile, let me show you an example of gay behavior right here in my neighborhood, as well as the statistics on HIV.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 30, 2008 @ 11:49 am - May 30, 2008
ND40:
As for no-fault divorce — I am opposed to it. I think that it devalues marriage since marriage in my opinion is only effective when it is understood as a lifetime commitment. Eliminaing no-fault divorce may give people reason to evaluate with great care the decision to enter into marriage.
As for adultery, the issue with laws against adultery is that they are rarely crafted with enough precision to allow couples who consensually choose to have an open relationship not to have their behavior criminalized.
As for one gay couple speaking against monogamy, I know dozens of married heterosexual couples who are equally disdainful of monogamy. I also know many couples, both gay and straight, who believe that monogamy is a vital element in their relationships. Each couple must choose the path that allows their commitment to function best and flourish.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 30, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - May 30, 2008
As for no-fault divorce — I am opposed to it. I think that it devalues marriage since marriage in my opinion is only effective when it is understood as a lifetime commitment.
But you don’t consider marriage a lifetime commitment. You consider it as merely a matter of convenience in which a couple can be “married”, but continue to have promiscuous sex with others as long as they both “consent”.
Furthermore, you insist that marriage be absolutely free of consequences, that adultery not be punished or discouraged, and that people be free to have sex with whomever they want, regardless of whether they’re married to someone else or not. You take monogamy out of marriage and legitimize promiscuity, extramarital affairs, polyamory, and innumerable other acts as just being another “choice”.
THAT cheapens marriage. THAT trivializes marriage. And THAT is striking at the very foundation of exclusivity and commitment that marriage is all about.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 30, 2008 @ 3:50 pm - May 30, 2008
Which of the twenty-six states that have marriage amendments on the books should we go with? How about all of them, as there has never been a pro gay marriage court ruling in any of them. Neither MA nor CA (as of now) has an anti gay marriage amendment in their constitution, and it has failed multiple times after the court ruling in MA.
And I already listed one example, right here in my home state of PA, where there was a (failed) push for an amendment, with no instigatory court case or ruling in the state.
Q.E.D.
I’m sorry, but your claim that they only occur in response to a court decision does not hold water. Twenty six states say otherwise. Twenty seven if you count the failed attempt in PA. Even more if you count all the other states that just have laws against it.
Comment by PSUdain — May 30, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - May 30, 2008
Ah, I see, NDT. You have an anecdote about a gay couple, a newspaper story, and an HIV statistic. And from your response, I take it that you don’t know any gay couples personally, as you failed to answer that?
So from that meager evidence you conclude that the entire gay community is as a group promiscuous? That’s a pretty big leap.
The average gay person I know (and I know many through organizations on campus) is far far far (etc) less promiscuous than the average HETERO sorority girl or frat boy. Maybe we should take marriage away from these people if they can’t hold to its ideals.
Yes it had been the case for some member of the community, yes some people still are, but many young gay people expect monogamy and a committed relationship, and there are scads of promiscuous heterosexuals.
The assumption that gay people are naturally and as a group all abnormally promiscuous is exactly the sort of behavoir that a lot of people are talking about when they say something is “homophobic”.
Comment by PSUdain — May 30, 2008 @ 4:22 pm - May 30, 2008
ND40:
I do believe that marriage is a lifetime commitment as I have written. You seem to believe that a lifetime commitment demands sexual monogamy as one of its components. I disagree with such an authoritarian stance. I believe that a committed couple are free to determine the form that their commitment takes.
Also, I never wrote that marriage should be free of consequences. I believe that one consequence of marriage is a lifetime devotion to the well-being and nurturing of the person you are married to. Each couple will work out the terms of such a commitment after their own fashion.
What cheapens marriage is the great ease with which people are allowed to slip in and out of it: for me a vow of devotion is not something that can or should be shrugged off like last season’s fashion.
My problem with your approach is that it is such an authoritarian notion of marriage that it leads to the micro-management of people’s lives which is not what marriage is about.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 30, 2008 @ 4:26 pm - May 30, 2008
PSU, you nitwit.. I didn’t mean court action in their own states but the court actions in other states.
