[Erin] No, it's not the "ick factor"

The ironic and interesting thing here that strikes me when I read Rod and this…. is that this (my mind) dead horse topic being beaten to death (and in no small part responsible for George W. Bush's twice election) has really come down more to a generational thing than a conservative/liberal debate. Sorry to say, but people in their 40s are quite old enough to be grandparents of kids in college. Easily. Of course they wait and have kids far later than their twenties so the still feel 'connected' to the twenty-somethings. When in fact they are twice their age.

But I am blessed to spend time around and hear from people of the so-called generation 'Y' group, and certainly hang with many Gen 'X' forty somethings. In general, the gay issues are so uncontroversial with a generation that has grown up with peers who were 'out' which never happened with my or the 'X' crew. It changed with a couple of generations while no one paid attention. They clearly also see race quite evolutionarily as witnessed by Obama’s cyber era support.

When you have dinner with people who are 26 (not your own kids) and then with people 46 (let alone 56-66), it is day and night regarding issues of concern. The 'Y' seem to count ecological concerns and humanitarian parity among their top tier. Even my evangelical 20-something friends and neighbors. And yes, many care about abortion but recognizing it is a law passed by the Supreme Court 1/3 century ago, they prefer to put their votes along issues that are not merely philosophical but rather more immediate.

In other words, odd as it sounds, when I am with really young people, I feel I am showing my age when I discuss threads like this one. It is very middle aged to them. Truly. Don't shoot the messenger. And PS: I am very impressed with these young adults. They strike a nice balance of intellectual curiosity and pragmatism.

Rawlins, I completely disagree with you. I'm 27, and I think this (marriage, as well as other issues like abortion) is a foundational issue and I come down where Erin would on it. All my siblings (4, if you're counting) who are in their younger 20s feel the same way, as do many of my friends and their friends, etc. - in other words, quite a few of that Gen Y that you believe you're so in touch with. These aren't middle-aged issues - they matter. And many of us know it.

Erin, even if it's not you, there's plenty of ick factor among conservatives on this issue. It's true, they'll throw out a "It's against the Bible" in the discussion, but the ick factor is clearly present, and a compelling issue for them.

I've yet to be walking with a conservative, and have a Jew pass by, or a Buddhist, or a divorced couple, and have them react with the violent revulsion I've seen when they pass two men holding hands, or two women kissing.

Whatever reason you might have, pretending that no conservative you've ever met is letting the ick factor influence their decision seems false.

Kimberly I did not say all. I am talking about a massive sea change in a massive part of your generation. Your religious background and other factors are certainly not rare. But percent-to-total, yours is the first generation who might have grown up with peers who were openly gay teens and friends, and also bi-racial and other racial friends in the natural course of your life growing up, which was rare to impossible in the preceding generations.

If none of that applies to you and your siblings then none of that applies to you or your siblings. But you are nonetheless part of a generation that had a very different set of matter of fact opportunities growing up to be concerned with alternative issues. You choose not to be and that is your choice. But that cannot negate my point or the stats that prove them...not the least is who and what has put Obama in the position he is in. It is a very young movement. Very 21rst century.

And PS; I hardly believe that any generation is monolithic. Although the way Rod writes about Baby Boomers is as if they were all at Woodstock protesting Vietnam while doing acid. 'Twas not the case. But yes, that generation had a very different set of concerns as does yours. But you are a traditionalist and that is fine. But look around...outside your sphere. I am not imagining a new world order. It is right there in front of us. If we look and listen. My recognizing this is hardly revolutionary or profound.

People who were, for the most part, heterosexually disposed, have, for many years, removed one after another of the bases upon which homosexual activity may be criticized.

It can be criticized on the basis of divine revelation. But few people have a robust sense of such revelation now.

It can be criticized on the basis of the law of nature, C. S. Lewis's Tao, objective morality, but that too has been abandoned or rejected or never learned by a great many people.

It can be criticized on the basis of health concerns, but laws can be passed that compel non-participants to pay for the diseases physical and emotional incurred by participants, just as they pay for health problems incurred by other behaviors.

It can be criticized on the basis of its ugliness, but of course we are taught that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (it is not, then, a category of reality), and we are taught to be politically correct, etc.

It can be criticized as something from which modesty requires children to be shielded, but modesty is a casualty of the child-slut era.

The same tendencies that give us religious unbelief, subjectivist ethics, an ever-increasing expectation of cradle-to-grace health care, the dismal orthodoxies of shock-the-bourgeois art, and severe damage to childhood, etc. likewise make it virtually impossible to argue against public acceptance and even privileging of homosexuality.

There's nothing left by which arguments in the public square can be made against "homosexual rights." The ill consequences have begun and worse are inevitable. We will have to go through them all, barring some spiritual revival. It all goes together. We shall find out.

I swear, not to overplay this but...read up this thread....you can almost tell reading posts on this subject the approximate age and certainly gender of those posting. Pushing 60? Over 50. Late 40s and female.

The world has moved faster than those who were tired of it changing at all could grasp. But whatever you say...my bliss if I have any... is that I try to pay attention to change rather than hold my breath until I die in denial. I am convinced that those who refuse to acknowledge change become a victim of it. That is not to say 'embrace' change. Just see it for what it is. Otherwise you hasten the hardening of the intellectual arteries.

There are plenty of people far smarter than I who are far younger. But there are many with whom I interact that are far older than I despite being young enough to be my children. They have come to confuse outright rigidity with absolute maturity.

