Yesterday, in researching a piece I am writing for Pajamas, I reviewed all my posts on gay marriage going back to November when Proposition 8 passed.
I found a common theme in my postings, decrying all too many gay marriage advocates for substituting name-calling for serious discussion of the issue and urging said advocates to follow the lead of people Jonathan Rauch and make careful arguments for the social change they’re trying to promote.
Less frequently, I discussed the issue of gay marriage as social change. And it is. I don’t think we should shy away from talking about it as such. Some social changes are good things. It would benefit our (the gay) community to understand why marriage has long been the defining social expression of heterosexual love. And why it would be a good thing for the institution to serve a similar role for the expression of same-sex love.
Perhaps, I say that a bit clumsily, and perhaps what I call a “common theme” above is mere repetition. But, if I do repeat myself, it is because I believe I am hammering home a point ofparamount importance — the necessary conversation on gay marriage.
I was flattered that without my prompting, Michelle Malkin so generously excerpted my post chastising those who would rather slur gay marriage opponents than challenge their arguments:
Our society could gain by a serious discussion of gay marriage. Gay people in particular would benefit from such a conversation. Yet, the supposed advocates of this change would rather score points in some imaginary contest with conservatives than make a point about the social benefits of extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.
It’s why I believe we need a complete overhaul of leadership of the various gay organizations, particularly those devoted to promoting gay marriage, to replace people who refrain from chastising those who regular paint their adversaries as hate-filled troglodytes with individuals really ready to rumble on the issue.
That is, leaders who recognize that in pushing this social change, they’re “trying to overcome,” in Dale Carpenter’s words, “deeply embedded views about something Americans think is the foundation of responsible family life.” Respect that while some social conservatives harbor much animus against people like us, many, perhaps the great majority, are not so hateful. I believe that some of them can be reached by “gentle suasion,” thoughtful arguments civilly expressed.
It’s that very belief that kept me late one night earlier this week so I could blog on Pete Wehner’s praise for Jonthan Rauch’s essay on marriage. The words of that one-time aide to Bill Bennett showed that broad-minded social conservatives were open to serious arguments on gay marriage.
We just need broaden the conversation. It appears that all too many leading advocates of gay marriage want to avoid that conversation at all costs. They’d prefer to hurl insults and paint all gay marriage opponents with a broad brush, as if the most hateful and vocal opponents define the entire opposition.
By the same token, it would be wrong to let the most hateful and vocal proponents of gay marriage, those who would slur anyone who expresses their support of the traditional definition of marriage, become representative of those who favor this social change. Many (if not most) of those gay couples who do seek state recognition of their unions do understand the meaning of the institution.
They may be best suited to move the conversation we so sorely need in a more civil direction.
When I outlined this post, I had intended to keep it under 300 words, articulating (or perhaps, “repeating”) would be a better word, my primary point on my concerns on gay marriage, but the post grew in the telling.
Your statement reveals a clue to the resistance to what you rightly refer to as social change. Marriage is about much more than love; in sloganese, it might read: Property, progeny, probity — all goals of the majority of married couples. When comparing cultures, what’s interesting are the similarities of family units and associated rites such as marriage; despite some differences, lasting societies are built upon and around the common concept of the social advantages of the family unit. I’ve made this point before, but this likely goes back to our very biology and the necessities survival demands. Due to history and reproduction, these ideas don’t apply to same-sex relationships.
Like you, I believe love is essential as part of life and intimacy. However, if love were the only or vastly primary consideration in/for a relationship, marriage wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t be a value for which anyone might struggle and that is one reason I’ve never believed that the same-sex marriage cause is about love.
I’ve found it nearly impossible to have an honest, respectful discussion about gay marriage with a liberal. I genuinely do not think they are interested in convincing me of the merits of gay marriage and prefer to belittle my concerns. Others ignore the topic like the plague and are desperate to change the subject if I’m around. I get the impression that many liberals in support of gay marriage are not interested in changing the culture via changing the hearts of the people, but would prefer a court hearing to ultimately decide the issue so they can flip the bird to those who disagree. What would be the point of legislation that does not reflect the public sentiment? Isn’t it a bit backwards to push for laws and expect (or force?) the culture to immediately embrace them (yeah, right) instead of first convincing the culture to support the content of potential laws?
