A (social) conservative’s case for civil discussion of gay marriage
In his defense of gay conservatives, Doctor Zero addresses just how to promote civil discussion of gay marriage:
I think my own credentials as a defender of traditional marriage are in order. They can be reviewed in detail here and here. I do not hold these beliefs out of animosity toward gay people, or disrespect for committed homosexual relationships. I believe in the positive value of the marriage tradition, and I reserve the right to celebrate that value without denigrating those who don’t participate in it.
The gay-marriage movement is necessarily aggressive, because they seek a substantial change in society. I appreciate the strength of their conviction, and as long as they respect mine, we can have a civil discussion. The temptation to detonate conviction into anger is strong, and counter-productive. I’m no more impressed by Ryan Sorba’s act than I was by Perez Hilton’s.
Well said, very well said. If people are serious about promoting this significant social change, that is, state recognition of same-sex marriage, then they’ll recognize that some people can oppose same-sex marriage without hating gay people. After all, as long as cultures have recognized marriage, they’ve defined the institution as a union between individuals of different sexes.
So, respect their arguments and find a way to counter them (and explain why this social change is a good thing). Yeah, I know I’ve said this before. Countless times.
And he’s right to link Sorba to that other guy. Blowhards are blowhards, no matter what their ideology.
There’s a lot more in his post I’d like to address, but I’m tired and need to wake up early to figure out a way to make a rhetorically smooth transition, in keeping with the theme and style of my dissertation, between Athena’s relationship to Persephone and her involvement in the creation of Pandora, the woman not the planet.
47 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“Aggressive” is doing dubious work in that quote. As is “substantial change in society”, given it is not about whether gay couples will exist, build lives together or even raise children but whether the law will recognise that. Really, it is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Comment by Lorenzo from Oz — February 24, 2010 @ 7:10 am - February 24, 2010
Dr. Zero notes:
Lorenzo from Oz (#1) disagrees:
Do I read Lorenzo from Oz correctly? Without gay marriage, the gay person is being denied some measure of life, some measure of liberty, and some measure of the pursuit of happiness. That is to say that until there is gay marriage, the gay person is incomplete and it is the straight world that is causing that by denying gay marriage.
If that is the case, why is the same argument not true for the multiple-mates folks?
Comment by heliotrope — February 24, 2010 @ 8:58 am - February 24, 2010
I like Doctor Zero. In this particular piece, I like the equation he draws between Sorba and Perez Hilton. Both are anti-gay. (Think about it.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2010 @ 10:14 am - February 24, 2010
Agreed. However, this is a two-way street Dan. For every gay liberal activist that can be shown to be a blowhard I can point to a social con doing the exact same thing and creating the exact same BS hysteria differing only in the perspective they are coming from. Someone like Dr. Zero I can probably dialogue with, someone like Sorba & Dobson et al, forget it.
Comment by John — February 24, 2010 @ 11:44 am - February 24, 2010
Read through it expecting all the same, tired arguments and I wasn’t disappointed. His main points; marriage has always been this way, gay marriage is a slippery slope that necessarily leads to legalized polygamy, and the unsupported assertion that having two males or females for parents is in some unexplained way worse than having one of each.
I don’t know how I’m supposed to respect arguments that are as ridiculous as those. I don’t believe that people that hold these views hate gay people, but if you’re going to write such a long screed about how families are the cornerstones of society that teach us honor and responsibility, and your conclusion is that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because that’s not how things would work anymore if they were allowed to marry, than you clearly view them as being on some other, inferior level to straight people in the great scheme of things.
I’m perfectly capable of responding to such amateur non-reasoning in a civil manner, but I’m not going to respect it, and I’m not going to respect the person making those arguments. These points are made to justify discrimination and the perpetuation of inequality and are thus fundamentally anti-American – why should I have respect for them?
Comment by Levi — February 24, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - February 24, 2010
It has been said before, but apparently needs to be said again: some of us were happy with civil unions-and the bigots said they would be too. Then we got them-as in New Jersey, and the bigots immediately started trying to get rid of them there, in Washington, etc. So, it is the bigots who have forced us to seek the label marriage/word-we got it in New Jersey in fact and it was ignored by insurance companies, bureaucracies, etc.
And as was covered in ONE Magazine in the 1960s when the issue came up, what about people who don’t want to marry, and why are married people getting special rights and, as is happening, as we get marriage, we are now being told we should get married and be good little citizens.