What some far-left gay activist does in one state trying to impose thier agenda via a court has ramifications all over the country. I dare say the gay marriage activists are doing more to create anti-gay sentiment than any other force in recent years.
Comment by Vince P — May 30, 2008 @ 5:01 pm - May 30, 2008
Neither MA nor CA (as of now) has an anti gay marriage amendment in their constitution, and it has failed multiple times after the court ruling in MA.
Well, actually, it never failed, per se, inasmuch as the leftists in the Massachusetts Legislature refused to allow it to be put to a public vote.
Mainly because they knew it would win when voters were allowed to choose without having to toss their legislator to do it.
Yes it had been the case for some member of the community, yes some people still are, but many young gay people expect monogamy and a committed relationship
Uh huh — like this.
You seem to believe that a lifetime commitment demands sexual monogamy as one of its components. I disagree with such an authoritarian stance. I believe that a committed couple are free to determine the form that their commitment takes.
So you see, PSUdain, gays and lesbians who demand marriage at the same time consider monogamy “authoritarian” and reject it in favor of “freedom” to be promiscuous.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2008 @ 12:13 am - May 31, 2008
What I intend as a friendly response to Vince, in the spirit of debate:
I cede that there was a relation. (I do still hold that there is a difference between reaction and preemption, though.) However, you still fail to explain why the backlash from the gay non-supportive groups is just as vociferous (if not more so at times) when actions are taken by the standard legislative process.
If it’s the involvement of courts that are polarizing people, why doesn’t a legislative process placate the opposition even a mite? I still hold that there are many who are motivated by primarily by an animus towards “the gays” (or other viewpoints or reasons (yours being a rather obvious case of that), but those are a minority as far as I have seen), not a judicial philosophy, regardless of how they publicly frame them.
A history lesson for NDT:
Actually, it failed. It did not go before the public. There was one vote held in the legislature. It was sucessful. There was AN INTERVENING ELECTION in which every legislator who voted “no” was re-elected, and at least one new one (a gay man at that) was elected who promised to vote “no”.
After the intervening election, the MAIN SPONSOR of the amendment (a Republican) dropped his support, because he no longer thought it was the proper thing to do, and not because he thought the voters would pass it, but because he thought they wouldn’t and that it was a waste of time. Many other former supporters of the amendment did the same.
The amendment was not passed. (We normally call that “failing”, when you don’t succeed after beginning the process.) But just conveniently slap the label “LEFTIST” on all of the participants and you can discount whatever happens.
You should read up on the history there before you talk about it. Try the documentary Saving Marriage. We had it at our film festival this year, and it was very informative.
And, lastly, a response to NDT’s incessant assumptions:
No, “gay people” don’t think that. ONE gay person thinks that.** There is an ENORMOUS difference. Are you honestly that blind to that? I can kick ten counterexamples back in your direction, like the couple I know who have been together for forty-five years. Or, hell, take me as an example. I expect monogamy. So do most of the gay people who comment here. So why do you persist in telling US what this mysterious bloc you call “gay people” thinks?
We are not a hive mind. There is room for disagreement and dissent. Recognize that, for once!
Now while I do think there are “strings attached” to marriage, so to speak, I think that the government can’t regulate monogamy. That would be completely and totally intrusive. You want marriage police running around? How about a few sex police and a troop or two of thought police to round it out?
The fact is that straight people often don’t have monogamous relationships, either by consensual design or through one partner’s straying. And we don’t withold that right from them. So, while I do believe marriage to be a commitment, I wholeheartedly agree w/ Brian. What you propose is not enforceable except by pure, unadulterated, heavy-handed statism. Give the government that much power, and you’ve pretty much handed over the keys to the kingdom.
**I do not deny that this is not a unique belief, just that it is a universal or even prevailing one. My point is that the statement you cite is proof of the beliefs of one person, and one person only: the one who made it.
Comment by PSUdain — May 31, 2008 @ 2:36 am - May 31, 2008
There was AN INTERVENING ELECTION in which every legislator who voted “no” was re-elected, and at least one new one (a gay man at that) was elected who promised to vote “no”.
Polls repeatedly show that gay marriage is sufficient grounds to throw out a legislator for only a small portion of the population. However, when these initiatives are put directly to voters, they invariably pass.