... and of course God sends forth His Word and Spirit primarily through the faithful church and home.

Upon which ever more pressure and war will be made.

But "Be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world," as the Lord said.

1. It's not exactly fair to say that you won't talk about your relations, and then add "on my side of things, invitations have been extended and communication lines left open." Doesn't that imply that, therefore, any failure of communication must be their fault? So you are talking about them even though you say you won't. It would be interesting to invite them to show up here--anonymously, of course--and express what they feel is problematic about the situation.

2. You say that if we're going to allow gay marriage, we might as well legalize "incest . . . euthanasia, underage drinking, age of consent for sexual activity, use of "illegal" drugs, polygamy, illegal immigration . . ." etc. I suspect this is just rhetoric, though. Let's say gay marriage becomes legal in all states--are you really going to stop fighting all those other things? No, I don't think so. You'll protest them just as vigorously whether there's gay marriage or not. So that's irrelevant.

3. I believe you when you claim you don't feel any ick factor about gay sex . . . though thousands wouldn't . . . ; ) However, I'm surprised your memory is too short to recall all the conservative posters right here who have made the argument "ewww! everybody throughout time and space is grossed out by gay sex!" I certainly remember this argument being made. If Max wants to show up and say that in fact, he doesn't mind thinking about gay sex at all, I'm willing to hear his confession. In fact, let's hear from all of you conservatives who have no personal feelings about gay sex at all, but base your positions purely on rational considerations that it is best for society if it is suppressed. Be honest now . . . .

4. My personal two cents: it's hard for me to imagine a more conservative upbringing than the one I had, but I never had any negative feelings toward gay people or gay sex at all. My parents tried to prevent me from reading C.S. Lewis's autobiography, because it had mention of (gasp) homosexual activity among English schoolboys.I got hold of a copy and read it anyway. I was puzzled. "What's the big deal?" I thought. I was in junior high school at the time. I knew there were gay people in the world: gay teachers, gay professors, gay camp counselors, gay CCD teachers, gay writers and artists, gay relatives. I saw no reason they should be treated differently from other people, and this always seemed to me like a big fat flaw in the conservative claim to treat all people fairly and justly. An early crack in the facade perhaps . . . I've never found reason to change my mind, and I'm well over fifty now.

Boy are there some smart and nice and emotionally available people posting here today. Too many to quote but wow........... I am impressed that it is not all intransient religiosity in the name of saving the nation if not the family and the world. Lord.

I particularly like David TC's: "marriage is a result of societal change, not a cause." And Sigliris makes more sense that I ever could. There is hope that logic and fair minded reason will overide 'the sky is falling' Biblical tirades. This is as refreshing as iced tea (with mint) after a summer hike. My advice to people who see this as a burning 'issue' to 1) relax 2) don't push too hard. It'll backfire because that shipped sailed somewhere in the democracy. I know not quite how or when or where. But yes.......... en route to the new world. Or as Rod would be fond of saying if he spoke Spanish instead of French, Lo prometo.

I would agree it's not always the 'ick' factor. It's the "wish you would go away, shut up and/or not be that way" factor.

It continues to astonish that bright, thoughtful people continue to assert that the primal drive for a significant other, a life companion and family, is so easily stifled, when their own church teaches that the ability to stifle that drive (aka celibacy) is a gift given by God to a special few.

For all of the effort invested in worrying about the end of civilization, there is no effort made to consider the possibility that perhaps this change is *good*, that God's truth continues to be revealed as our understanding of ourselves changes. There can be no new information -- medical science doesn't matter, reason doesn't matter, Freud doesn't matter. No - it's "la la can't hear you, don't want to see you".

You say the lines of communication are open. How can this be when no new information or perspectives are permitted?

sigaliris:

1. It seems to me that there's a difference between mentioning that someone has relations or friends that give an insight into a certain area, and revealing personal information regarding these folks. You act like this is a "gotcha" moment, but it really isn't, is it?

2. Equating gay marriage with incest, etc. is making a definition, not an excuse to throw in the towel. Where do you get that?

3. Can not a practice be both personally disgusting and rationally wrong? If gay marriage is only personally disgusting to some, but not also rationally wrong, then to call it wrong would be immoral. That's what this Terry Garlock appears to be doing. Anyone against gay marriage may, but not must, experience the "ick" factor, but must, must, must, be able to present a reasoned argument against it.

4. My personal two-cents: I, too, was raised in a conservative family. At age 9 a friend told me that her parents were entertaining a gentleman to dinner who was homosexual. We both understood what that meant, but she was nervous about meeting him and wondered how she should treat him. I told her to be polite and treat him just as she would any other adult friend of her parents. But I understood then as I understood now that treating people with respect includes recognizing the truth of their circumstances. An earlier poster commented on the anger he received when he pointed out to two women that their "daughter" would benefit from good male role models in her life. Have we become such an over-sensitive society that we can no longer apply accumulated societal wisdom to our benefit? Are all the mores of the past now to be rejected just because they are from the past, and from a Western, Christian heritage? Must we through out the good with the bad and the ugly?

There is an historic aspect to this debate that is often forgotten in the rhetoric and that is the simple fact that the cultural conservatives always, always lose in the end, which actually makes the debate pretty irrelevant.

I'm serious. Is it possible to go back to any social change from, let us say, 1700, and find an instance where the social conservatives have won on anything in the long run? They may have won a short-term victory here and there, but those were always erased within a generation or two.

