Shortly before I left on my cross country trip, while browsing in the Barnes & Noble bookstore in the Grove, I chanced upon a book which seemed particularly relevant to the current debate on gay marriage, Elizabeth Gilbert’s, Committed: A Skeptic Makes Peace with Marriage. The title itself sounds like a reference the gay movement’s sudden embracing of an idea which many activists, until quite recently, so passionately rejected.
Reading the dustjacket and learning how this bestselling author was “forced” to marry her Brazilian sweetheart so they could live together in the United States, I wondered if any gay marriage advocates had done what she had done, studied the institution of marriage to better understand it meaning:
Having been effectively “sentenced to wed”, Gilbert decided to tackle her fears of matrimony by becoming a student of the institution, trying once and for all to understand what this befuddling, vexing, and contradictory, yet stubbornly enduring habit of human marriage actually is. Over the next ten months, as she and Felipe wandered haphazardly across Southeast Asia, waiting for the U.S. government to permit them to return to America and get married, the only thing she talked about, read about, or thought about was this perplexing subject.
Committed tells the story of one woman’s efforts through contemplation, historical study and extensive conversation with every soul she encountered along the way — to make peace with marriage before she entered its estate once more. Told with Gilbert’s trademark wit, intelligence and compassion, the book attempts to “turn on all the lights” when it comes to matrimony, frankly examining questions of compatibility, infatuation, fidelity, autonomy, family tradition, economic realities, social expectations, divorce risks and humbling responsibilities. Myths are debunked; fears are unthreaded; historical perspective is sought; and romantic fantasies are ultimately exchanged for vital emotional compromises.
I bought the book. This morning, as a respite from dissertation research (and also an opportunity to think about the issues of sex difference I consider in my work), I started reading it. She does write well. I read the first 30 pages in a matter of minutes.
As I read and reviewed the dustjacket which had initially drawn me to the book, I was reminded (yet again) of the failure of gay marriage advocates to consider the meaning of the institution they ostensibly support.
I might take them more seriously if they engaged in the kind of effort Gilbert has and wonder if any of them have considered why her book is particularly relevant to the current debate.
Daniel, this crap about gay marriage advocates “failing to understand the union” is stale at best.
Among my group of five best gay male friends, all five of us come from homes with happily married parents who are ALL still together, all still in love, all on their first marriages. To suggest that we “don’t understand” the institution is insane. By the way, four of us are liberals and one is a conservative, sort of. That said, this idea of the institution of marriage being of one singular nature is historically ignorant at best. Different couples have different ways of doing things that work best for them, and the social conservatives whose favor you so desperately want to earn don’t have any better success rate at marriage than liberals do. In fact, their success rate is WORSE.
You also zero in on the idea of monogamy, and it always leads me to wonder: have you been particularly cheated on? Because it seems to really stick in your craw. Here’s the deal: Among the greatest champions of assumed monogamy in marriage are some of the world’s biggest cheaters. Meanwhile, there are also many couples who, for whatever reason, are not strictly monogamous, but they communicate with each other, and find what works for them. I’m talking marriages of 30 years here, both straight and gay. I’m not advocating for either as an ideal, but to somehow hold up Marriage as some hallowed institution misses the entire point, since I don’t see you bitching about the fact that the majority of heterosexual marriages involve unfaithfulness at some point or another. Nope…for you it only seems to be about the fact that gays are often more honest about it when they choose less traditional arrangements as regards monogamy. It reeks of bitterness, and adds nothing to the conversation.
As for myself, I’m a pretty serious monogamist, as are most of my friends, but as gays, since it’s not automatically assumed, we specifically have these conversations with our partners, making sure they’re on the same page and want/value the same things we do. Likewise, those who don’t want their marriages to be strictly sexually monogamous have open, honest conversations with each other, which, to my mind, is a hell of a lot better than standing up there in church and promising “til death to us part” when one or both partners knows secretly that what they really mean is “except for with my secretary or when I’m traveling.”
Seems to me that the guardians of the hallowed institution of marriage could learn a few things from their married gay counterparts.
Evan, for this once, despite your bile, I will address your comment.
First, not once in this piece do I address monogamy. Interesting that you choose to bring it up here. Fascinating the allegations you make both about me and others who write about monogamy. Whether or not you like it, monogamy has long been a defining element of marriage. As has been sexual difference.
Your comment that “this idea of the institution of marriage being of one singular nature is historically ignorant at best” is itself strikingly ignorant.
All that said, not once do you address the point of my post (so consider it an honor that I even deign to acknowledge yours, given that you come uninvited to this blog and routinely attack and misrepresent me on yours–or at least you did the last time I checked which was long ago indeed).
Instead of offering the standard liberal whine against social conservative advocates of traditional marriage, please address my points and provide evidence to back up yours.
Your comment certainly shows how poorly you understand my thoughts, striking given the frequency of your visits to this blog–and your readiness to respond so quickly to my posts, actually “respond” is not the correct word, “comment on” would be a more accurate way of putting it.
So, you commented to my post, now consider it. Cite a gay marriage advocate who has reviewed, read or commented upon Gilbert’s book. Show me a gay marriage advocate who has become a serious student of the institution–who has actually studied its history and its meaning rather than repeat cliches about “the greatest champions of assumed monogamy”.
I note you didn’t name a single one in your comment. And show me just what social conservatives can learn from their “married gay counterparts.” Examples please. Not innuendo.
(Added later–if a union is not monogamous, Evan, it’s not a marriage whether between two individuals of different sexes or the same sex. It may work out well (better even than monogamy) for the partners involved, but it’s not a marriage.)
Evan, your comment is a string of leftist cliches – backed by nothing except your fervent, quasi-religious belief in them.
“Nice” job of trying to change the subject to Dan’s person – which is in itself a leftist cliche.
The concept of an “ideal” – something that is a stretch for people, and that they might or might not achieve – as in, “the monogamous ideal” – seems to have escaped your grasp entirely.
I hope that someday, you find healing from your evident bitterness.
Dan correctly points out that until about 2002, gay activists had no interest in marriage and in fact rejected it as part of the “mainstream”.
It is almost like they got around to reading Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” — the key passage being to infiltrate a large institution.
But I’d be cynical to believe that….
Uh, sorry, the point in question is not quite so. Google “Marriage Project Hawaii”, of which I was a strong (financial) supporter in the late 1990s.
Now what did happen in the 00s, was that the Gay Left stopped spitting on us gay marriage supporters and, being an 800 pound gorilla relatively speaking, took over the gay marriage cause for their own ends.