Comment by Billy Glover — February 24, 2010 @ 12:22 pm - February 24, 2010
You mean the bigots that got rid of civil unions by forcing SSM through the courts? I agree, it’s their fault.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2010 @ 12:43 pm - February 24, 2010
Shorter Levi:
“I can’t refute the arguement, nor do I want to hear anything that contradicts my position. So, like everything else, I’ll plug my ears and call you all uneducated rubes who need to be drug to my utopian worldview, because you’re too unenlightened to see it.”
Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - February 24, 2010
If you could somehow make your paper a 3-D movie, it will be a huge success
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — February 24, 2010 @ 1:03 pm - February 24, 2010
7: If we’re going to be throwing around the “bigots” label, let’s not forget those who raised unholy hell to get bans put into place not only against SSM, but also civil unions in at least 20 states (lest folks marry or civil unionize their pets apparently) – movements led by the very same folks who lie and say they don’t have a problem with civil unions. There’s enough reason to be pissed off mightily on this matter, do you really want to go down that road because the social cons have a lot of shit to answer for just like the gay activists you folks like to bring up.
Comment by John — February 24, 2010 @ 1:05 pm - February 24, 2010
John,
Since I voted for the SSM ammendment in Ohio, bring it on
Seriously though, the point of my snark is by painting anyone who disagreed with him as a ‘bigot’ all Billy did was leave himself open. Remember, the big reason that Hawaii passed the first SSM ammendment was the result of the lawsuit against the state in the first place. While I disagree with a lot of that state’s hijinks (their latest racist shenanigans for example) their court made the right choice when they said “Well the constitution now says this, so it’s no longer subject to interpretation.”
Comment by The_Livewire — February 24, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - February 24, 2010
Being from NJ my partner and I have not considered ever accommodating the Government with their Civil Union B…S…
This was put in place to shut some of us up who think the almost equal is good enough. ITS NOT!!!!
Until we take the discussion away from the Religious (Right or Left) it will not be civil because its impossible to reason with someone who quotes from a book they don’t fully understand or are refusing to acknowledge has been written by men to suit the morals of the day thousands of years ago or gone through a rewrite.
The only way to win the same rights and privileges of Marriage is to keep the argument legal and keep religion out of the court’s and state houses. Marriage is ultimately a state issue not federal. The only place in Washington DC this needs to be presented is in the Supreme Court and as long as we keep the religion out of the argument we have our best chance of having Equal Rights under the law.
Comment by Joe — February 24, 2010 @ 2:26 pm - February 24, 2010
Eh, truces are meant to be temporary anyways so let’s defeat the socialism crap and then its back to game on.
Comment by John — February 24, 2010 @ 2:35 pm - February 24, 2010
Translation: You and your partner *don’t* need marriage. If you did, you would avail yourselves of New Jersey’s civil union law, while continuing to advocate for gay marriage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2010 @ 5:20 pm - February 24, 2010
Sweet Levi issues this flatulence:
How do you differentiate between #2 “non-reasoning” and #1 “amateur non-reasoning?” I can only guess what “non-reasoning” is, but I doubt that Wikipedia will shed any light. But “amateur non-reasoning must be the reserve for the mentally dead.
Levi rules that opposing gay marriage is (3) discrimination, (4) inequality and (6) anti-American —– actually (5) fundamentally (6) anti-American.
With these immutable “facts” revealed by Levi, where is the room for discussion? Poor little Levi, he has no army, no authority, no numbers to back his decrees.
Thanks for your gay manifesto,Levi, but so far, you are just another poor soul who can not tell the difference between lightening and the lightening bug.
Comment by heliotrope — February 24, 2010 @ 7:20 pm - February 24, 2010
Institution of Marriage has often been defined as between a man and several woman, at least if you look at the history of marriage. I do get annoyed when people say as long as history or such such comment about the long history of marriage, makes it sound like it has always been as it is today. Marriage has changed a lot and will continue to change as time goes on. I am reading the Histories by Herodotus and varying cultures each had slightly different view of marriage and family. It always seem to boil down to property, and children being an extension of that.