The funny thing about my experiences with liberals who’s argument centers around “you’re a bigot, stop being a bigot” is that I’m not completely decided on the issue. I am morally opposed to homosexual behavior, but I recognize the need for a form of legal partnership to give gay couples access to benefits. I take this issue seriously and want to use good judgement and foresight when fine-tuning my stance. It’s a complicated topic and it would be a big change. So why are my concerns and questions brushed aside as manifestations of hatefulness? Why are so liberal gay marriage advocates unwilling to state their case?
I’m very passionate about the pro-life movement and I jump at the chance to present the pro-life case. I have never felt compelled to call people names for being pro-choice or to snub people who question my logic. I feel I have an honest, solid, realistic argument – so why would I need to villify those that I’m trying to persuade? Sometimes I suspect that many liberals haven’t given their support of gay marriage much serious thought and that’s why they rely on insults.
“What would be the point of legislation that does not reflect the public sentiment?”
We get into a bit of a loop here. The most effective force for overcoming distaste for homosexuality (as with many forms of discriminatory belief) is exposure. Changing the law and thus creating gay married couples could be the key to changing sentiment. We can see this in other causes — the end of anti-miscegenation laws lead to mixed-race couples, lead to people knowing mixed-race couples, lead to people not seeing the problem with (or at least the value in the legal restriction on) mixed race couples. It was a very slow process, but if the laws had not changed decades back, we would not be seeing the level of acceptance that we see.
Bingo!
I have a friend who is very actively fighting for gay marriage, it’s all about equality and she always makes the comparison to Black civil rights.
Her son is gay, he is also very much in favor of equality – but he never took the time to get married this summer to his partner of 4 years. That doesn’t make any sense to me – if this issue is of utmost importance – get out there and get married. Don’t demand that society change so that in theory you can become ‘equal’ when it suits you.
Also, I gave her a number of articles by Jonathan Rauch – her response- I don’t like his attitude. Meaning – Society owes gays equality in marriage simply because I said so. Beyond equality I’ve never heard her express any reason for gay marriage. When I brought up monogamy her response was: that is none of my business. In other words, marriage and monogamy or loyalty to your spouse are meaningless.
I can’t believe this.
I told some friends back in ’02 that eventually, the gay community will swing a little to the right, simply because more gays are raising kids. They were doubtful.
But between this renewed interest in getting back to our Reaganesque core, and the obvious weaponizing if the issue by liberals, there are real rays of hope.
I am sure there will be many clumsy conversations and sometimes even hurt feelings, but I think the real conversation would totally disarm the liberal cabal.
If I am way off, let me have it.
“Respect that while some social conservatives harbor much animus against people like us, many, perhaps the great majority, are not so hateful. ”
I am the first to admit that I do get angry from time to time. I have no skin in this game. I have been with the same partner (monogamously) for nearly 30 years. It’s the James Neileys of the world (http://www.tips-q.com/content/video-gay-teens-emotional-testimony-vermont-over-same-sex-marriage32109) that this fight is all about.
What has me particularly amped up these days is the battle over HR1913. The Christian right is unified in rhetoric that is simply untrue, I have seen a great deal of this in the marriage wars, Just look at Maggie Gallagher’s letter in today’s NY Times. (http://www.tips-q.com/865428-maggie-gallaghers-letter-ny-times) She is still peddling the lies that define “The Gathering Storm.” Given the lack of curiosity among many social conservatives, they just eat this stuff up without questioning anything.
As a progressive, I would be hard pressed to agree that a majority of conservatives and Republicans treat us with any measure of respect. House Judiciary markup session of HR1913 was a circus. People like King and Goehmert (sp?) did everything but refer to perverts.