So let us face the simple, inevitable fact. Gay marriage is going to happen and there is nothing ultimately that can be done to stop it. The opponents are ultimately simply all going to eventually die off, if for no other reason. So the arguments against it may be rational, or they may be emotional, or they may be a mixture of both but in the end it is not the arguments that are going to matter, because the people doing it are simply not going to care about the arguments.

Charles i think they will decline in number certainly, but the shrillness of their voices will still be heard. As you said, people arent interested in the arguments, at least as far as the conservatives are concerned. So far all theyve managed to do is lie, and when that fails, bring out the red herrings!

dannyuk2: as for reason? Give us a good reason erin. I find it odd that every time an anti-gay-marriage person says the word "reason" they can never back it up - because there is nothing to back it up with.

That's because "reason" is being used in a highly particular way in this discussion. It means "the sum of my specifically non-religious arguments which contain a whole series of (mostly Aristotelian) assumptions about human beings and nature." It's essentially a way to present a religious argument under the guise of it being "non-religious," to appeal to more secular thinking.

But there is a genuine social movement for gay marriage, and it looks likely that the people of California will vote to uphold the state court's gay marriage decision. So if it's the will of the people, what other basis do we who hold to a different tradition have to forbid the existence of this option? We have every right to refrain from participating in it, and to speak about the truth of our faith. And if anyone begins to oppose those rights, well we'll have that debate when and if it comes!
Bless,
Doug
Posted by: Doug Cramer | June 22, 2008 5:15 PM

Bless you for your voice of reason amidst those who predict unlikely outcomes.

Is it possible to go back to any social change from, let us say, 1700, and find an instance where the social conservatives have won on anything in the long run?

Giving credit where credit is due, there have been a few instances. For example, communism in the US. And various inanities over the years like extremist feminist movements. Of course, none of those were really fully accepted by any large amount of people. They were always fringe ideas, regardless of how much publicity they got.

They've never 'won' when, say, at least 20% of the population says otherwise, especially if that 20% are young.

That's not to say things haven't gone back and forth. Compare the 20s to the 50s if you want to see that, or the 60s to the 80s. But the back and forth wasn't ever really a result of conservative pushback, it always took a whole new generation to push the 'new' idea of changing back. But the change back was always less than the starting point. Two steps forward, one step back, repeat.

Conservatives will probably argue they 'won', or at least lost less, by stopping the original movement from going 'too far'. But there's never been any evidence it actually works that way...it seems just as likely that, eventually, the 'rebels' win, and next crop of rebels just decide to go the other direction, so it's a tug of war around an average that constantly moves in one direction.

Sadly for current 'social conservatives', the gay marriage movement is the 'backing up' from the hedonism that marked the original generation of gay rights. The face of the moment changed from leather-clad drag queens to people trying to raise kids. It went to extremes, and then the rebels got tired and the normal people ended up in control.

This is why so many of the arguments in favor of it are arguing from a 'traditional family' POV, like when I point out that blocking gay marriage is harming marriage because many businesses and governments are extending rights to unofficial 'partners' of people, including straight partners, instead of requiring actual marriage. Social conservatives are surreally fighting the 'step back', because they've ingested the rhetoric about fighting the forward motion for so long and don't understand what's happened.

Erin, you talk about "culture" as if it was something self-evident like ambient air temperature, or oxygen level, or consuming fire that affects all people more or less equally, or even at all, but without your explanation of what "culture" is we really just have to take your word that there's some sort of such a reality called "culture" acting upon us that we should be wary of.

Before trying to build more ambitious castles on the basis of Sorokin's more specific types of cultures as you've alluded to, maybe it would be a good idea, Erin, if you first took half a dozen paragraphs or whatever you need to explain what "culture" itself is and how it affects people. Once you accomplish that, I think you're in much better shape to explain how Sorokin's particular variants of what culture is affect us with respect to the ends you're trying to claim.

Culture, what is it, even? Then, Sorokin's cultures and how they're particularly important versions of what you just explained. A little extra effort, important in the manner of pouring a foundation beforte building the house. That way we'll better be able to separate the wheat of reality from the buzzword chaff of mere rhetoric when it come to understand the role culture plays. Thanks in advance, Erin.

Gary

And when gays decide it is "right" to get married because it involves commitment and having an intimate relationship with one person? When gays reject the wrong of sleeping around? Besides all the practical reasons, it seems to me that in seeking out marriage, not just civil unions as I would advocate for, they seem to be buying into marriage as a moral entity.

Steve

I have mixed feelings on this issue. Still a problem with what Gallagher is saying is it's pretty much all premised on child-raising. In theory I think a state could say that the rights to adopt (or get artificial insemination) are based on a different issue than marriage. That two women have the same rights as two women, but not the same as a male-female couple. Hence a lesbian or gay couple would have the same rights to adopt as male-male or female-female siblings. Or her objections mean people who clearly don't want children must be forbidden from marriage.

I understand the idea that marriage should be, at least in part, about having and raising children. In fact this seems the logical idea and evolutionary purpose of the pair-bond. However the dye's already been cast on that. Marriage is no longer about having children and many couples have no intent of ever having children.