I support gay marriage as much today as I did 15 years ago. But I disagree with many Gay Left premises about it. I see marriage as a public policy matter. Not having gay marriage is a policy choice that I disagree with, or find short-sighted… as opposed to being the end of the world, an occasion for screeching and abusing those who oppose it, etc.
P.S.
The challenge can be met – but it is addressed to Evan Hurst and, seeing what he’s like, I don’t care to help him out. Up to Evan to meet it.
Oh, and one more thing. Since Mr. Hurst addressed historical ignorance and the marriage debate, then went on to raise the issue of monogamy which I neglected to address in this post, but have often considered in the blog, let me go to the record, citing a source at least 2,546 years old: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
And if Mr. Hurst actually read my posts, he’d know that I did consider the issue of infidelity in traditional marriage as recently as last Thursday:
Marriage is a covenant created and blessed by God. That’s where the history has to begin. Marriage is not a social construct, it is a sacrament. I believe that God blesses same-sex covenants that are lifelong, sexually exclusive, and publicly accountable.
I bet this book doesn’t start with God and go from there, does it?
I support gay marriage as much today as I did 15 years ago. But I disagree with many Gay Left premises about it. I see marriage as a public policy matter. Not having gay marriage is a policy choice that I disagree with, or find short-sighted… as opposed to being the end of the world, an occasion for screeching and abusing those who oppose it, etc.
ILC, that describes my own views on gay marriage almost perfectly.
And I’d like to add to that by saying that for the most vocal advocates pushing it, it really doesn’t seem like marriage itself is the goal. You can tell by the fact that marriage is always referred to in legal and not relational terms, and that it’s the “freedom to marry” that’s the issue, not actually marrying. And I’ve never seen a single pro-gay marriage campaign website that argues that the best way to win support for gay marriage is to hold a wedding, refer to your partner as your husband or wife, and generally get people used to the concept of same-sex marriage by showing that you take the institution seriously and are just as committed to love and monogamy as straight couples are.
Instead, it’s treated as if denying licenses is some horrific atrocity, and that all who oppose gay marriage are ultra-homophobic bigots. And that strategy has caused gay marriage to lose in every state where it’s been put up for a vote.
NYAlly,
I think the nomenclature in referring to your partner in a gay union is a huge deal to society in general. I know I am slightly off topic here, but I do not think “husband” and “wife” will be an easy sell in a culture that is only moderately willing to consider gay marriage or civil unions.
Marriage is only defined on the terms of the parties involved. Some are serial monogamists, some are flamboyantly sexually open relationships, some aren’t sexual at all, some have more than two people, and Nat Geo even expose’d people who want to marry blow up dolls. But, whatever floats your boat.
However, we must not forget in this discussion what many people say time and time again. a) my marriage is none of your business; and b) whatever happens in your marriage is none of my business.
I do not believe there is an “institution” of marriage. To me, it’s seemingly impossible to create a marriage “institution” where the characteristics and traits are [or better yet, should be] solely based on personal preferences.
Now with the above, I’ll propose two points:
A. The part that blows my mind is that there is a long and storied interest in other people’s marriages by two other “institutions” throughout the world: church and state. Is this a shock? Of course not. Because for these two institutions, it’s adds to their ability to gain money, power, and control (mainly, the connection of all three).
Here’s where (A) gets seriously oxymoronic and in my opinion, just plain f-ed up.
1. The left/liberals discuss a consistent rhetoric of “I’ll define my marriage on my own terms,” yet for every other aspect of their lives, they want the church and state involved, decisions made for them, and hand-held in every aspect of their lives. I’m surprised the left isn’t proposing tax increases if a ceremony exceeds a specified amount of people, a value added tax for having a wedding cake & wedding cupcakes, or a 75% luxury tax on wedding registry gifts (but i dont’ want to give anyone any ideas).
2. The right/conservatives desire the state out of their lives as much as humanly possible, yet they defend existing inequal marriage laws faithfully and use the religion institution as the backdrop to defend the states marriage law decisions.
Call me crazy, but shouldn’t this be the other way around?
B. It amazes me how much people allow the church and state to influence their thoughts, actions, and ideologies when it comes to who they love and who they want to marry. Especially in America.
From a non-church, non-state perspective, it’s “mind your own business” mentality. When other institutions are involved, it’s just ridiculously oxymoronic.
With both points, I’m not trying to condemn religious marriages, as I would prefer religous rites & cerremonies as parts of my marriage myself eventually. I’m more than anything simply trying to point out some serious oxymorons.
p.s. Daniel, I do have to thank you for bringing this book up as I want to hit a bookstore here in South Florida and give this book a whirl.
James, if a vote for gay marriage in any implies your understanding of marriage, then I will vote against it. I will only vote for gay marriage if the law assumes the same underlying principles–i.e. a covenant established by God–as it does for heterosexual marriages. I don’t want to change marriage into something it never was and will never be–a mere human agreement or social construct. If gay marriage will undermine the traditional understanding of marriage in the way you suggest, then I am strongly against it.
“Evan, for this once, despite your bile, I will address your comment.”
He steppeth downeth from the mountain…
“First, not once in this piece do I address monogamy. Interesting that you choose to bring it up here.”
Because you harp on it in a really obnoxious, judgmental way, and it has absolutely no bearing on the argument for full marriage equality. You want the government out of every corner of your life, but you apparently want them to base a couple’s rights on whether they invite a third party in occasionally. As I said, I’m a very serious monogamist myself, but I don’t pretend that it works best for every marriage, because I know differently! Moreover, it was relevant to this piece, because it’s right in line with your slobbering veneration of a social conservative ideal which quite frankly doesn’t really exist and never has.
“Your comment that “this idea of the institution of marriage being of one singular nature is historically ignorant at best” is itself strikingly ignorant.”
Elaborateth on that remark, please.
“All that said, not once do you address the point of my post (so consider it an honor that I even deign to acknowledge yours, given that you come uninvited to this blog and routinely attack and misrepresent me on yours–or at least you did the last time I checked which was long ago indeed).”
I wasn’t aware you had set up a Facebook event “inviting” only certain people to read this blog. Noted. That said, I haven’t written about you on my blog in months. Sadly, No! kind of has that market cornered, don’t they?
“Your comment certainly shows how poorly you understand my thoughts, striking given the frequency of your visits to this blog–and your readiness to respond so quickly to my posts, actually “respond” is not the correct word, “comment on” would be a more accurate way of putting it.”
That’s right, Daniel. We all “misunderstand” your thoughts. You just don’t like the fact that we use the phrase “self-loathing,” perhaps because you don’t like that mirror. That said, “comment on” should be a pretty accurate way of putting it, since it is a “comments” section. I’m sorry I don’t have time to engage in your pseudo-intellectual wankery much more than a quick comment once or twice a month, but alas, that’s how it is.