IMHO, gays would demonstrate a great deal more restraint and respect if more GOP leaders would denounce the Perkins’ of the world. McCain was a real hero once.
Like you, I believe love is essential as part of life and intimacy. However, if love were the only or vastly primary consideration in/for a relationship, marriage wouldn’t be necessary and wouldn’t be a value for which anyone might struggle and that is one reason I’ve never believed that the same-sex marriage cause is about love.
Ignatius, I disagree with your statement. While one of the reasons of marriage is to provide stability for couples who procreate, and still so today, marriage has come to mean much more than that. In fact, not only do we allow opposite sex couples who have no intention of having children, including couples past childbearing years, they are embraced. In other words, it’s not like people say, “Oh, I don’t want to make a law saying that married couples have to or be able to procreate, but we shouldn’t encourage infertile or older couples to get married.” Far from it.
That’s one of the reasons why I believe a same sex couple who plans to adopt children should be allowed to marry, just as any opposite sex couple who plans to adopt children. Or a same sex couple who does not plan to adopt children be allowed to marry, just as any opposite sex couple who do not plan on having children.
Dan is right though. It should be more about equality. And while I can understand the emotions getting to people (on both sides of the argument, by the way), having more rational heads on our side will be more helpful.
#3 Nat G. notes:
Nat G. nails it!
Gay marriage is all about overcoming “distaste for homosexuality.”
I do not have a positive opinion of homosexuality and I do not see how I can be indoctrinated into acquiring one.
I value the person. I accept homosexual people who are something beyond their homosexuality and are productive, thoughtful, interesting, worthy, fascinating, useful human beings. I prefer that they keep their lusts to themselves.
Obviously, I will remain a bigoted str8 who is not the least bit moderated by gay marriage. (Unfortunately for my bigoted str8 standing, I support civil unions. I think the person who is homosexual should have the right to appoint partners as legal entities.)
Pat, love is important, but the institution of marriage isn’t built primarily on love. It would then be easy to conclude that for gay couples, the issue is primarily about love, but in my observation of same-sex marriage activists and those I speak to who personally support the idea, gay couples don’t want marriage, they deserve it. It is an issue of equality, not love; it’s about the ability to get married, not marriage. And so I have to conclude that the motive force behind the cause is the sense that every day same-sex couples are denied the marriage privilege is a day they are dissed by the law and that has become the issue. For these folks (and most of them are single), marriage is a touchstone or a barometer that measures the perception of homosexual social status. That’s my experience.
Nat G:
I see your point about legislative action inspiring acceptance of gay marriage or legal partnerships, as a kind of immersion effect. But to clarify my point about legislation not reflecting public sentiment, what I was really getting at is that my experience speaking with pro gay marriage liberals, I’m not convinced they care about changing the culture. They bring up a potential court ruling to me as a weapon against the opposition, as a sort of threat: “Ha! I told you so! Now your opinions are OFFICIALLY irrelevant!” If this sort of attitude I encounter so frequently is coupled with changing the law, then I suspect it will foster resentment and a divisive spirit.
I don’t conflate exposure with indoctrination.
I have met, in my time, people who grew up believing that Jews had horns and tails. They had beliefs about Jews that were pure indoctrination. The simple exposure to a hornless Jew didn’t inherently say something about Jews as it destroyed the assumptions that had been drilled into them.
In the US, as we’ve integrated various groups into our society, we find that the assumptions about them fade away when faced with reality, and the discriminatory instinct lessens. It doesn’t go away entirely, and there have been regularly new groups which we’ve not moved into society, but one look at the President these days (whatever one may think of his politics or personality) demonstrates that exposure and time can mitigate the effect, and now look – it’s a Hawaiian in the Oval Office!
In places where gay couples have been allowed access to civil marriage, we’ve seen resistance to gay marriage weaken. The reality of the situation is soon seen not to be the dire destruction that is predicted.
JLV: Ah, that’s not how I’d read it. Thank you for your clarification.