Marriage seems to have had a lot to do with having children, or passing on property. While the first would seem to exclude gays from the institution, but the second doesn’t. And with how many more gay couples are having children with adoption or surrogacy or past relationships, even the first reason doesn’t hold water like it used to. So unless you want to ban gays some having children, which some people want, or having property; I don’t think its fair to then ban from the institution that protects both.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — February 24, 2010 @ 7:58 pm - February 24, 2010
Heliotrope -
I’ve been dispensing with these garbage arguments for years on this blog and in other places but I can go through them again if you’d like.
Because something has been done a certain way for along time doesn’t automatically justify its continuation. This was the crux of zero’s argument, and something similar has been used to justify everything from slavery to denying women the vote. The marriage rituals of Africans on the savanah 3,000 years ago has no bearing on American law.
If gay marriage is a slippery slope that leads inevitably to polygamy and child molestation, then so is straight marriage. This is the saddest argument of ‘traditional marriage’ advocates because not only does it not follow logically at all, it is designed to spread fear and hysteria about gays among certain groups. How would gay marriage invalidate laws against polygamy and pedaphelia? This is never explained. And again, this argument is usually only presented so that an assoication can be made between gays and perverts. Technically it isn’t an argument at all, its an insult.
Why use so many words to describe the benefits and virtues of straight marriage if not to imply that there is something inherently defective about homosexuals that prevents them from raising children or functioning as a family in a community? There is absolutely no evidence that suggests children of gay parents are worse off for their situation, and we all know very well the great contributions gays have made to society. If the argument is that families provide stability versus single parents, you would want gay people starting families. Its a misconception that children learn about gender roles from their parents and that’s why its good to have one of each gender. Families are more successful because it is a team effort, responsibilities can be split up and ultimately the kids can have more and better parenting.
At the end of the day, no argument I have ever heard even comes close to justifying preventing two gay people from getting married. You’d think that with our history, this sort of thing should be a no-brainer. These are old arguments with the nouns shuffled around; what bars gay marriage today used to bar interracial marriage and the women’s vote and emancipation.
Comment by levi — February 24, 2010 @ 8:51 pm - February 24, 2010
I think the reason of the SSM “slippery slope” leading to polygamy is when the argument for SSM is a civil rights issue. I can appreciate, although not agree with, the reasoning from polygamists wanting their “civil rights.” After all, if people should be allowed their “civil rights” by marrying someone they love, as if that is the only requirement of marriage, then marriage should be allowed to anyone for any reason. If, however, the argument is made for SSM as a benefit to society, the original intent of hetro marriage, then the “slippery slope” argument goes away.
Comment by Grizzly Glenn — February 24, 2010 @ 10:05 pm - February 24, 2010
Perhaps the argument I feel most strongly is that gay marriage would not be a significant social change for most people. It would be very beneficial to many relationships and would not change much of anything else for any straight couple. There is little I can say to back that up because nobody can predict the future of our culture’s social landscape. Other than that gay marriage has been an unremarkable change in many places.
As for myth, Pandora’s is absolutely my favorite. Best of luck with finding a clever transition.
Comment by DRH — February 24, 2010 @ 11:58 pm - February 24, 2010
DRH, found the transition and grew to appreciate the Pandora myth as I worked on it. Now, I’m beginning to wonder if our understanding of the first woman of Greek mythology has been colored by Hesiod’s sometime misogyny.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 25, 2010 @ 2:01 am - February 25, 2010
Actually, it has. Over and over again. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been explained. One wonders how you can type comments on a blog while at the same time covering your eyes, ears and screaming “LALALALALA!!!!” over and over.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 25, 2010 @ 4:33 am - February 25, 2010
TGC,
Levi became proficient in typing with his toes while he was
commitedrececeving the benefits of government health care.Comment by The_Livewire — February 25, 2010 @ 6:39 am - February 25, 2010
Levi:
Your fantasy alone. And it is stupid.
It wouldn’t. What is to explain?
Agreed.
So, now you get down to brass tacks. You want a civil right. Do you support the same civil right for the polygamist? Why not? Are you inherently a better person than your average Muslim? What is your special claim? After all, you do have the right to marry right now. You just do not like the restrictions concerning the sex, age and blood relationship of your intended partner.
All your smarmy argument that includes child molestation and raising children is just smoke to cover your inability to make a strong case as to why an exception should be made to the one man and one woman marriage tradition.
You cry like a little girl with your inequality, discrimination, oppression blather. Stand up and articulate your cause and show how the society in general will move forward and be better and stronger through gay marriage. This is not about gays; it is about society.
Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2010 @ 8:58 am - February 25, 2010
jeff goode wrote a piece in the huff po and concluded:
One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was between a young Jewish fellow and his Catholic fiancé, whose mother was born in France. The ceremony was performed by both a rabbi and a priest with intertwining vows in English, Latin, Hebrew and French. A perfect expression of the union of their two families, yet one which would have been unthinkable just a generation before.
But, again, marriage has such a long history of changing with the ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.
Christians do not expect Jesus to be central to a Buddhist wedding, nor do Jews refuse to acknowledge Lutheran unions because they didn’t include a reading from the Torah. Marriage is what we each make of it. And that’s the way it always should be.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.
Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?
The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or hispanics?
Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?
No, the truth of the matter is, that we’re trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it “was and always has been” during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s – just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). …Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are okay.
But there’s something profoundly disturbing about amending the Constitution to define anything about the 1970s as “the way God intended it.”
http://www.jeffgoode.com/politicalsatire/traditionalmarriage.htm
Comment by rusty — February 25, 2010 @ 11:17 am - February 25, 2010
So, now you get down to brass tacks. You want a civil right.
To be clear, I am not gay. I want my fellow citizens to have the same right I have to not be discriminated against based on my sexual orientation.
Do you support the same civil right for the polygamist? Why not? Are you inherently a better person than your average Muslim? What is your special claim? After all, you do have the right to marry right now. You just do not like the restrictions concerning the sex, age and blood relationship of your intended partner.
Changing the gender requirements for marriage in no way will affect requirements for age or blood and will also will lend no support to the arguments of those that would want to do away with those restrictions. The argument isn’t that you should be able to marry whoever you want for any reason with no restrictions at all, the argument is that gay people should be allowed to start families and receive the same treatment and benefits from their government, employers, and society as straight people do, because there is absolutely no reason to deny them that.
This polygamy nonsense isn’t really even worth addressing. Why isn’t polygamy allowed today? Whatever your explanation is, it will remain the same were gays allowed to marry. Changing the number of people who can enter into a marriage is a totally different matter than changing the gender of two people entering into a marriage. It isn’t allowed because society is not organized around a polygamist family unit. If one hundred people wanted to get married, how would that work? Would each one have to marry each other one, which would make for 10,000 marriage licenses? How does divorce work? Who gets the kids? Are employers expected to provide benefits to all 50 wives and 49 husbands? If someone dies, who gets the house? Polygamy isn’t permitted because it is totally impractical and there is no way for a society organized around smaller family units to accommodate it.
All your smarmy argument that includes child molestation and raising children is just smoke to cover your inability to make a strong case as to why an exception should be made to the one man and one woman marriage tradition.
If two gay people in a relationship are denied any benefit or service that two straight people are able to receive, what you have is discrimination. Gay people should receive the same tax and social benefits of marriage – and there is no compelling reason to deny them that. There are thousands of companies in this country that will still not extend benefits to same-sex partners, and allowing them to get married would end that egregious problem overnight.
Not allowing gays to marry also stigmatizes the group, and though we’ve been talking about it in a secular manner, there is no denying that a large component of the anti-gay marriage faction is based around religious belief and indoctrination. What’s more, there are absolutely no ill effects – no harm will befall any individual, nobody will lose any revenue, no one will get fired or killed or imprisoned – it’s pure benefit.
You cry like a little girl with your inequality, discrimination, oppression blather. Stand up and articulate your cause and show how the society in general will move forward and be better and stronger through gay marriage. This is not about gays; it is about society.
If that last sentence is implying that marriage is what keeps society going, then you’d better get to work outlawing divorce and mandating 2.1 children per marriage license or else. You can get married and un-married to a total stranger in a drive-through in less than 24 hours. Modern marriage is far removed from any sacred tradition it may have once held. But it does reflect something that almost every human being wants, to find someone to commit to for the rest of their lives. If that’s not your thing, you don’t have to participate. But if that is your aspiration, and it’s fairly obvious that for most people it is, then there is no reason to prevent someone from achieving it because they happen to be gay.
Comment by Levi — February 25, 2010 @ 11:34 am - February 25, 2010
The entertaining thing with things like Rusty quotes is how utterly unrelated to reality it is.
For example, quote Genesis, but ignore the New Testament, where one man and one woman is made quite clear.