“Cite a gay marriage advocate who has reviewed, read or commented upon Gilbert’s book. Show me a gay marriage advocate who has become a serious student of the institution–who has actually studied its history and its meaning rather than repeat cliches about “the greatest champions of assumed monogamy”.”
Have you ever visited the “gay” section of a bookstore? Lots of people have written about this. And that was sort of the point of what I said about the supposedly singular history of the institution. It doesn’t HAVE a singular history! It’s evolved and morphed over time, over different cultures, in different ways, all over the world. To pretend any differently is ignorant.
“And show me just what social conservatives can learn from their “married gay counterparts.” Examples please.”
Ooh, he doesn’t like it when I suggest that social conservatives aren’t an asset to society. He really wants them to love him. So badly. I actually did that in my original comment. It was the part where I discussed, on the subject of monogamy, that gay couples are far more likely to have open and honest discussions of what they want out of a marriage than straight social conservatives, who just assume monogamy and end up screwing around on each other and divorcing at a higher rate than the general population. Also: gay couples are more egalitarian, which is a marker for happiness in a relationship. So there: Those are TWO things. You will likely miss them.
“and one more thing. Since Mr. Hurst addressed historical ignorance and the marriage debate, then went on to raise the issue of monogamy which I neglected to address in this post, but have often considered in the blog, let me go to the record, citing a source at least 2,546 years old: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Now honey, two things:
1. You ARE aware that we’re talking about civil marriage, right? You ARE aware that the civil marriage benefits and responsibilities granted by the government have nothing to do with religion, right? I’m not here to discuss people’s various ideas of religious marriage, for I do not care. To each his own, in that regard.
2. You ARE aware that the culture to which that was written was ALSO a culture where polygamy was A-okay, and concubines were counted in the hundreds? Aren’t you a Jew? Shouldn’t you…know this? That being said, go back to #1. It doesn’t really matter what your chosen Book of Religious Things says on the subject, because we do not live in the United States of “Judeo-Christian Valyews.” This is actually, indeed, a secular state.
Now, I’m going to do a happy dance for the nation of Argentina, who, their moronic, bigoted Catholic bishops be damned, just beat us to marriage equality. I’ll eagerly await your treatise on how they don’t really deserve it because sometimes they think about soccer players when they’re banging their spouses.
Evan, in your lengthy rant, as you did not meet any of the challenges I laid out in the post – or in my comment, I so no reason to address your comment.
PS If can readily find books where advocates of gay marriage have studied the history of the institution in the gay section of the bookstore, it should be easy for you to identify the titles of the relevant works and offer brief synopses of what the various writers learned. In your comment lengthy though it is, you fail to do so.
Apparently I’m not a self-styled “student of the institution” as you are. It’s apparently a title you need, so you may have it.
And Daniel, you really didn’t raise any real points. I addressed each and every thing you said, but the entire point of my comment is that this post is just another in a long line of douchenozzlery from you that has NOTHING to do with the actual issue of marriage equality. This is pretty much why I DON’T write about you at TWO, and why scarcely anyone besides the professional mockers at Sadly, No! writes about what you’re saying. It’s just gotten to the point that, if you’re fighting for gay rights, nothing said over here has any relevance to any discussion.
At least the Log Cabin Republicans, who you all bitch about weekly, are freaking doing something.
Adding: I’m not going to write about you at Wonkette either, so you don’t have to worry.
Evan, I’ve proposed what should be an easy challenge for you meet given all that you’ve said–identify gay marriage advocates who engage in the kind of thought process Gilbert has.
In your many rants, you provide neither a single name nor even a link, that is, you don’t provide evidence to back up a single point you made in your initial comment.
Please note ILC’s PS in comment #6.
It’s not a subject I’m interested in, because it plays into your obsessive need for gay people to prove that we’re worthy of nice things. Therefore, I have no interest in reading either Gilbert’s book or otherwise. If ILC wants to play your game, he/she can feel free. Straight people don’t have to become “students of the institution” to participate in it, and neither should gay people. Because that isn’t what gay people are arguing in the first place, and if you paid a lick of attention, you’d know that. You can spend all your time emphasizing how we need to prove to others that we’re worthy. Meanwhile, I’m more of a fan of the Argentinian approach: Tell the religious people to shove it and conduct yourself like a modern secular society where everybody has the same rights and responsibilities.
So no, Daniel. Again. Not playing your game. Actually going to bed now. I have better things to do, bigger wingnuts to fry.
Um, Evan, for someone who has no interest in playing my game (as you put it), you do spend a lot of time on our my blog and did choose to respond to this post in such haste.
And no, I don’t think we need to prove to others that we’re worthy. I do think people need make the case for a social change they want to effect. Gay marriage is a social change.
That is the essence of what I’ve been saying on gay marriage.
Those pressing most aggressively for the change should become students of the institution they seek to change. And please note I didn’t say all gay people should. (Just those militating for the change, those who make it a pet issue.)
But, do note one thing–if you had the slightest understanding of the institution of marriage, you would understand that it has long been a monogamous union between individuals of different sexes.
Okay, Daniel, you win. Marriage has always been the same thing, and it was ordained by the “Judeo-Christian God” for the purposes of child-rearing. Seriously, you don’t even know the history of marriage in your own religion? My god.
But just to note the extension of your logic…you are obviously saying that slaves should have had to prove they were worthy of freedom, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if you believe that, actually.
And really, honey, I don’t spend much time here. Obviously you notice it every time (do you always obsessively read your own comments section?). You’re in my Google Reader, so you can pat yourself on the back for that. And once, maybe twice a week, I click through to the blog because you’ve said something so inane that I comment, usually only once per post, because I click “close tab” after I am done.
Anyway, see ya later, alligator, until the next random time…
Evan,
Since you obiviously have time to post such verbose answers, maybe you’d take the time to answer my challenge from a previous thread:
Evan makes an impressive case against gay marriage. He shows the victocrat left has absolutely zero interest in what marriage does for the country, only in what marriage does for them. They see it as just another entitlement that can and should be whatever people want it to be, and have no regard for how it affects society whatsoever.
It is as I have said many times. “Gay marriage” has been inextricably entwined with liberal attitudes towards marriage. And study after study after study shows it is the liberalization of marriage that has been so destructive to the institution and society.
Gay marriage COULD have been good for society, if it were somehow passed in a way that reinforced the conservative nature of the commitment. But liberals hate commitment, hate responsibility, hate obligation — all the things that are the very foundation of marriage that make it of such benefit to society.