There are folks who are shallow and vindictive on all sides of this question… as with most of politics these days. I’m not sure that they are more numerous so much as they are louder than the thoughtful voices.
For these folks (and most of them are single), marriage is a touchstone or a barometer that measures the perception of homosexual social status. That’s my experience.
Ignatius, that may be so. But that’s their argument for marriage. That constitute’s only part of my rationale. And perhaps, as Dan suggests, we would be further along the path of legalization of same sex marriage if advocates went beyond the equality argument.
Keep in mind that straight persons don’t have to make equality arguments for marriage, because when the right person comes along, they can get married. My hope is that in, say 100 years, the same will be true for gay persons.
It was a very slow process, but if the laws had not changed decades back, we would not be seeing the level of acceptance that we see.
Interesting logic, given the actual statistics.
The latest GMI Poll, powered by global market intelligence solutions provider GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.), reveals that even though most African-Americans know an interracial couple, less than half (49 percent) said they would consider marrying someone outside of their race.
The Christian right is unified in rhetoric that is simply untrue, I have seen a great deal of this in the marriage wars,
You mean like the fact that gay liberals support teaching five-year-olds about gay sex or that gay liberals take children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs as an educational experience?
What has me particularly amped up these days is the battle over HR1913. The Christian right is unified in rhetoric that is simply untrue,
You mean like the fact that gay liberals have insisted that investigating and punishing gays who demand sex from their coworkers and discriminate against those who refuse to give it to them is “homophobia and sexism”?
Or that the gay community says that people who object to dressing toddlers as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs are “close-minded”?
And perhaps, as Dan suggests, we would be further along the path of legalization of same sex marriage if advocates went beyond the equality argument.
That is, if gay-sex marriage advocates actually had any concern for such things.
But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:
“Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.'”
In short, you have the leaders of gay-sex marriage organizations openly downgrading the moral and symbolic value of marriage for votes and publicly belittling it as a “patriarchal institution”.
Doesn’t that make it patently obvious that they only care about the status, and not about the institution? Why on earth should society change one of its bedrock institutions so that people who are openly contemptuous of said institution can feel better about themselves?
#11 Nat G. Thanks for the reply, but that is not what you said. You said: “The most effective force for overcoming distaste for homosexuality (as with many forms of discriminatory belief) is exposure.”
I addressed your notion that gay marriage will moderate or possibly eliminate “distaste for homosexuality.” You are pushing a string on this type of reasoning. I recall Elena Ceausescu who didn’t finish elementary school but ended up with a summa cum laude Ph.D. in polymer chemistry from the University of Bucharest.
If a gay couple finally gets society to award them a marriage certificate, it will have nothing to do with overcoming “distaste for homosexuality.” To the contrary, it will only succeed in debasing the institution of marriage and opening the doors to further assaults on the already weakened tradition.
The homosexual has the complete menu of civil rights and protections. Why the homosexual feels he has an extra special civil right to choose a marriage partner from outside the societal norm is beyond me. Your issue is same sex marriage. You are not a whit different from those who want multiple partners or marriage with the very young.
Doesn’t that make it patently obvious that they only care about the status, and not about the institution?
NDT, yes, it makes it obvious for those people in the article you quoted.
Why on earth should society change one of its bedrock institutions so that people who are openly contemptuous of said institution can feel better about themselves?
For the same reason why a husband who doesn’t beat his wife is asked when he will stop beating his wife.
In other words, you’re trying to imply that all gay couples view marriage as the persons in the article.
That is, if gay-[sic] sex marriage advocates actually had any concern for such things.
Um, what’s this obsession of yours with sex lately?
Anyway, I side with Dan here.
But that’s their argument for marriage. That constitute’s only part of my rationale.
And that rationale is part of why I oppose you and them.
Keep in mind that straight persons don’t have to make equality arguments for marriage, because when the right person comes along, they can get married.