Middle Ages — one man and one woman
Arranged marriages — one man and one woman
1850s California — one man and one woman
1950s — one man and one woman
1960s — one man and one woman
If you internalize hatred and denial of gender, such as the feminist movement and the gay left does, then yes, you can argue unreality left and right. But the simple fact of the matter is that marriage has historically been between men and women for millenia, and between one man and one woman for nearly as long.
Also, the argument that rusty is quoting is so completely infantile that it becomes funny. Leftists like the one quoted always try to argue “love”, telling us that we are keeping people from marrying their “beloved” and what ogres we are for keeping those who want to marry those they “love” from doing so.
My standard response: “Guess what the ‘L’ in ‘NAMBLA’ represents?”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2010 @ 11:46 am - February 25, 2010
I don’t think love has anything to do with it, there is no test of love to get married. Its about property and its an institution designed to protect property. Gays and Lesbians own property and have a right to, just like every other couple, to an institution designed to ensure and protect their property. The fact is Civil Unions, depending on the state and never get Federal protections, don’t offer the same protections and property incentives as Marriage.
The history of marriage is about property, children being considered property of their parents until recent times. Polygamy was often allowed for the wealthy or royalty for reasons of either ensuring property, political alliances, furthering or expanding family lines to protect property or power inheritance. That is the common thread of marriage, not the number or the age of the people, even the genders. I am sure if you looked you could have historical evidence of same sex institutions, I know I have read vague references to things.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — February 25, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - February 25, 2010
I want my fellow citizens to have the same right I have to not be discriminated against based on my sexual orientation.
But there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation in marriage.
For example, no one said that noted homosexuals Jim McGreevey and “Bishop” Gene Robinson couldn’t get married. Indeed, they seemingly had no trouble having sex with their wives and producing multiple children.
What they did have a problem with was getting bored and deciding that they wanted to ditch their wives and go have promiscuous sex elsewhere. And of course they did, using their dupes like Levi to state that society was wrong and evil for “forcing” them to marry and have sex with women, even though they clearly did so by their own decision and by their own accord.
There is no right to automatically marry that to which you are sexually attracted, nor is it automatically “discrimination” to prevent you from marrying that to which you are sexually attracted.
Changing the gender requirements for marriage in no way will affect requirements for age or blood and will also will lend no support to the arguments of those that would want to do away with those restrictions.
Ah, but you see, liar Levi, that’s not what you’re doing. What you’re doing is running to the courts screaming that it’s a violation of “equal protection” to prevent you from marrying whatever with you wish to have sex. You in fact OPPOSE the government having the right to determine who is and who isn’t allowed to marry, and you adamantly are against the guaranteed constitutional right of the voters to amend or change their fundamental laws to make that clear.
Why is fairly obvious, when you see what you and your fellow liberals and the Obama Party support.
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
You do not believe that marriage should be limited AT ALL. Your twisted and delusional reading of the Constitution places your demand that the government sanction and support whatever gives you sexual gratification as first and foremost among its responsibilities. You are recreating your indulgent and incompetent parents who let you have sex with whatever you chose and paid for the abortion later in the form of the nanny state.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2010 @ 12:26 pm - February 25, 2010
Gay people, we will not win our rights by staying silently in our closets… We are coming out. We are coming out to fight the lies, the myths, the distortions. We are coming out to tell the truths about gays, for I am tired of the conspiracy of silence, so I’m going to talk about it. And I want you to talk about it. You must come out. Come out to your parents, your relatives.
Bruce Carroll quoting Harvey Milk in his piece at http://bigjournalism.com/bcarroll/2010/02/23/the-homocon-tipping-point-why-cpac-was-a-milestone-weekend-for-gays/
But then with a little more time one might go to GoProud and see their support and following of Gay Marriage in DC and NY and their praise and expressed disappointment.
And then there is that other sub group of non-left folk at LCR and their support for Gay Marriage. . .
but just like the other post here at GP. . .Ms Rita -NDT- Beads certainly is coming across as a bit bitter
to quote phil: I’m not attacking. I was making an observation that, in general, blogs attract polemicists.
Comment by rusty — February 25, 2010 @ 12:34 pm - February 25, 2010
and it rings as hollow coming from you, rusty as it does from “you’re all teabagging racists no matter how much data shows otherwise” Phil.