Still the interchangeability issue has struck me at times in another way. Marriage is one of the few institutions left that recognizes a difference in gender. I think a childless male-male duo is not the same as a childless male-female due or a female-female duo. A heterosexual union unites to people who are different in chromosomes and brain chemistry. Ideally both grow by what they learn of "otherness", the difference in genders. A homosexual union there is a much greater possibility of no growth or learning at all. A gay man can find himself a gay man who is almost entirely identical to him in every respect. A lesbian can find herself a woman exactly like her and they can just get two copies of the same wedding gown. It is different, it's not the same. It seems like their should be a way of recognizing the difference without insulting anyone. (And to be honest even among gays the idea of a same-sex marriage was controversial until relatively recent times)

Daniel, that's a remarkably silly comparison, for any number of reasons. Marriage as an institution has been around for thousands of years. The current mode of American schooling, about a hundred. Before the advent of government-run schools, homeschooling was very common. Most homeschoolers are involved in multi-family groups, which give them the much-vaunted (and overrated) "socialization" that is needed. I could go on and on, but to sum up, the comparison is ridiculous.

We could - and some societies did - condition marriage on reproductive ability (or, as a variant, allow (usually on male initiative) divorce if there are no children. In the first instance, you wait until the woman is pregnant before formalizing the union.

This is a bright-line test, easy to administer, and makes the clear statement that marriage is all about reproduction.

We don't do that here, however. Old people, infertile people, people who just plain don't want children, are allowed equal rights to marriage. It won't do, now, when same sex couples want to marry, to suddenly decide that marriage is all about children. It's insincere.

Besides, a lot of the same sex couples in my neighborhood have children. Then the argument starts cutting the other way. Don't these children deserve to have the societal support for stability which legal marriage provides?

But really, someone here said it during a discussion several weeks ago. Erin's (and her cohorts') objections to same sex marriage are not, at bottom, based on reason. Trying use reason to explain the counter position, which I have gone on and on about, is a waste of time.

Steve
And when gays decide it is "right" to get married because it involves commitment and having an intimate relationship with one person? When gays reject the wrong of sleeping around? Besides all the practical reasons, it seems to me that in seeking out marriage, not just civil unions as I would advocate for, they seem to be buying into marriage as a moral entity.

Yeah, what I said: Gay marriage is the backward step from the rebellion of the gay rights movement, where a new normal is defined and everything settles down. The longer conservatives fight it, the more damage will be done to marriage, the more gay and straight couples will have rights and privileges outside of marriage, and less expectations they will enter into it.

John E.
Assumes facts not in evidence. You state as a given that gay marriage will screw up kids and cause social disintegration and that this is the reason why it should be forbidden.

Conservatives talking about screwing up future generations, honestly, just should be ignored. From fighting environmentalism to running up huge debts to policies that not only don't help the poor but cause more impoverished people, half of the conservative policies are the very definition of 'screwing up future generations'. (I'm sure, somehow, it's liberals' fault that the massively popular social programs we implemented, and paid for, had their funding, but not their expenses, cut by conservatives.)

And, incidentally all you people talking about 'mother and fathers', about 20 million children live with single parents in the US. If being raised without a mother or father is that harmful, try dealing with those first. Gay people, at most, make up 10% of the population, which is 180 million adult people from 20-64, so 18 million gay people(1). Which means 9 million couples, so even if every gay person got married and every one of those couples had a two children, those children would still be outnumbered by children living with straight single parents.

Or, to put it another way, there only actually 80 million children, so more than 1/4th of them already live in single parent households, hence in a single-gender environment. The 2% of the population that actually might 'gay marry', and the further 50% of them that might have kids, is not going to change anything.

And while we're at it, single parents have to be 'worse' than gay couples to start with. At least gay couples have a backup parent if something happens, and it is much more likely that one of them is stay-at-home. I mean, there are two sets of problems with single parents if you accept the premise that children need both genders of parents...there's that problem, and then there's the obvious problem there's only one of them so they can devote a lot less time to their children.

1) Yes, gay people older than that could get married, but no adoption agency would give them a child, and the lesbian couples couldn't conceive. In fact, '64' is way too high a cutoff.

"Relatively, our common idea of marriage is as bizarre and foreign as two men or two-women married, when viewed in the context of history and tradition. Actually, that was my point."

Modern America's particular notion of marriage may have been around for only 150 years, but the larger idea of marriage itself, as being between man and woman (even when it was polygamous) obviously goes back much farther. In Western culture it dates at very least to New Testament times. Your comparison doesn't hold either seriously OR ironically.

The minority of Gen-X and Y who are religious very seriously oppose gay marriage and they are the only ones having kids.

All data notwithstanding. Just once, I wish you'd provide actual data to support your broad demographic winter asumptions. Your assumptions appear to be based on nothing more than a poll of the three people in your living room.

Surveys of young evangelicals, for instance, show great hesitancy over the focus of their elders on opposing gay rights, even while they appear to be more supportive of the pro-life position.

"If Max wants to show up and say that in fact, he doesn't mind thinking about gay sex at all, I'm willing to hear his confession. In fact, let's hear from all of you conservatives who have no personal feelings about gay sex at all, but base your positions purely on rational considerations that it is best for society if it is suppressed."

Sorry Sig, just noticed this.

FTR: The thought of homosexual activity is indeed repulsive to me. So what? That's not mutually exclusive to the rational considerations I have offered here on a number of occasions. Considerations that you consistantly reject.

So, there we are.

In the process of rational consideration, feelings are invalid. Unless a person is capable of agreeing with a rational decision despite his feelings about the topic, the invoking of those feelings during the debate cannot be termed rational.

Case in point: in many a debate over property taxes -- used primarily to fund public education -- the largest demographic in opposition to having those taxes let alone increasing them is people without children. They give no rational consideration to the fact that those children will enter the workforce some day and many of them will have jobs that provide everyone -- whether they have children or not -- with necessary or desired goods and services. "I have no children and I'm glad of it," goes the refrain. "Why should I pay for their education?"