And that is exactly as it should be. The onus to convince is not on those who support the traditional idea of marriage because they are not proposing change.
heliotrope: It is rather odd that you want to accord civil rights only to those things within the extant social norm – because those things within the norm are’t much in need rights protection. Your descriptor for “an extra special civil right to choose a marriage partner from outside the societal norm” would apply just as soundly to those who wanted to marry outside of their own race 50 years ago as it does to those who want to marry within their own sex today.
As for debasing marriage, I’ve already repeatedly seen signs of young mixed-sex couples shying away from marriage because it’s being weilded to fight homosexuality. It risks becoming like the country club that was all white for decades, because it was in an all white town. Then there were some blacks in the area, but they weren’t really applying to get in, weren’t really part of the community. And then some started applying to get in, and the board discovered that they had to take what had always been an assumption and put it right into the bylaws to keep them from getting in. And when people who years ago had never really thought about whether black folks should be allowed in the club started to complain, the board made itself clear by hammering a big Whites Only sign onto the club lawn. And now they find themselves wondering why the young folks, even the white young folks, aren’t applying so much any more…
My wife married outside of her religion, breaking the norm of her society. My father married outside of his race, and believe me society repeatedly reminds him that he stepped outside of the norm. And yet, we don’t consider the right to do these things to be “an extra special” civil right. They are just civil rights.
In other words, you’re trying to imply that all gay couples view marriage as the persons in the article.
Did you read who the people in the article were, Pat?
They were the leaders of the No on 8 campaign, the single largest gay-sex marriage organizing campaign in the United States.
Why on earth would they have been allowed to head up a campaign agitating for gay-sex marriage if gay couples overwhelmingly did not support what they believed and were saying?
heliotrope: It is rather odd that you want to accord civil rights only to those things within the extant social norm – because those things within the norm are’t much in need rights protection.
Then, by that logic, we should afford pedophiles, bestialists, polygamists, and incest practitioners their “civil rights” because they are “outside the norm”.
As for your citation about young straight couples, what is more likely is that they are rationalizing their unwillingness to enter into a legally-binding relationship that would hold them responsible for their behavior. Ironically, they further weaken the argument for the necessity or imperative of gay-sex marriage, given that their lack of marriage seems to cause them no problems.
Great thought piece, Dan. Of course, trying to read it on Malkin’s column while getting past a very unflattering pic of that douchebag Perez Hilton takes a strong stomach.
I loathe that prissy queen about as much as Jeremiah Wright, and that’s pretty strong.
Regards,
Peter H.
And that rationale is part of why I oppose you and them.
Ignatius, is it because you oppose equality, or because you don’t believe that same sex marriage helps the cause of equality. And if I kept all of my other arguments for marriage, but took out equality, you wouldn’t oppose me? Could you elaborate?
I understand your experience. And I suppose if the only reason to have same sex marriage is as a barometer, to shove it in other people’s faces, etc., I would be opposed to it to. On the other hand, I have no problem who, may not want to get married himself, but want his brethren to have the opportunity, as opposed to those who don’t want to get married, and basically say, “well I don’t want it, and sh&t on you who do want it.”
And that is exactly as it should be. The onus to convince is not on those who support the traditional idea of marriage because they are not proposing change.
I agree with you, but that wasn’t my point. But since you brought it up, maybe it would be a good idea that everyone (straight or gay) who wants to get married should demonstrate that they are up to the task, and support the traditional idea of marriage.
The latest GMI Poll, powered by global market intelligence solutions provider GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.), reveals that even though most African-Americans know an interracial couple, less than half (49 percent) said they would consider marrying someone outside of their race.
NDT, these statistics do not refute Nat’s comments. If half of the people want to marry within their race, that’s fine by me. It’s nice that most of them don’t want to deny others who do want to marry outside their race.
Most people who support same sex marriage are straight. I’m guessing that these persons would not marry a person of the same sex if and when same sex marriage becomes legal.
Why on earth would they have been allowed to head up a campaign agitating for gay-sex marriage if gay couples overwhelmingly did not support what they believed and were saying?