But commitment, responsibility and obligation mean leftists like the poster boy for gay marriage, Andrew Sullivan, cant go off to the gay beach in provincetown for an outdoor bareback gangbang with their “husbands” a bag of pot and who knows how many partners and get the Obama administration to drop the charges when they get caught.
Gays have no intention of giving up “open marriages”. INdeed, when people see they can get government googies and still have as many sexual partners as they want, it will become more and more meaningless.
Gay marriage WILL harm the institution because the value of the institution to society is in its conservative nature, and gay marriage is inextricably tied to liberalization of the institution.
Marriage exists to get adults to do things that ARENT necessarily in their best interests in favor of things that ARE in the best interests of kids.
You cannot both have an institution that exists to encourage the best interests of children, and at the same time have adults thinking the institution exists to serve them
I thought the left proved THAT beyond a doubt the way teachers unions have destroyed our schools by putting what they want ahead of what is best for kids?
Evan stakes out his ground in #1:
Evan is intent on martyrdom rather than just victim status.
He is a master at seeing the worst in marriages and twisting it around to become intellectually and spiritually wonderful for gays, because they will talk it out and have a set of treaties that will bind them even closer and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So, as a fully anointed homophobe, I do stand on a mountain, Evan, and I will not step down to speaketh. I will just speaketh from the top of Mount Reality.
Gay marriage is going to happen only with the permission and indifference of the heterosexual majority which outnumbers you by ten to one (and that is being generous). You think you can “sell” your case by dredging up the worst in marriage as a reason why gays should join the club and then, you tell us homophobes that you gays will do it better.
Uh, huh. Nothing in your silly parade of strutting logic even hints at gays with children and their environment. Oh, I know that you have studied the matter and most children of hetero marriages have either been traumatized by their squirrelly parents or magnificently strengthened by the wonderful diversity of relationships in open marriages, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
For those other than Evan reading this: This type of fulminating farce of an argument is the worst enemy of achieving gay marriage. Evan believes what he is saying. Evan wants the whole world of marriage to revolve around what works for his generous utopia of gay marriage and the wants and desires his brand of gays would bring to the institution. Evan offers “hope” and “change” and the fundament transformation of the institution of marriage. Evan has not even touched on why gays should be given the time of day on the subject. Gays are perfectly free to play house and split and bring in a third and call each other affectionate names. Why does society have to pretend Evan and his pals have a marriage?
It’s becoming clear that in order to support gay marriage, I would have to supporting an undermining of what marriage actually is. I don’t want marriage to become a secularized institution. I don’t want to liberalize the rules so that asking an occasional third person to participate becomes the norm. I don’t want the government to decide that marriage is simply a human agreement and that marriage “evolved” from primitive fertility rites. I think that I may simply be happy to have my church bless my union, and then the two of us will draw up the necessary contracts and not ask the state to call us married.
Not to let you jack this thread as usual Ash, but I have to ask: When did you ever care about what a thing actually is? Why don’t you just declare the thing to be something else? (E.g., your “Hillary Clinton is a conservative” shtick)
Oops, too late – google “no-fault divorce”. While you’re at it, please google the First Amendment – under which it would be unconstitutional, i.e. illegal, for -government marriage licensing and law- to depend on religion or to not be a secular institution.
Ditto to above – but in addition, when did you decide that you oppose government power on anything? Have I said anything (against extending government beyond its minimal, legitimate functions) that has rubbed off on you? Interesting.
Very good – We agree on something.
Dan’s challenge was addressed to you, Evan Hurst. What’s the matter? Can’t meet it? You never have really studied the history of marriage?
For the record, I see 6 “Comment by Evan Hurst” in this thread alone, some lengthy, and the last being 6 of 20, i.e. nearly 1/3 of the comments to that point. LOL 🙂
ILC, thanks for bringing up no-fault divorce–something I strongly oppose. Do wish social conservatives devoted as much time to challenging such laws as they do to fighting for “traditional marriage.”
Indeed, if they were sincere in their concerns about protecting marriage, they would devote more time to strengthening divorce laws than they do to opposing state recognition of same-sex marriage.
BTW, don’t waste your time reading this book thinking it is a serious discussion of marriage. I read it, eh. It’s all about a very selfish woman trying to figure out what’s in it for her.
She has some interesting info, but she bends it all to fit her very narrow needs.
Yes, she is all in favor of gay marriage – but she comes from the point of view that all marriage must be monogamous, and that if Gays want into the institution than of course they are talking about the same thing.
It never occurs to her that someone like Evan will say: but gay men are different, so we want the same rights without the responsibility of monogamy. It is up to us to make that choice on our own.
So, Leah, she doesn’t address the issue of sex difference?
Well, at least she writes well, a distinct advantage over some of the other books whose authors make the case — or attempt to make the case — for same-sex marriage.
Leah, you nailed it.
Evan does NOT want “the same rights and responsibilities”. Indeed, he admits that heterosexual couples ARE held to a standard of monogamy and wants to abolish that standard because he and his fellow gay-sex liberals find it inconvenient.
Then again, Evan’s probably busy today. Schools are apparently implementing his gay-sex curriculum for ten-year-olds.
This also rather neatly undercuts the lies of the gay left about how they think children cannot consent to sex. Clearly, they do think they can, and not only do they think they can, they’re teaching them proper techniques to do it.
Here’s one way to look at the sex difference: Men are created/”evolved” with a greater capacity for making rational choices than women, who tend to base decisions on emotion (see the work of Carol Gilligan). Men are built for integrity, honesty, loyalty, fidelity, maturity, prudence, and wisdom–the idea that maleness implies promiscuity or a ceaseless desire for sexual adventure is simply a lie based on the pseudoscience of sociobiology (which has about as much credence as Freudian psychology, astrology, alchemy, and phrenonology). Maleness is marked by integrity and faithfulness in relationships, and gay marriage needs to celebrate true masculinity.
Reading Amazon’s description, the book does bring up some issues of marriage in other countries that doesn’t have the stigma or influence of the Christian Church involvement as in Laos, Vietnam, and Iran. Yet, she is still scarred from the church that makes marriage a “life sentence”. Goodness. I guess marriage is one that makes someone a victim. So maybe we are all doomed to be liberals!!!
I don’t have the history with Evan that others have – I haven’t commented here in a long time – but what I heard in his post was not that marriage should NOT be monogamous… but, rather, that there is a gap between the ideal of marriage and the reality of marriage, and that sometimes those who argue most stringently for a strictly monogamous definition of marriage end up being most likely to stray. At least in this thread, I was not seeing him arguing that marriage SHOULD be less than the ideal; rather, that it simply IS less than the ideal – and that those who are most likely to tell gays they cannot get married, because they will cheapen the institution, end up cheating on their spouses or getting divorced.