As usual, Erin, the arguments you make (or counter) are not the ones the original writer was making...

You said, "Well, then, many of our laws prohibiting incest should go right out the window, as should our laws prohibiting euthanasia, underage drinking, age of consent for sexual activity, use of "illegal" drugs, polygamy, illegal immigration, and tons of other things. The notion that the word "marriage" means the specific union of a man and a woman is no more "religious" than our prohibitions against these so-called crimes."

First off, need I remind you that consenting adult same-sex relations are not a 'crime".

Next, you've failed to make the point that underage drinking is a "religious prohibition", nor is immigration of drugs.

Be that as it may, the writer's point was: "we are free to choose our religion and even free to reject religion entirely. We shouldn't codify religious beliefs into law." You seem to think we should codify your particular religious beliefs into law, and have failed to explain why.

"None of them ought to remain illegal if our only criteria for what should be illegal is whether bystanders get hurt in some immediate, tangible way."

Although harm (and the lack thereof in consenting adult same-sex relationships) is certainly a factor to be considered, the original writer did not address it (unless you censored that part out - very much a possibility, knowing you). Why you choose to as some kind of rebuttal remains a mystery.

Garlock said"I've given this a lot of thought, and I think my prior stand against same-sex marriage was based on my personal thoughts about homosexuality rather than individual liberty. Those are two separate issues. My uneasiness may never go away, no matter how many names the enlightened ones call me, but the freedom of same-sex couples does not depend on my endorsement of their lifestyle."

Your rejoinder does not address the individual liberty that Garlock speaks of. Instead, you chose to write about some fictitious "playground bully's actions". What's up with that?

"I don't know a single thoughtful conservative who opposes gay marriage based on feelings or what's sometimes called the "ick factor,"

Then you must hv missed it on the myriad other boards, some of which were under Rod's own signature. Oh wait, you did mention "thoughtful conservatives". Nevermind.

"it's the belief that we're venturing into truly uncharted territory, dismantling the whole idea of the family"

Nonsense upon more nonsense. The first legally recognized gay wedding took place more than 7 years ago. How much longer before youconservatives start to actually start to 'chart the friggin' territory'?

"dismantling the whole idea of the family"? Seems to me thousands upon thoussands of heterosexuals didn't get the buletin and continue to create 'tradtitional families' even though non-traditional people are finally allowed equal access to the insitution. In no way are their (i.e. your) families being "dismantled". This is pure and utter (and typical) fear-mingering on your part and It. Is. Not. True.

"that children will suffer no deficiencies as a result of being raised by two men or two women"

Psychologists an dsociologists have been telling us this for decades. So sorry you don't seem to believe it.

"And we have no idea how any of this will play out."

You may "have no idea"; some of us are simply better informed, apparently.

"We have no clue if this total nuclear annihilation of the traditional concept of the family"

Fear-monger much? (It's getting pretty tiresome.)

"We don't know to what extent religious rights will be curtailed"

Why is it you only address half of that 2-way street? Our religious rights have been trampled on so badly by the likes of you for so long, yet you never address our religious rights. Why that?

"or other freedoms removed from those who continue to oppose gay marriage once it's a fait accompli."

Erin, wake up. It's been a 'fait accompli' for more than half a decade now. Apocalypse is not around the corner I assure you. (Well, I would assure you if I could, but you seem much, much happier in scare-monger mode.)

"We aren't even asking the questions ..."

You'be been asking the quetions on this blog alone for years now. You just aren't paying attention to the answers. Or you simply don't like them.

"because, I think, we'd rather not raise the possibility that gay marriage won't be an endless source of sunshine and flowers for America."

who on earth ever said it would be?

"My opposition to gay marriage is like that of Maggie Gallagher"

And about as mindless. There are so many wrong assumptions in her piece it isn't funny. Not going to waste another keystroke on another hysterical fear-monger.

"all opposition is assumed to be one of the following things: religious bias"

Yours isn't?

And so it goes in the war on homophobia. Or should I say homo-hatred?

And now to rebut the posters ...

"The majority does NOT want gay marriage, but the judges have once again gone against the will of the people."

As is their job. They are part and parcel of the myriad checks and balances that ensure the majority does not trample on the rights of the minorities. They ably made a determination that the voter-passed referendum was un-Constitutional, just as the ban on inter-racial marriage was. Plus, the "will of the people" was ably expressed through the Legislature (twice, in fact), again, their job in a Constitutional Republic.

"I have fears about the way this is going to play out."

That's what Erin and Rod want - for you to fear. Seems it works.

"I think that it will mean that religious folks will eventually be prosecuted for hate crimes. Ministers will be forbidden to speak against homosexuality."

Well, apart from joining the Levitical call to action to put gays to death, echoed in Jimmy (he of the 2 whores) Swaggart's suggestion that "if a man so much as looked at me 'funny', I'd kill him and tell God he died", I'd say you're still pretty free to preach as much hate as you want. (Though why a Christian would want to preach hate is beyond me, since Christ's message was to love.)

"Who knows what harm it will have on kids."

I do. None at all.

"Common sense tells you it can't be good for a kid to be raised in a same sex household."

You presume that their will be kids being raised in every same sex household. There aren't any in ours, so those 'kids' are 'safe'. And as for the kids in same-sex households, every one I know (and I know a lot) turned out just fine. All of them turned our heterosexual. (Imagine that.) Some even serve their country in the military. There's no "common sense" at all in what you typed, Robin.