Excellent question. I honestly don’t know if the majority of gay couples who want marriage believe marriage is a patriarchal institution (i.e., “Marriage sucks, but I want it anyway.”) That doesn’t make sense either. The problem is, as Dan and other pointed out, was that the No on 8 campaign did a horrible job, and probably snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. That commercial (although corny, but fine, until that last stupid line) was an example of it.
Why the homosexual feels he has an extra special civil right to choose a marriage partner from outside the societal norm is beyond me. Your issue is same sex marriage. You are not a whit different from those who want multiple partners or marriage with the very young.
Heliotrope, like Nat G., I don’t believe marrying the person I love is any more of a special right than the right you had to marry the person you love. Like you, I don’t believe I should be able to marry a child, a close relative, an animal, or have multiple partners.
Nat G: You just had to go there: comparing homosexuality with race.
A black male homosexual who wants to marry a white male homosexual is no different from two black male homosexuals who want to marry.
Homosexuals who want to latch on to race discrimination or the holocaust are pathetic in the logic department.
To examine this phony logic let us stipulate that a homosexual is born homosexual just as a black is born black. Now show me how discriminating against a black marrying a white of the opposite sex is equal to denying same sex marriage.
I will be patiently waiting. You have pulled my chain on this one. Being of uncertain categorization in the race department, I take great objection to those who bandy about the homosexual comparisons with race discrimination.
The best way for a black person to overcome the societal stigma of being black is to beat his way to the level of (perhaps grudgingly) acknowledged excellence without the curse of affirmative action clouding the picture.
I fully support homosexuals following the same formula.
Where does changing the ancient tradition of marriage provide an opening to even contemplate that a discrimination based on the 14th Amendment has occurred? As demeaning as it is to a homosexual’s “wants and needs” list, the homosexual is in no way whatsoever barred from the tradition of marriage.
Gay marriage is a different concept from the existing order. You may fight to make it a societally accepted institution. That means you have convinced the overwhelmingly heterosexual majority to go along with you. Good on you if you can get that job done. But stop insulting the history of institutionalized black degradation by claiming parity with a desire of a statistically minute minority who wants to redefine marriage. I will seriously remind you that gay marriage and polygamy and adult-child unions and wanting to marry your cat all have equal standing. They are all based on how someone wants society to accept their special desire.
Well yes, in that I took your blanket statement and showed how it would apply in other situations.
But no, in that I was not comparing homosexuality with race. I was either comparing homosexuality with miscegenation, or gender with race.
Nor was anyone barred from marrying under the anti-miscegenation laws. It was just a limitation on who they could marry, and who they were limited to was based on their race, just as under the current laws of most states who you can marry is limited based on gender.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but during the same event referred to as “the holocaust” for Jews, the same folks were rounding up the homosexuals, shipping them off to concentration camps, and killing them. It’s hard to see it as a separate event.
It is a sad truth of history that being part of a discriminated-against group does not automatically make one more sensitive to discrimination in general. That does not, however, mean that discrimination against one group has no parallel with that against another group, nor that we should not learn from the history of discrimination in general.
And what percentage of people actually wanted to marry in violation of the anti-miscegenation laws when those were cast aside? (As for the “statistically small minority”, current polling shows that about 1/3 of the US wants such a “redefinition”. I don’t find that small.)
To you. Of course, the anti-miscegenists compared miscegenation to bestiality as well.
Nate G:
In response to your comment at #29 about heliotrope’s objections at your comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, I think something is being left out of the equation. In regard to former laws barring interracial marriages, it is important to note that race is not a component of traditional marriage. The race of a person is merely incidental and has nothing to do with the functional aspects of marriage (creating and raising children, for example). Therefore, it is obvious that those former laws were arbritarily decided as a means to exclude “inferior” races. But gender is a major component of traditional marriage, and many (including myself) believe it to be essential to the function and very definition of marriage (biologically speaking, historically, etc). So I don’t find race and gender to be equal in the realm of marriage, as race is irrelevant to marriage itself and gender is an integral part of the historically recognized institution. Of course, there is still debate to be had about redefining gender within marriage to accomodate a sexual preference that is not the “default.” And I think the particulars and pros/cons of that accomodation yields the most honest and productive debate, instead of faulty (IMHO) civil rights comparisons.
