That depends, of course, on a convenient definition of “traditional” marriage.

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.

You seem to be laboring under some mistaken assumption of who I am.

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.

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.

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?)

If gender is out as a limiting factor in marriage, I don’t see where that leaves out bi-sexuals or transgender folks.

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.

Traditional marriage was denied in the case of miscegenation.

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”.

“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.

You seem to be laboring under some mistaken assumption of who I am.

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?

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.

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?

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:

Hence, my exasperation with those (not you) who insist it’s nothing more than bigotry.

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.)

if you accept that some discrimination under the law……

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.

Nor was anyone barred from marrying under the anti-miscegenation laws. It was just a limitation on who they could marry….

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?

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.

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.)

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.

You just had to go there: comparing homosexuality with race.

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.

the homosexual is in no way whatsoever barred from the tradition of marriage.

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.

Homosexuals who want to latch on to race discrimination or the holocaust are pathetic in the logic department.

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.

Being of uncertain categorization in the race department, I take great objection to those who bandy about the homosexual comparisons with race discrimination.

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.

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.

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.)

I will seriously remind you that gay marriage and polygamy and adult-child unions and wanting to marry your cat all have equal standing.

To you. Of course, the anti-miscegenists compared miscegenation to bestiality as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I loathe that prissy queen about as much as Jeremiah Wright, and that’s pretty strong.

Regards,
Peter H.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?