"people don't know what to do."

I would suggest you accept it, but I know you aren't capable of doing that.

"It's objectionable"

To you maybe. Certainly not to me or most of the people I know. Why should your 'feelings' trump others'?

"Equating gay marriage with incest, etc. is making a definition"

A very false one, though. The 2 have nothing to do with one another, except in the minds of the RRR/CCs, freddy.

"Anyone against gay marriage may, but not must, experience the "ick" factor, but must, must, must, be able to present a reasoned argument against it."

And we haven't seen any yet.

dannyuk2

"Gay marriage on the other hand is purely a religious issue"

No it isn't. The 'religious' simply want to make it one. Not a single church, synagogue, mosque or temple has ever been forced to marry same-sex couples against their tenets. The California decision dealt solely with civil marriage, not 'religious' marriage.

"expanding marriage to include gays and lesbians wont stop heterosexuals from getting married, It also wont take away any rights the heterosexuals currently have.

If the gay-marriage issue is about "the family" i have two questions:

Why aren't the anti-gay-marriage crowd calling for a ban on marriage of ALL childless couples?

Gay people have families too - either through adoption, or through one or both partners as a result of a previous heterosexual partnership. so why are you denying their families the same rights as heterosexual ones?"

Bore repeating so I repeated it. And await cogent reasoned replies to the questions (though I'm not holding my breath).

Charles Cosimano,

"So let us face the simple, inevitable fact. Gay marriage is going to happen and there is nothing ultimately that can be done to stop it."

Agreed.

"So the arguments against it may be rational ..."

Not yet they haven't been.

"or they may be emotional"

Indeed.

"or they may be a mixture of both but in the end it is not the arguments that are going to matter"

Perhaps that is why all the fear-mongering. They realize they've lost the battle and wish to wound as many of their opponents as possible.

I see no other rationale for continuing to expend as much bandwidth on this topic as the Crunchy Cons and RRRers do.

Goodguyex,

"Did the Pill and the wholesale acceptance of contraception, especially the systemic kind make same-sex marriage inevitable. Some Christian writers say "Yes".

Hmm, and here all this time Justice Scalia thinks it was the overturning of the anti-sodomy laws that made same-sex marriage inevitable.

Gosh, whom to believe, "Some Christian writers" or a Justice of the Supreme Court? Or neither? I go to my own Church. What "[s]ome Christian writers" postulate concerns me not in the least. Justice, on the other hand ...

"Remember the list of probably consequences from acceptance of contraception in "Humanae Vitae"?"

Nope. Nor is it the topic of this discussion.

"Religious groups, however, should not be pressured by convention or by law into accepting this or altering any practice or activity to suit this."

As regards same-sex marriage, "[r]eligious groups" aren't being "pressured" to "accept" them - or perform them - either "by convention or by law", not even by meandering 'logic'.

As much as I agree with you, and I do agree with you, the point by point refutation gets a little exhaustive. Tearing apart every phrase of someone's argument seems like a little much.

Danial,

If we don't tear apart their nonsense line by lying line, who will?

This strikes me as a VERY simple matter. Gay persons can get married. A gay man has the same right to marry a lesbian woman as I do as a straight man. It's not about denying rights to persons, it's about denying rights to RELATIONSHIPS. There's no reason that a relationship between two women should be equal to that between a man and woman. And if it should be, then people really need to give a good (and irrefutable by polygamists, NAMBLA, etc.) reason why that relationship isn't equal to one between three persons, a woman and a pig, a man and a young boy, etc.

Equality for gays is a good thing, provided for in basic American values. Equality for relationships is a foreign concept to any human society.

"This strikes me as a VERY simple matter. Gay persons can get married. A gay man has the same right to marry a lesbian woman as I do as a straight man."

This is a crap argument even for this debate. Think about it. Did it even occur to you that using your argument before 1967 black people had the same right to marry as white people?

"There's no reason that a relationship between two women should be equal to that between a man and woman."

Ditto for this argument. It manages to be crap and silly at the same time.

"And if it should be, then people really need to give a good (and irrefutable by polygamists, NAMBLA, etc.) reason why that relationship isn't equal to one between three persons, a woman and a pig, a man and a young boy, etc."

I don't see why, you haven't bothered too.

Sigh.

Several times right here on this blog and elsewhere I went on the rant-and-rave against the silly arguments against recognizing secular same-sex marriage. It's like fighting fog. There's nothing there, it just flows away from rationality towards unsupported and unsupportable statements like "There's no reason that a relationship between two women should be equal to that between a man and woman."

After expending a great number of quarks and electrons or whatever it is that we're spending here and elsewhere, I decided that that's because there is no rational argument that holds water for five minutes. And that that fact is because the opponents of secular same sex marriage are not opposed to it for rational reasons.

Recovering, I'm totally behind you, and your arguments make sense. Tons of sense. Go for it. But I fear that you're using reason against people who are only using emotion. Fear. Dare I say it, the "ick factor."

The world is not ending. Secular same sex marriage will be recognized here, as it is in much of Europe (where the world has not ended either) and as everyone calms down and begins to mind their own business (as they should have been doing in the first place), our children will wonder what all the shouting was about.

In fact, most of them are already wondering that.

REP, you are a wonderfully passionate person and so much of what you say is true. Your story is really touching. Your anger is so understandable.