JLV:
In the interest of factual correctness, I’ll note that anti-miscegenation laws did not exclude any race from marriage. It wasn’t the “inferior” races that were being excluded, but “mongrelization” — which meant it was a restriction on people of all races.
I understand that you feel that race and gender are not of equal concern for discrimination under the law in this regard. However, if you accept that some discrimination under the law would be problematic, then you’re saying that a claim “social norm” (which I realize was not in your postings, but is part of the general discussion) is not enough to make discrimination acceptable. It requires your position to be more carefully designed to be convincing than would be required otherwise.
(And then, of course, there’s the question of whether the government needs to be involved in such an institution, if the institution requires such discrimination, or whether deciding who gets to be considered married should be left up to the “free market” of personal belief and understanding of the term.)
“Exclude” was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said something more like: barring interracial marriage reinforced the notion that all races are not equal.
Anyway, I basically agree with everything you said. I do believe that social norm is not enough to make discrimination acceptable. And I have often pondered the unanswered questions that you brought up that coincide with my line of reasoning. As I’ve mentioned before, while I’m morally opposed to gay marriage, I’m still unsure of how I feel about the legal side of it aka the government’s role. To me, the whole issue is rather complicated and involves a lot of “unknowns.” Hence, my exasperation with those (not you) who insist it’s nothing more than bigotry.
Nat G. slips in this premise:
I am focusing on this conditional statement because the underlying force of all “restrictive” law is discrimination. The source of sovereign power in the U.S. resides with the people, all law arises from the people through their representatives. Laws do not empower: they restrict. When one is restricted, he is face to face with discrimination. My suggestion is that discrimination is both positive and negative. Unfortunately, the civil rights era of the last half century has led too many people to believe that discrimination is always bad. They sniff around for de jure and de facto discrimination and throw political correctness at it.
Marriage is restricted to one man and one woman who are of legal age and not too closely related. They also have to have a level of mental acuity. Some states are attempting to change the tradition behind this standard.
Your comparing same sex marriage with miscegenation creates the basic fallacy of the undistributed middle term in forming a syllogism. Traditional marriage was denied in the case of miscegenation. Homosexuals are not denied traditional marriage. A gay male can marry the woman who will accept him. It happens often. A homosexual is not denied the right to marry, he is denied the redefinition of marriage.
Once again you have expressed a fundamental fallacy in forming the syllogism. The “who” is the problem. A black male is still barred from marrying a while male and not because of miscegenation, but because of violating the legal definition of marriage.
Gay marriage depends entirely upon the society changing the rules to accept it.
You blew off my point about polygamy, man-child unions and wanting to marry your cat. For whatever reason, many gays seeking marriage seem to see no parallel with polygamists, adult-child unions or other combinations. But, why would you take to the streets to restrict polygamists from redefining legal marriage? Why would your “moral” code be any more “correct” than theirs? Why not accept the marriage available under Sharia?
Way back in #3 you wrote “the most effective force for overcoming distaste for homosexuality……” and I called you on that. “Distaste for homosexuality” is not a very clear term, but the gist of the concept is not too hard to fathom. You want to be respected and accepted and woven into general society. I respect that desire. Perhaps you might like to assess what about homosexuality is distasteful. Then you might like to jot down the multitude of reasons why you believe gay marriage will ameleorate the “distaste.” You have already suggested that “exposure” through being granted marriage rights will break down “distaste” toward homosexuality. Think about that for a long, long while. Do you think that gay marriage is going to show society the monogamous, adopted child rearing, caring couple and therefore chase away the distaste for the actions of other gays who have no interest in your program? Really? Spend a little time in the Lambda Rising bookstore in Georgetown and convince the average town meeting that it is all just a valuable part of diversity.