Actually, Phil Holmes, what Evan Hurst makes clear is that gays and lesbians are in fact not capable of living up to the responsibility of monogamy and are thus no better than the worst of heterosexuals.
Since gay and lesbian people are incapable of meeting one of the most basic responsibilities of marriage, why should they have it? Since gay and lesbian people openly disdain and mock monogamy, and insist that heterosexual married couples should be as promiscuous and have sex outside their relationship as gay couples, why is that not considered a redefinition of the institution?
Marriage is not for you, Phil Holmes, or your friend Evan. You lack the ability to be in a meaningful relationship and in fact are stating up front that you are incapable of making that promise to love, honor, cherish, and commit yourself to one person for a lifetime.
Accept that you cannot do that and seek your happiness elsewhere, rather than insisting that the institution of marriage be dragged down to the least-common-denominator level.
North Dallas Thirty: I agree with your assessment. In addition, the true benefits of marriage doesn’t come into play until many many years of marriage. It doesn’t quite work in the short term. Divorce is disastrious for couple in financial and emotional terms.
I am always astonished when some frequent commentators on this site, who have not the slightest idea who I am, feel obliged – out of what can only be the arrogance that ensues from distance – to declare things about me that they cannot know to be true, and which in fact are often not true.
NDH, what are you talking about? I did not say that I agreed with all of the points stated by Evan. I don’t even know who he is. I just thought that what he actually said was being mischaracterized.
My partner and I celebrated 15 monogamous years together this month.
Your sweeping generalizations are tedious.
Ash, I congratulate you on the courage of your convictions . . . even when you disagree with yourself!
This is an interesting thread, and I enjoy the input from most all posters, although a bit more civility would be welcome.
As readers may know, I am very much in favor of same-sex marriage. At least, the Freedom to marry or not. We may each have a slightly differing opinion on how to define it, but I think most heterosexuals create their own practical definitions of marriage too.
My partner and I are totally monogamous, committed and in love. We believe any right and benefit accorded to heterosexual citizens should be ours as well. We are not “shacking up”, we are not merely cohabitating, we live normal suburban lives. I am a member of a mainline Protestant church which has other gay couples as members. Gay culture does not define us, nor does anyone else’s stereotype (gay or straight) define us.
Personally, I’d like for government to get out of the marriage business, leaving that to any church which may wish to marry persons, gay or straight. The proper business of government would be in the area of civil unions, again for gay or straight. We don’t want to be discriminated against. We want to be treated the same by our state and nation as they do heterosexuals.
But we live in an imperfect world. We can only do what we can do.
I also think it’s important for each plantation to come to its own definition of slavery and how slaves should be treated. Since God doesn’t exist and it is purely a human decision who gets to be a slave and who doesn’t, we should let the majority of qualified voters in each state decide the value of each human life and who gets to be free. Freedom is a purely human construct which evolved from primitive tribal sociobiology.
I hope one day that gay marriage and human slavery appear on the same ballot so that highly evolved humans can make the decision, since we are the most intelligent beings the universe has ever produced, and our selfish genes can be trusted to look out for the good of all genes everywhere.
My partner and I celebrated 15 monogamous years together this month.
I think the best explanation of how that is possible is in another one of Evan Hurst’s little diamonds.
Nope…for you it only seems to be about the fact that gays are often more honest about it when they choose less traditional arrangements as regards monogamy.
Now, monogamy as “traditionally” defined means “one person”, so it’s pretty much like pregnancy; you either are or you aren’t.
In the strange and wondrous world occupied by the gay and lesbian community, though, there are “less traditional” versions of “monogamy” — which apparently mean that you can have multiple sex partners and still call yourself “monogamous”.
NDT, are you learning impaired, drunk, or intentionally obtuse? I have rarely encountered anyone so determined not to understand simple English. What made my 15 years of monogamy possible, you poisonous little toad, was keeping my pants zipped and doing the hard work of maintaining a long-term relationship.
Oh please, Phil. Like Evan Hurst says, monogamy is too hard and it’s dishonest, since no on is really monogamous and everyone who talks about the importance of monogamy is a hypocrite, right?
If you value it so much, why are you supporting and defending someone who is tearing it down and bashing it, hm?
Oh, please, yourself. Monogamy is hard. I did not say that it was too hard, nor do I think that Evan said that, either. It ends up being too hard for some couples, gay and straight. A glance at divorce statistics will tell you that.
That does not mean that monogamy is dishonest. I never said that it was dishonest, and I don’t think Evan said it was dishonest, in itself – rather, he said that many of the people who laud it, and who say that gays can’t get married because they don’t have the “right stuff” to accomplish monogamy, end up not living up to the standards of monogamy either. I have known too many straight couples who preached monogamy in their social lives and lived very, very different lives personally. If you want me to praise these hypocritical straights, and criticize the honest gays, who at least have the courage to be upfront about their arrangements, then I must disappoint you. My distaste for hypocritical straights does not make me a proponent of open marriage. It just makes me someone who dislikes hypocrites.
I defended Evan because he had the courage to come to this site and say something original and contrary to the prevailing opinions here, and I thought he was being criticized unfairly. I thought many of you were misinterpreting what he said. That did not make me fair game for your unfounded and cavalier assumptions.
So many of you here are only happy when you are singing in a choir.
Phil, NDT may assume too much sometimes, but I notice that you ended your comments by lashing out at the very people whose goodwill you are counting on, i.e. the people on this blog whom you hope are taking the time to read your words. That’s not what someone does, who truly has confidence in his own remarks. It’s what a petty, mediocre comedian does when he’s bombing. Which are you, really?
If you want me to praise these hypocritical straights, and criticize the honest gays, who at least have the courage to be upfront about their arrangements, then I must disappoint you.
So you support and endorse promiscuity rather than monogamy because it’s more “honest”?
Thank you for proving my point quite nicely.
Your problem, Phil, is that you and yours have to rationalize your promiscuity and why the gay and lesbian community cannot abide by one of the most basic responsibilities and commitments of marriage. Instead of simply admitting that you cannot limit yourself to one person sexually, you try to rationalize it by pointing out the worst examples of heterosexuals.
I have a simple answer to that. Everyone would agree that these worst examples of heterosexuals damage and denigrate the institution of marriage. Since gays and lesbians like yourself can do no better than promiscuous heterosexuals, your getting married would only cause more damage to it, and therefore should not happen.
Perhaps when you can hold gay and lesbian people to a standard higher than the worst of heterosexuals, you can be considered.
Gentlemen (and Ashpenaz),
Can we turn the rhetoric down a notch?
Phil,
First, congratulations on 15 years of monogamy. That is an accomplishment in today’s society.