That being said...this is Rod's and Erin's platform. And as such it is a discussion forum for and about conservative people and their/our particular struggles, joys, and concerns from a conservative point of view. The primary dialogue here simply is not with liberals, it is all about conservative people and their internally acceptable range of conservative opinion and answers.

I feel it is just not right to try to turn it into another forum full of inflexible confrontation. Us more liberal posters can add a few ideas and facts to the mix, can attest to reality being a bit differently composed. We can pull off a skirmish here, a raid there, and take some lumps and ambushes ourselves- and that engages and extends the range of everyone's thinking. Despite the public attitude and the pose of self-sufficiency, people here would not be happy with learning nothing new and like a certain amount of rhetorical jousting. Opinions do shift over days and weeks here, even though people loudly proclaim themselves as unregenerate, unapologetic, and absolutely right as ever. :) That's just the authoritative personality and macho social convention on this side of the fence.

Saving face is quite a lot of it. Much of it is also the old or ignorant peoples' trick of getting information they can't admit to not knowing or not understanding. That involves goading intelligent and informed people into telling what they know and believe about a topic via insults and provocative assertions. Yeah, it's usually a low and parasitic tactic, not exactly filled with integrity and humility, but it's a fact of life. Lumping it all as purely "lies" is too harsh, though.

So eye-for-an-eye rhetorical trench warfare as you're conducting it is not the right thing here most of the time. Rod may not be articulate enough to explain it, but he is right that it shouldn't become a modus operandi. And perhaps you can see that the meanness some direct your way is, paradoxically, really a plea that you have more patience and compassion with them.

Franklin Evans, Mdavid, the irony of your analysis is that the more children a couple has, the more likely that one or more of those children will be homosexual

If you look at the numbers, this percentage is so low as to be absolutely trivial. Heck, even the theory of more-children-more-homo is debatable, the numbers are so small. Crank the numbers yourself, it's a rounding error even after a hundred years.

But even if it wasn't, that doesn't prove your point: genetically gay people will not automatically support gay issues, any more than those genetically predisposed to anger will support murder. It's the culture; if enough people are opposed to homosexuality, they keep in the closet.

Daniel, Just once, I wish you'd provide actual data to support your broad demographic winter asumptions.

You keep saying this Daniel, and I keep providing the data. I don't know why I bother because I don't think you are interested in reality, but I'll go over it one more time. The following are facts:

1) The General Social Survey (this is the gold standard for social scientists) shows among 100 liberals they average 147 kids, while the conservatives 208. That's a fertility gap of 41%.

2) Children vote like parents roughly 80% of the time. In fact, the parent/child voting preference is the strongest predictor known for a person's future voting pattern.

3) Religious people are more opposed to gay marriage. Duh!

4) Fertility correlates strongly with religious conviction. Duh!

5) Immigrants (the majority are Latinos) are more conservative than the general population on social issues like abortion or gay marriage.

All these facts are not questioned by social scientists or demographers - they are well known, even by the general public. If you don't believe them, just look them up. And they all point to a conservative social future.

And they are all anybody needs to know to make number adjustments for a few decades ahead - things just don't change that rapidly on the demographic front. Demographers (even professed liberal demographers like Longman) see the shifting starting by the next election cycle in the swing states and are making grim guesses as to when the nationwide demographic crossover point is on social issues. Based on the data my guess is roughly 25 years plus or minus 10. Of course, nobody knows the exact time, but the long term trend is crystal clear to all but the most obtuse. Heck, we already see the youth are more conservative on school prayer, abortion, warmth for religious conservatives and whatnot than their parents were at the same age. The shift is clear and ongoing.

Old Susan
Several times right here on this blog and elsewhere I went on the rant-and-rave against the silly arguments against recognizing secular same-sex marriage. It's like fighting fog. There's nothing there, it just flows away from rationality towards unsupported and unsupportable statements like "There's no reason that a relationship between two women should be equal to that between a man and woman."

Yeah, people say things like that and I just think "Huh? That's not an argument not to do something!"

After expending a great number of quarks and electrons or whatever it is that we're spending here and elsewhere, I decided that that's because there is no rational argument that holds water for five minutes. And that that fact is because the opponents of secular same sex marriage are not opposed to it for rational reasons.

A while back, here I think, I set out a list of reasons for gay marriage. None of the 'rights' reason, just practical reasons. I forget the list, but here are two:

1) Encourages couples to live together long term, thus making them more likely to get involved in the community. This is technically a hypothetical, but it's one that conservatives have argued is true forever WRT to rewarding straight marriage...that it benefits society to have committed couples.

2) Gives the relationship a set of default legal statuses that have been worked out of centuries, from divorce to medical decision making to insurance, instead of all these hodgepodge of 'partner' rights and decisions that the delay is creating. Powers of attorney, wills, lawsuits, all cost society time and money.

3) Likewise, private industry is changing rules and regulations, which costs them time and money. All over the place, they're having to set up systems that determine what 'domestic partner' is, and all sorts of things. Allow gay marriage, additionally require all existing uses 'husband' and 'wife' to be interpreted as 'spouse', in contracts, by the legal system, and you've saved a hell of a lot of money.

4) And last, but not least, one word: adoption. For some completely surreal reason, opponents to gay marriage think the choice is between children being raised by straight couples or raised by gay couples, which is just...well, incredibly stupid.