As to Levi’s tirade, NDT has it right. He doesn’t understand how the governement works and his own stated desire is for our ‘betters’ to tell us how to be.
Even if you took his arguement on its face, which contradicts what he’s said, it boils down to “We’ll just change this ONE facet of the definition and of course nothing else will ever change.”
Can anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe he believes this?
creating domestic partnerships for Same Sex relationships (fred) at the state and federal level may create the same ‘slippery slope’. What it WON’T do, is to allow Levi’s ‘men in black robes’ to change society by fiat.
That Levi has to live in a world where we have laws and due process is anethma to him.
P.S. I guess balance has to support Levi being straight. ‘Your side’ has BNL, so I guess ‘my side’ has Levi
Comment by The_Livewire — February 25, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - February 25, 2010
If two gay people in a relationship are denied any benefit or service that two straight people are able to receive, what you have is discrimination.
And if more than two people in a relationship are denied any benefit or service that only two people are able to receive, what you have is discrimination.
And if two people who are related by blood and are in a relationship are denied any benefit or service that two straight people are able to receive, what you have is discrimination.
And if two people, at least one of whom is below the age of consent, and are in a relationship are denied any benefit or service that two straight people are able to receive, what you have is discrimination.
It’s so easy to demonstrate how infantile and foolish this screaming of “discrimination” is.
Not allowing gays to marry also stigmatizes the group
Funny, I don’t feel stigmatized. I feel more like it’s recognizing that there is a difference in societal impact between gay and straight couples and responding accordingly.
What’s more, there are absolutely no ill effects – no harm will befall any individual, nobody will lose any revenue, no one will get fired or killed or imprisoned – it’s pure benefit.
Wrong.
If there are government benefits provided, those cost money, and that money is not conjured out of thin air — it comes out of the pockets of business and working individuals. And furthermore, Levi, you have made it clear that you intend to force businesses to provide benefits, which also costs them money.
For heterosexual couples, that is offset by the fact that they overwhelmingly tend to reproduce, which results in more taxpayers, more workers, and ultimately the perpetuation of society. Over the centuries, societies and government have looked at that fact and decided that yes, it IS in everyone’s best interest to encourage that behavior, provide a stable environment for those future taxpayers and workers to be raised, partially offset the very real costs that these couples incur for doing so, and make it simpler and easier for the management of issues that come up with childrearing.
In contrast, same-sex couples overwhelmingly do NOT reproduce, and in fact cannot do so without using alternative means that create additional expense and complication OR getting babies from heterosexuals that produce them naturally. With children out of the picture, it comes down to able-bodied adults demanding the benefits from society that they could go out and earn/generate themselves.
Welfare, in other words.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2010 @ 12:48 pm - February 25, 2010
So NDT why are there Gay Conservatives opting to advocate, lobby, and encourage Gay Marriage? Why is there a movement by Gay Conservatives to support Domestic Partnership benefits? Why are there leading Conservatives shifting there support for not only Civil Unions and even Gay Marriage?
Comment by rusty — February 25, 2010 @ 1:11 pm - February 25, 2010
There goes rusty’s strawmen again…
Conservatives (like me) want to see a method of creating a recognizable institution for SSDP so that we can offer to two monogomous commited same sex individuals similar benefits as married couples, because it brings common good to society.
There, easy peasy. Nothing to do with ‘rights’ that don’t exist. Everything to do with the rule of law.
We’re also adults who don’t go screaming about ‘group rights’
Comment by The_Livewire — February 25, 2010 @ 1:36 pm - February 25, 2010
THANKS LW for Conservatives (like me) want to see a method of creating a recognizable institution for SSDP so that we can offer to two monogomous commited same sex individuals similar benefits as married couples, because it brings common good to society
didn’t realize you were able to channel NDT, though. amazing
so setting up a system that allows a common good to society, that’s why gay conservatives are advocating, lobbying and promoting gay marriage.
Comment by rusty — February 25, 2010 @ 1:45 pm - February 25, 2010
So NDT why are there Gay Conservatives opting to advocate, lobby, and encourage Gay Marriage?
Because conservatives are allowed to disagree with each other. Even though I’m not in favor of it, ILC, GP, and GPW are, and they have perfectly valid reasons for doing so.
Why is there a movement by Gay Conservatives to support Domestic Partnership benefits?
Because even I think there are some good reasons for DPs and am willing to support those. Indeed, that is the preferred solution, because it allows a legal configuration more tailored for the specific issues affecting same-sex couples instead of having to redefine marriage.