I’d agree with your statement on Evan saying something different *if* he’d been shown to have the courage of his convictions. Evan’s first post seems to indicate that monogamous marriage is an ideal that no one can reach “Among the greatest champions of assumed monogamy in marriage are some of the world’s biggest cheaters.”
In Western Civilization Marriage is monogamous. (It’s also between one man and one woman, which is why I pull for ‘fred’) To take the argument that in other cultures it may be polyamourous doesn’t change what Marriage is in the west. Homosexuality is punishable by death in some ‘civilizations’ I don’t see Evan offering to hang himself. Also he can’t get through two paragraphs w/o attacking Dan.
(and no, I’m not advocating he hang himself)
NDT,
Chill on Phil, please. I understand where he’s coming from. People can hold different opinions on here without being tools. You and I don’t agree on everything, Pat and I agree on very little, but we respect each other. Hold off on blasting every uncommon screen name here. (If Phil does turn into a shill talking points parrot, then you can open up on him. Happy?) 😉
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be mowed down in the crossfire.”
I hope one day that gay marriage and human slavery appear on the same ballot so that highly evolved humans can make the decision,
Ashpenaz, whether or not marriage (or slavery) is a construct of God, it’s still We the People that will decide, in one form or another, which marriages will be recognized by the state and/or federal government. Same with slaves, but would need a constitutional amendment to repeal the 13th Amendment.
Thankfully, we no longer live in an era where law is determined by one person’s interpretation of what God wants or constructs.
Livewire, I see where Phil is coming from as well. He’s taking a reality check, and seeing what is the state of marriage today. The point, that I see he is making, is that despite the expectation of monogamy in marriage, that so many marriages, perhaps about half, don’t live up to that. Yet, we haven’t abolished marriage, and insist that the monogamy percentages go up until we can have marriage again.
And while I do not advocate open relationships in a marriage, it seems less worse than marriages in which the couple expects both parties to be faithful, but one or both have no plans to do so.
This does not mean that we should aspire open relationships for marriage. But it also doesn’t mean that same sex marriage is going to make marriage even worse than it is today. As Dan suggested, those who are serious about preserving the traditions of marriage, should probably focus more on what has happened to marriage, than on worrying about same sex marriage. In other words, even if every gay couple who gets married has open, promiscuous sex, how does that affect couples who (really and truly) believe that monogamy is essential to marriage? I don’t think no-fault divorces itself is the problem, but more of a symptom. Anyway, it seems like those who are really concerned about preserving marriage should fix their own house more than worrying about that couples of the same sex may also get the privilege.
As for gays, we have our own houses to fix. Yes, I personally believe that we should have same sex marriage, because we should afford the privilege to those existing couples who are faithful and monogamous, even if, at this time, a majority of couples will not lead to the ideals of marriage. In my view, this will benefit future generations of gay persons, who will no longer see promiscuity or celibacy, among other things as something they are “destined” to. They will have the same opportunities and expectations as their straight siblings and friends.
But for now, we have to live in the real world. If we want marriage, it is going to be up to mostly straight people whether we are going to get it (even if it does go the less preferable route of the courts). And we have to make our case of marriage, despite any rampant hypocrisy that has been mentioned already. In the meantime, especially those of us who made it through the teen and young adult years, and should now know better. We don’t need marriage to be monogamous. We can strive for this ideal whether or not we actually get married (or have civil unions (or Fred)). And for those who do not wish to be monogamous, it’s a free country. But perhaps marriage is not something you are really seeking.
Thank you Pat,
Your response is a bit more elloquent than my sleep deprived brain could conjure.
I am old fashioned in that marriage has meant X, and shouldn’t mean X or Y, which is why I make my stand on ‘Fred’.
And I’ll admit I’m a bit of a hypocrite. The Federal Government clearly does recognize ‘traditional’ marriage, though it should be left to the states. It’s a legacy of when religion played more a part in our society, and one that I’m in no hurry to see abolished.
In an ideal US, each state would come to their own determination and then the people would work it out. So, for example, you could go to Vermont and get fredded, but if you moved to Ohio, your fred wouldn’t be recognized, per Ohio’s constitution. Wisconsin might not legalize fred, but would recognize couples that were fredded in other states. Eventually the demographics would settle the issue. (Is it Steyn who said ‘Demographics is destiny’?)
Full Faith and Credit wouldn’t be an issue, since under this scenario Ohio would recognize fred, but wouldn’t have to support it, since there’s no institution there. Kind of like having an interstate trucking license in Hawaii, or being a cruise line captain in Iowa. Of course in that same ideal republic, there’d be no Federal recognition of marriage either, and the Federal government would be oh so much smaller…
Then you support Montana outlawing sodomy, Pat?
Hold off on blasting every uncommon screen name here. (If Phil does turn into a shill talking points parrot, then you can open up on him. Happy?)
Well, Livewire, he actually already has.
Which is particularly hypocritical, given his defense and endorsement of Evan Hurst, famous for rants and tirades against GPW, GP, and gay conservatives in general.
So I respect what you’re saying, but Phil has already demonstrated into which camp he’s aligned himself, and it’s basically the Hamas one.
And today’s morning laugh: the pants-wetting taking place over at Evan Hurst’s own Truth Wins Out and Box Turtle Bigots over a study by liberal gay and lesbian people bragging on how open and promiscuous “committed” gay and lesbian couples are.
The real problem is shown with this blabbering statement from Bigot Kincaid over at Box Turtle Bigots:
And even more frustrating is that this selfish declaration of “how many gay couples are” (ignoring lesbians entirely) can do tremendous damage to our hard-fought effort to win rights and determine our own destinies.
In other words, they’re not covering up and lying about how gays and lesbians just want “the rights and responsibilities that everyone else has”, and it’s ruining the narrative!
Sorry, took me a while to get back here. Liz Gilbert makes it clear that marriage must be monogamous, it’s a bedrock of her idea of western marriage.
So when she talks about gay marriage, it’s all about how having a whole new group of people wanting into the institution, it will strengthen. It never occurs to her that they want in to part of it, but what to change it in the process.
But then she is a very shallow selfish person, for her monogamy is easy, so it’s not hard for her to imagine that it’s the same for everyone else.
As I mentioned, she is quite the selfish woman. Although she gives lip service to people having different values and views of the world, it becomes very apparent that she really doesn’t mean that.
In other words, they’re not covering up and lying about how gays and lesbians just want “the rights and responsibilities that everyone else has”, and it’s ruining the narrative!
Sometimes I wonder if a FMA-level defeat would be the only thing that would knock the gay left out of its victim complex and force it to readjust its strategy, and sometimes I wonder if even an FMA-level defeat would do that.