Of course, the stupidity of Massachusetts’s constitution is that it emasculates the voters by requiring the gerrymandered legislature to sign off on and approve a constitutional amendment — twice — without any course of redress to the voters. That perverts the entire point of an amendable constitution as a protection against governmental overreach.
The amendment was never put to the vote of the people, as it should have been. Even you admit it won once.
Now while I do think there are “strings attached” to marriage, so to speak, I think that the government can’t regulate monogamy. That would be completely and totally intrusive. You want marriage police running around? How about a few sex police and a troop or two of thought police to round it out?
Sure it can. It can regulate child sex, it can regulate Internet porn, it can regulate incestuous relationships, it can regulate polygamy, and it can even regulate spousal sexual abuse, all of which involve “private conduct”.
If you want public benefits, i.e. marriage, you accept public regulation. The problem here is that gays and lesbians want marriage benefits without having to accept any of the conditions of marriage or enforcement of them, which are considered to be “authoritarian”.
In short, gays and lesbians want to be married, but act as if they were single, including having promiscuous sex, and insist that the government should have no right whatsoever to regulate their behavior or enforce rules; it should just hand over the benefits.
Or, hell, take me as an example. I expect monogamy.
“Expect”?
Why? Because you know that if you DEMANDED monogamy in marriage, as any person with any self-respect would do, you’d never get it, since other gays would call you “authoritarian”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2008 @ 3:56 am - May 31, 2008
We are not a hive mind. There is room for disagreement and dissent.
Really? Demonstrate it.
Say that the couple I quoted is wrong and that their promiscuous behavior within marriage is wrong.
Say that Brian, who believes that promiscuity in marriage is completely acceptable and that monogamy is “authoritarian”, is wrong.
Or blab on about how it’s their choice, that they should be allowed to do whatever they want, and that there should be no standards or enforced rules for marriage because that would be “intrusive”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 31, 2008 @ 4:06 am - May 31, 2008
I dont support gay marriage per se, however, I wouldn’t mind if it was approved the “right” way via a legistlature.
What happens when a court imposes such a thing is that the voters feel they have no control or say about the laws that this country always said that they were the ultimate boss.
The abortion decision pertained to one of the most sacred areas of family life… new life. Now soceity is bitterly divided on this issue because each side now has to go through a uncertain court processes to try to have successful impact on the policy.
Adding gay marriage to this type of thing can only divide society further and also increases the contempt for courts.
I wish the supporters of court action would recognize that. The purported benefits or unjustices that you want to fix aren’t worth it in the long term, IMHO.
Comment by Vince P — May 31, 2008 @ 4:57 am - May 31, 2008
I agree with NDT. In my experience enduring the drama of my various friends relationship diasters the thing that seems to cause the most conflict is
- inablity of either or both of the people dating to maintain monogamy
- mental derangement caused by possessiveness, jealousy, insecurity, fear of being abandoned etc.. which resulted in a sort of police state relationship where one of them , out of fear the other one might “cheat”, made life miserable for the other… out of devotion to monogamy.
- due to inflexiblity of monogamy expectation that one of them really couldn’t live up, created a situation where one of them would cheat but then had to lie about it because it was impossible for the other person to have rational discussion
I concluded years ago that there is a human nature compondnt of male fagness that works against monogamy. And that it is better for the mental health of both persons to at least recongnize that and set up a framework to deal with the situation if one of them cheats if they have agreed before to be monogamous.
What is more important? Truth or lying? Why would one person create such an emotionally disasterous framework that is an incentive for the other person to lie?
Sometimes I think the “cheated on” deserve to get lied to by the cheater.. that is the sort of framework they establashed by letting it be know that if he ever found out the other was cheating that very bad consequences would result.
One of the things that normal marriage was meant to do was secure the place of the wife by constraining the male from going with other women , possiblity getting them pregnant and then franchsing offspring all over the place, destablizing all those families and children. And most of all leaving the wife extremely vulnerable since more often or not she surrernered her self-sufficency by not working and staying home to raise the kids.
Well none of those consequences pertain to gay males.
The instablity wake of cheating is minimal, other than to burst the bubble of some naive person who thinks they can fo