Furthermore, domestic partner benefits are more around tax treatments than they are anything else. Conservatives have no problem with reconfiguring the tax code; it’s the Obama Party and its fellow liberals that are so addicted to the additional revenue that comes from the odd tax treatment of health benefits and opposed to the loosening of government controls on health care.
Why are there leading Conservatives shifting there support for not only Civil Unions and even Gay Marriage?
Because it is not a requirement to be a conservative that you oppose both, and because persuasive arguments can be made at least for civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2010 @ 2:06 pm - February 25, 2010
THANKS NDT I see you listed folk who are advocating, but you didn’t really state why, including the GP folk and commenters, why is there an increasing number of Gay Conservatives advocating for DP benefits and even SSM? What exactly are those Gay Conservatives ‘fighting for?’
Comment by rusty — February 25, 2010 @ 2:23 pm - February 25, 2010
Levi, #25…… I am sorry to say that you fail to follow the most simply laid out statement. Whether you rush to make judgment or you are working at the top of your game, I can not tell.
Like you, I am not gay. I guess I am amazed that you feel that you have a stake in same sex marriage while having no particular reason other than some “feel good” motivation.
Levi: here it is again ….. try to answer. On what basis do you change one man and one woman to two of the same sex …… BUT …… you would not permit one man and three women? How do YOU make the distinction? How do YOU decide who to discriminate against and deny a civil right to and be bigoted toward? (I use your terms, with which I DO NOT agree.) I am in no way demanding that if same sex marriage goes into effect that polygamy be included. I am trying to get you to open your eyes to the reality of precedence. If I were a polygamist and same sex marriage had been accepted, I would sure use it as a reason to spread the definition of “marriage” to include me.
I must say, that as a hetero liberal sympathetic to same sex marriage, you certainly know how to damage a cause.
Comment by heliotrope — February 25, 2010 @ 6:53 pm - February 25, 2010
If one hundred people wanted to get married, how would that work? Would each one have to marry each other one, which would make for 10,000 marriage licenses?
Levi, it would actually only be 4,950 licenses.
On what basis do you change one man and one woman to two of the same sex …… BUT …… you would not permit one man and three women? How do YOU make the distinction?
Heliotrope, my response would be this. We see the benefit of having straight persons forming stable relationships with persons of the opposite sex. This is true whether this couple ends up procreating, adopting, or deciding not to have children. In some cases, the couple is too old to have children, but yet we still encourage and support such unions.
Yes, gay men have the same right to marry women as any other straight person. But now most persons realize there is not value in such relationships. See how that worked for Bishop Robinson and Jim McGreevey (twice)? I believe there is a benefit to society for homosexual persons to form stable relationships. So do we encourage our straight children to go all out for it, and our gay children to settle for some half-a$$ed measure? On the other hand, if I believed that there should not be any homosexual relationships, then obviously I wouldn’t support SSM, civil unions, or even domestic partnerships.
I personally don’t think we should encourage polyamorous relationships. As such, I don’t believe we should encourage such marriages. Obviously, we cannot outlaw such relationships, and have no such interest to do so, but we don’t have to sanction it with marriage.
If I were a polygamist and same sex marriage had been accepted, I would sure use it as a reason to spread the definition of “marriage” to include me.
Let them try and make their case then.
Like you, I am not gay. I guess I am amazed that you feel that you have a stake in same sex marriage while having no particular reason other than some “feel good” motivation.
Even if you believe that Levi didn’t make a good argument for SSM, I would disagree with you on his motivations.
Comment by Pat — February 26, 2010 @ 9:10 am - February 26, 2010
#25: “This polygamy nonsense isn’t really even worth addressing. Why isn’t polygamy allowed today? Whatever your explanation is, it will remain the same were gays allowed to marry. Changing the number of people who can enter into a marriage is a totally different matter than changing the gender of two people entering into a marriage. It isn’t allowed because society is not organized around a polygamist family unit. If one hundred people wanted to get married, how would that work? Would each one have to marry each other one, which would make for 10,000 marriage licenses? How does divorce work? Who gets the kids? Are employers expected to provide benefits to all 50 wives and 49 husbands? If someone dies, who gets the house? Polygamy isn’t permitted because it is totally impractical and there is no way for a society organized around smaller family units to accommodate it.”