Wow, NDT. This is the comment that makes me a shill-talking parrot? This is what I said a long time ago; this is my comment, to which you refer:
* * *
23.I bring out Dan’s comment again… “Sometimes, it seems the primary difference between conservatives and liberals in contemporary American politics is that whereas we wish to engage on the battlefield of ideas, they wish to play the politics of personal destruction.”
I invite you to read some of the statements that the conservatives who participate on this blog have left.
I mean, come on. You may dislike some of the people who post here, but they have said nothing – nothing – that is similar in venom to what you have left in response. This is the battleground of ideas? Calling someone a douchebag? This is discourse?
* * *
I stand by it, and you are one of the worst offenders. You’re just a bully. Plain and simple.
And one more thing. Stop putting words in my mouth. You don’t win arguments by lying. I did not endorse Evan. I defended the principle of a fair argument. No surprise that you are offended by that defense.
I stand by it, and you are one of the worst offenders. You’re just a bully. Plain and simple.
Phil, you haven’t even seen “worst offenders” yet.
But it gets even better.
And do you know what your little Evan Hurst says about this?
And there’s even more:
THAT’S what a bully looks like. THAT’S what namecalling looks like. But you’re too busy defending them for a “fair argument” to notice.
You are a shill, Phil Holmes, because you stand here and whine about “bullies” and “discourse” while you say absolutely nothing, NOTHING, about what Evan Hurst and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are saying — and, in the ultimate hilarity, defend them as “making a fair argument”.
Now, like last time, I have no doubt that we will never see you again in this thread, because there is no way that you’re going to call out and condemn one of your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters for what they say.
And frankly, that’s fine with me. I want the world to see what a hypocrite you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters like Evan Hurst are. I want everyone to know how you act, what you support, and what blatant hypocrisy you dub a “fair argument”.
But then she is a very shallow selfish person, for her monogamy is easy, …
Say What?
This is so perfect.
Again, it is HILARIOUS to watch Box Turtle Bigots and Truth Wins Out, both of whom insist that there’s nothing wrong with promiscuity and that monogamy is an old and worn-out ideal, piss themselves over this study publicizing what they were just pushing yesterday.
Liars, liars, liars. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites.
When NDT has a point, he has a point. Defending Evan Hurst of all people as a maker of “fair arguments”, is a dumb move. I won’t have him, even if he is supposedly on my side (in supporting gay marriage).
51.Then you support Montana outlawing sodomy, Pat?
Ashpenaz, if such was the case, I wouldn’t support it. Actually, my understanding is that a bunch of losers who are obsessed with others’ sexual activities put it on a party platform. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that all sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
However, I’m sure you have a point underlying your question, if you explain what it is, I’d be happy to address it. I don’t feel like guessing.
And frankly, that’s fine with me. I want the world to see what a hypocrite you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters like Evan Hurst are. I want everyone to know how you act, what you support, and what blatant hypocrisy you dub a “fair argument”.
NDT, so far, there is nothing to see, unless you have a link showing that Phil Holmes defending Evan Hurst’s posts that you are referring to.
Defending Evan Hurst of all people as a maker of “fair arguments”, is a dumb move. I won’t have him, even if he is supposedly on my side (in supporting gay marriage).
Maybe so, ILC, but I personally have never seen any previous action between the posters in question. I mean, we aren’t required to check out every poster’s record, are we?
NDT, how many times do I have to tell you that I DO NOT KNOW WHO EVAN HURST IS? Before I posted to this particular thread, I had never heard of him and had never seen any blogs that he either controls or to which he posts. Defending a man’s post here because what he said was being misunderstood or misconstrued does not mean that I consider him my political or social bedfellow. Dan’s blog is the only blog about gay issues that I follow, and I follow it because Dan’s an old friend and I do what I can to keep an open mind (as I get older, I find that my old knee-jerk reactions to social questions become less and less reliable).
Alongside that point, I have never said that I support gay marriage, and I don’t consider myself a gay marriage supporter. My partner and I have never had any kind of ceremony. What binds us, quite frankly, is our hard-won love for each other – not the fluffy infatuation you get during the first few months, but the love you build years later, when you go through the struggles and you realize just how much you trust, understand, and rely on each other.
A preacher mumbling over my relationship does not give me that kind of love. I’ve always thought that gay or lesbian couples getting married were simply aping convention, and looked rather silly. I’ve learned that you either have a long-term relationship, or you don’t, and while social recognition is one factor that helps keep it together, it ain’t the most important one. I’m not saying that every gay couple pushing for gay marriage is just looking for an ego stroke, but too many of them are to make me comfortable with the gay marriage movement.
Returning to Mr. Hurst: I have never before seen the quotations that you have pasted into your post above. If they are accurate, if Evan actually said those things, then they are reprehensible. Dan is a friend of mine – as I said, we knew each other at Williams – and while I do not agree with everything that Dan has posted here, I have never seen a post from him that justifies the words you quoted.
The only common cause I have with Evan’s first post here is that I think sometimes the conservative community is more concerned with the appearance of a thing than with the reality of a thing. I think conservative straights like to congratulate themselves for being married – for upholding this “crucial social convention”- and yet the reality of their marriages is often much less applaudable. They stray all the time. So, for that community to say to a gay couple, you can’t get married because you are too likely to behave promiscuously, is simply Freudian projection that deserves to be called out (and by the way, Ash, to put Freud in the same bucket as astrology is asinine).
No, Pat: but looking before leaping is a good idea. IMHO it should be evident from Evan’s opening tone in this thread alone that he is an asshole, and, evident from Dan’s responses that there is a history there, a history that might be worth “checking out” before leaping in to criticize various people.
Fair enough, ILC. But I thought the trashing of Phil Holmes was still uncalled for. I’ve seen a semi-regular conservative poster who trashes gay conservatives with her every single post treated with kid gloves. I don’t think it’s fair to trash those who engage with her either. Anyway, I think benefit of the doubt is warranted here.
Dan, since I love to defend social conservatives and other underdogs from undo criticism, let’s paraphrase your statement to see if it actually holds water:
No. Sorry. May sound nice, and may provide a convenient opportunity to show liberals how reasonable you are by bonding in contempt for social conservatives… but it still doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Pat, I’m not sure whom you’re referring to or what you mean. In the most general way possible, I will say this: each individual commentor’s decisions to confront and/or to defend another commentor are up to that individual; there is not some group decision or obligation. If you happen to think someone should be confronted for their errors, you do it. If I don’t join you, it may be that I would actually agree with you, I just don’t find it interesting to bother with that person and/or that set of errors myself. If you meant Seana-Ana: Total snoozer for me, her mind / set of errors is so boring for me.