In conclusion, wage your crusade on its own merits. You might also consider how you account for the bi-sexuals, transgender, etc. folks who make up your greater organization. Do your marriage redefinitions include all the riders on the bus?
That depends, of course, on a convenient definition of “traditional” marriage. By the time that the anti-miscegenation laws were shut down, they had been part of the cultural tradition in this land for three centuries. Or if one looks at the longer view of tradition, marriage that requires a woman of legal age, that doesn’t include first cousins, or that requires the consent of the married goes against the “tradition”.
You seem to be laboring under some mistaken assumption of who I am.
I think having visible gay couples in one’s midst will relax the assumption that homosexuality is in and of itself destructive. Having an Obama visible will not make people think that Crips and Bloods are a-okay, but it will help cement the sense that not all black men are Crips or Bloods.
If gender is out as a limiting factor in marriage, I don’t see where that leaves out bi-sexuals or transgender folks. If you want to explain about how their bi-sexual status or transgender status would leave them less able to marry the one they love than the “normal” gay folk, please put it forward. (And “my greater organization”? If there’s an organization, I have a hard time seeing myself as part of it. Not much of an organization guy.)
JLV:
Indeed. However, one is less wondering without the contingent that is operating primarily from bigotry (and with people still calling for death sentence for homosexual activity, it’s hard to claim that there isn’t such a portion of people out there on the anti-SSM side) how the overall numbers would look.
Then again, the numbers in this are interesting, because it makes it clear that this is not a one-dimensional issue. There is clearly a significant population out there who think “Homosexuality is always wrong” but also think that homosexual relationships should be elligible for some sort of legal recognition – presumably folks who believe on some level that government should be more about creating a functional society than a “moral” one. (That link also has a good graph going to the question of the increasing acceptance of legal cross-race marriages.)
“One is left wondering” is what I meant by “one is less wondering”. I apologize for any confusion that generated.
Oh, please, we are not going to have a Clintonian parsing of the words one man/one woman marriage are we? The restrictions on age and kinship and even “caste” have varied over the millenia, but the basic formula has not. Changing the requirements did not change the definition. One man/and another man changes the definition as surely as one man/up to six women does.
Not really. Gay or not, you have the notion that “distaste for homosexuality” (your term) will wither if gay marriage is permitted and that gays will be respected and accepted and woven into general society.
This metaphor is pure salmagundi. America is not essentially racist. Obama is not a reformed Crip or Blood. Crips and Bloods are not black. I don’t know where gays parallel any of this, especially in terms of “distaste for homosexuality.” (May I assume that Condi Rice is not your idea of an authentic black because she cleaves to conservatism?)
Good answer. Once “marriage” becomes an elastic term, then polygamy, Sharia and an old woman “marrying” her cat would make perfect sense.
You are not for gay marriage, you are against traditional marriage. You are a committed egalitarian relying on your high power of reason to establish the morally relevant terms that promote your point of view. You worship diversity and tolerance and you abhor bigotry. But you cull your personally identified “bigots” out of your diversity and do not tolerate them. In fact, your kind sends them to reeducation camps if they violate the political correctness codes. I am not talking about Davis Duke or the KKK here, I am talking about the neanderthal, knuckle dragging, drooling conservative who cling to their guns and their religion. I image you have plenty to say on the subject of Sarah Palin. She is the poster child for leftist intolerance and dedication to expulsion from the diversity and tolerance circle.
After Theo Van Gogh was assassinated, the Dutch woke up to what extreme “tolerance” and limitless diversity had done to them. They are leaving their country in droves and trying to back-pedal. License and liberty are nor so distantly related if you work hard to drop the societal guard rails. But when a crowd shows up who wants to subvert the game, all manner of chaos results.
As the left pushes us closer to that Alpine meadow where everyone sings is perfect harmony and each contributes to the good of all and everyone is provided with what he needs, we soon discover that “wants” become “needs” and the whole dream becomes a night mare. Nat G, you need to examine the ground you stand on.