#28: “The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.”
NDT, no surprise that Levi has disappeared since you blew his “polygamy?! Oh, that’s just crazy talk!” argument out of the water. Levi confidently states that “changing the number of people who can enter into a marriage is a totally different matter than changing the gender of two people entering into a marriage,” but history has shown us that for the Left, it’s “a totally different matter” until the Left says it isn’t. Already Britain and Canada are providing welfare benefits to Muslims in polygamous marriages:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1577395/Multiple-wives-will-mean-multiple-benefits.html
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/08/4834833-sun.html
And right now, Levi will go on the record stating that “polygamy isn’t permitted because it is totally impractical and there is no way for a society organized around smaller family units to accommodate it,” but like all leftists, the second that it becomes the cause du jour (and it will), Levi will hop on board and suddenly the argument will be that “there is absolutely no reason” to “discriminate” against these “families.” But until then, he’s content to act like the rest of us are just paranoid, bigoted troglodytes for having any apprehensions whatsoever with cavalierly re-defining the traditional foundations of western civilization.
Comment by Sean A — February 26, 2010 @ 9:15 am - February 26, 2010
Pat,
Your statements in #38 do show where you and I, at least, aren’t ‘that far apart’. My concern, and reason for wanting a legal construct that is seperate but equal, is that once it is carved out by judicial fiat, then the hole is punched in the dike, (entandre intended) and there aren’t enough fingers to stick in the hole.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that a state can set parameters on their definition of marriage. With that door ‘closed’ (since folks are big on ‘settled law’) it paves the way for a legislative solution of creating ‘fred’.
Fred’s advantage is that it cuts all those polygamy, marrying the family dog, or cartoon character to rest. “You want the recognition that marriage and fred give to Adam and Eve, and Adam and Steve? Time to start a petition drive.”
Comment by The_Livewire — February 26, 2010 @ 9:53 am - February 26, 2010
OK Levi, here it is. It would invalidate laws against polygamy if gay marriage is a “right”, such that denying a State marriage license to gay couples constitutes “discrimination”. If that is true, then you can’t discriminate against other kinds of adult relationship – for example, against polygamy.
There, Levi. Now you cannot claim that it has never been explained.
Personally, I support gay marriage. But I support it on the basis that it would be good public policy, a net plus for society; not on the basis that a State license for marriage, fishing, driving, professional practice or whatever is an alleged “right” – for anybody.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 10:31 am - February 26, 2010
(Under Equal Protection, the qualifications for State license X must, of course, be relevant. They cannot constitute invidious discrimination, like racial discrimination. That was the key holding of the _Loving_ decision. But, given rational qualifications for license X, people only have a right to apply for the license and be qualified – they do not have a right to be given the license no matter what. In the case of a marriage license, you could think up a variety of qualifications around gender, sexuality, fertility, and argue that they are rational. At any rate, no Court has yet found that the man-woman qualification is irrational, or is invidious discrimination. Until SCOTUS does, I argue for gay marriage on a policy, benefit-to-society basis.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 10:44 am - February 26, 2010
(And I acknowledge people’s right to disagree with me, and vote against me.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 10:49 am - February 26, 2010
Exactly. There is little likelihood of *social* value in the relationship. It would be pretty unlikely to make the people involved better people. It would be pretty unlikely to contribute to society’s stability and good order. And yes: the reason to have State marriage licensing is that encouraging people to pair off into these little, stable mutual-welfare dyads will tend on average to make the people more responsible people and to promote society’s stability and good order. State marriage licensing is (or should be) constructed for the benefit of society; it uses the force of government to impose obligations on third parties and grant benefits derived from third parties. That is why weddings have public witnesses.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 11:03 am - February 26, 2010
(In the above, I certainly mean to include in “promoting society’s stability and good order”, the raising of children where they occur. But no one can rationally argue that children are the *only* purpose of State marriage licensing, because then they would have to explain why States license blatantly infertile couples, such as the very old, while refusing to license gay couples who are actually raising kids.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 11:09 am - February 26, 2010
(And I misspoke at #42. I meant that *SCOTUS* has not yet found that the man-woman qualification is invidious discrimination. Of course some State courts have found that.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2010 @ 11:18 am - February 26, 2010
What ILC said.
Comment by heliotrope — February 27, 2010 @ 8:14 am - February 27, 2010