I’ve seen a semi-regular conservative poster who trashes gay conservatives with her every single post treated with kid gloves.
“Kid gloves”, indeed.
And keep in mind Seane-Anna’s goal in coming here is to pick a fight and “prove” how mean gay people are. She’ll get fought, but not with anything usable she can take back to wherever she’s going.
Westboro Baptist perhaps?
If you meant Seana-Ana: Total snoozer for me, her mind / set of errors is so boring for me.
ILC, she may be a total bore, but her rhetoric on this blog is no less ugly than Evan Hurst.
I will say this: each individual commentor’s decisions to confront and/or to defend another commentor are up to that individual
Okay, I’ll do that.
“Kid gloves”, indeed.
NDT, yes that was kid gloves, indeed. In fact, not only did you not condemn her (and agree with the points she made), you also did not condemn those who engaged her, in any way, in a civil manner. Phil Holmes refers to something that Evan Hurst said, and he gets blasted into oblivion.
She’ll get fought, but not with anything usable she can take back to wherever she’s going.
I’m not so sure about that. For example, she could easily take and twist what you said and say how gay conservatives eat their own, or something. Who knows?
Anyway, I had my say, and I will leave it at that.
Pat,
Seena’s worth talking to, if for no other reason to try to bludgeon her blinders. I do enjoy pointing out Von Steuben as a historical military figure respected in American History.
Yes, NDT needs to chill. I don’t find anything (yet) that puts Phil in the levels of vitriol aimed at him.
Ash does have a point, and it’s on top of his widdle head.
Alongside that point, I have never said that I support gay marriage, and I don’t consider myself a gay marriage supporter. My partner and I have never had any kind of ceremony. What binds us, quite frankly, is our hard-won love for each other – not the fluffy infatuation you get during the first few months, but the love you build years later, when you go through the struggles and you realize just how much you trust, understand, and rely on each other.
A preacher mumbling over my relationship does not give me that kind of love. I’ve always thought that gay or lesbian couples getting married were simply aping convention, and looked rather silly. I’ve learned that you either have a long-term relationship, or you don’t, and while social recognition is one factor that helps keep it together, it ain’t the most important one. I’m not saying that every gay couple pushing for gay marriage is just looking for an ego stroke, but too many of them are to make me comfortable with the gay marriage movement.
Phil, I do owe you an apology. I could have said every word of that as well. It was unfair of me to immediately go nuclear on you, and I’m sorry.
Meanwhile, there’s one big problem with which we need to deal.
I think conservative straights like to congratulate themselves for being married – for upholding this “crucial social convention”- and yet the reality of their marriages is often much less applaudable. They stray all the time.
First off, do you really believe that any and all conservatives “stray all the time”, that not a single conservative person keeps their marriage vows, and so forth?
Second off, you are missing a key difference. “Straying” is universally considered to be a bad thing for married people. It carries immense social consequences, including illegitimate children, spreading disease, and the shattering of trust in relationships. Even in the age before no-fault, it was considered to be perfect grounds for dissolving a relationship by the simple logic that you had demonstrated an unwillingness to commit and moderate your behavior.
Straying is not considered a social good. Gays and lesbians are insisting that, not only should they be allowed to stray, that society should be rewarding them for doing it and adopting their mantra that commitment doesn’t mean commitment.
That is extraordinarily destructive on several levels. In fact, I will go so far as to say that that makes marriage essentially meaningless. If you can collect the rewards without one whit of the responsibility, why on earth would you willingly take it on?
And I will end with one final observation: whenever these examples of gay and lesbian people demanding that marriage be redefined to support promiscuity, out come the examples of how awful heterosexuals are.
My response: “So you’re saying that we should reward gay and lesbian people for behavior that we punish in heterosexuals — apparently because we can expect gay and lesbian people to do no better in their relationship than lying, cheating heterosexuals.”
NDT, thank you for your very gracious post.
You ask, “… do you really believe that any and all conservatives “stray all the time”, that not a single conservative person keeps their marriage vows, and so forth?” No, I do not believe that, and I did not intend to convey that belief. I think many conservatives keep their vows. It’s just that when a prominent conservative – the type who would have no trouble saying that gays should not be able to wed because they can’t handle the commitment – strays, cheats, or divorces, I feel angry and manipulated.
I think some conservatives who state that gays cannot handle commitment are just indulging in Freudian projection. As the bible put it long before Freud, they see the speck in the other’s eye but not the timber in their own. I think such conservatives are afraid of their own desires to stray, and project that on gays. Of course, it does not help when some gays go so far out of their way to invite that projection, by celebrating promiscuity – I cannot deny that. The gay movement over the last several decades lionized promiscuity, and there are many in that movement who still do; that is regrettable and destructive.
Because I have landed on the left side of the political fence on this blog before, you may have concluded that I support all of the points of the so-called gay agenda (though any ten gays in a room will probably have several different interpretations of what that agenda contains). I do not. There are many pieces of gay culture that I strongly dislike and avoid. In fact, I have many, many more straight friends than gay friends. This used to bother me, until I realized that I simply had no intention of exchanging the heterosexual straitjacket for the homosexual one, and that in many ways the gay culture was more repressive of its members (and less accepting of diversity) than the straight culture.
You also state, “Second off, you are missing a key difference. “Straying” is universally considered to be a bad thing for married people.” We have no disagreement here. Just because I acknowledge that many people, including straight conservatives, do stray, does not mean that I think that straying is a good or necessary or unavoidable thing. I have been tempted to stray, and I know that we are all imperfect beings. That does not mean that our goal should be anything less than NOT straying. Open marriage is an oxymoron.
Now, I did say in one of my posts that a gay couple that is upfront about the openness of its relationship should at least get points for honesty, compared to the conservative straight couple that pumps themselves up as the exemplars of the institution of marriage, even though one or both of them are screwing around. But, that does not mean that I support or propose open relationships. I don’t. Maybe I am naive, but I don’t think that many of the gay couples who want to get married have any intention of living in an open marriage, regardless of what some of the louder and more radical voices in the gay community may propose.
I’m a conservative who thinks it’s time to move a giant step forward. We need to stop having the notion that mom-dad-children can possibly be retained as the only model, expecting gay couples to be like helpers. It sounds good but it’s not going to work because we live in a free society and we have to embrace the rights and responsibilities of this kind of freedom. We need to include gay people in morality, to increase the integrity of the whole body of people. Gay isn’t going anywhere. Conservatism needs to go west and grow with this nation.
Lisa,
How big a step is the question, I guess. Like I’ve said elsewhere, I’m for a government recognition, but don’t call it marriage. Call it ‘fred’ call it whatever you like, just not marriage.