The choice is, for gay male couples, either they adopt the kid, or he remains in foster care for longer. The country does not have a shortage of children to adopt!(1) For lesbians, if they adopt it's the same, if they have a child with a sperm donor, the choice is the child is raised by lesbians, or the child does not exist. (And they have children without any laws anyway, so that's an inane argument to any law. Marriage would stop that child from being shoved into the foster care system if the biological mother died.)

There are no circumstances where gay couples raise children that, if the gay couple had not been there, a straight couple would have raised them(1), which is why the discussion about how children 'need' male and female parents is completely surreal.

I posted at least those four reasons, and I think one more. No argument based on morals or civil rights, simply the logical societal pros of gay marriage. And I asked for the cons.

I didn't get any cons except the hypothetical 'children need both genders to raise them'. Which, duh, I already addressed, and hasn't been proven even if it wasn't a stupid argument. In fact, psychologists have disagreed for decades, by looking at single parents and children raised by them. (And there's essentially no logical way to argue that a child raised by two women will do worse than a child raised by one. At least there's a possibility of a stay-at-home parent there.)

So I reopen the question to 'social conservatives': What is a con of gay marriage? How will it affect society in ways that we do not want? (And notice that 'more gay people' may be something you don't want, society does not, in fact, actually care about that anymore. Not that society would believe that gay marriage would cause that anyway.)

1) Now, there's an entire separate argument that adoption should be made much easier. That almost any adoption is better than foster care. But expanding the potential pool to gay couples means we don't have to 'lower standards' as much, even though we probably need to do that too.

2) Well, any specific child could end up in that circumstance. For example, if there are two kids up for adoption, and first one adopted is by a gay couple, and the second by a straight couple, it's possible that sans the gay couple, the first one would have been adopted by the straight one instead...of course, that means the second one wouldn't get adopted at all. But in general the same amount of children would be adopted by straight couples with and without gay couples also adopting, although the pool of children would obviously be shuffled a bit differently.

So, now the gays can play marriage like so many straights do. Yawn.

It still doesn't make it real in any ontological sense.

Please to define "ontological," I can't figure out what you're talking about.

If what you're trying to say is that just because the State recognizes gay marriage that doesn't mean the Church (any Church) must or should, well, that's a given.

If you're trying to say that God doesn't recognize it, well, I'd ask for your sources. Please don't quote the Bible, not everyone thinks the Bible is the word of God.

Old Susan: as everyone calms down and begins to mind their own business (as they should have been doing in the first place), our children will wonder what all the shouting was about.

In fact, most of them are already wondering that.

I can testify to that.

Good point, too, about the *need* for Pride parades, given the unbelievable rhetoric (analogizing gay relationships to murder, necrophilia, bestiality, etc.) It has never before occurred to me to go - now I can see the importance.

To respond to Max, way back there before real life lured me away from the keyboard . . . my question was a direct response to Erin's assertion that none of the conservatives she knows are influenced by their feelings of personal repugnance. They're just against civil rights for gay citizens because granting them would destroy civilization as we know it. I was offering conservatives a chance to prove Erin right, by revealing that they had gay friends, felt very comfortable with them, and did not imagine with loathing what they might be doing in bed, yet still opposed granting them equal rights. The fact that you, with various others, felt compelled to mention all over again that you think gay sex is gross and unnatural, tends rather to disprove Erin's assertion and support my own conclusion. So, thanks . . . I think.

In my absence, the point-by-point disputation has been covered rather well. So I'm going to jump to a more general problem. All this fuss makes me wonder: what form of marriage would make Erin and co. happy? What is this thing they think gay marriage will ruin? I think John E. put his finger on it when he said: The real Rubicon was 'companionate marriage' and its twin pillars of effective contraception/sterilization and no-fault divorce.

What social conservatives define as real marriage is old school: a marriage based on the man's claim to control over a woman and her children. They would permit no contraception of any kind and no divorce--at least, none instigated by the woman. The husband would be the spiritual and temporal head of the family, with the economic subordination that implies for the woman. Women would not work outside the home after marriage, there would be no child care, and probably the general education of women would be somewhat limited, since only "spinsters" would ever need attempt to be self-supporting. Women's presence in the workplace would be greatly scaled back. Unmarried mothers would be forced to give up their babies for adoption, since they would receive no assistance from society and would be made outcasts as they were in the good old days. Public schools would be defunded, and those who wanted to educate their children would have a choice of paying for a private school or homeschooling.

Social conservatives, feel free to jump in and correct me if this isn't what you want. It would actually be a relief to me to be mistaken. Those who do want this are smart enough to realize that most Americans don't want it, and would turn against them if they really understood the program. So instead of advocating for it straight up, they scapegoat a minority group--gays--and invite others to join in blaming all their heterosexual woes on the Dread Others. It's very pragmatic, but it's really kind of a despicable tactic.

I was offering conservatives a chance to prove Erin right, by revealing that they had gay friends, felt very comfortable with them, and did not imagine with loathing what they might be doing in bed, yet still opposed granting them equal rights.

Ah, sig, needless to say, don't hold your breath waiting for anything like this.

As I read back over this thread I see plenty of the "ick factor." I see gays compared to those who have sex with cows, I see NAMBLA, I see the assertion that my neighbor Brad might just as well have married his houseplant, I see plenty of visceral disgust, I see repeated unsupported assertions that allowing Brad and Jeff to marry legally would destroy civilization, and I see a sad lack of reasonable argument against the legal recognition of these families.

It seems to me that the arguments here have gone a long way towards disproving Erin's original assertion that no, this political decision of hers isn't at all motivated by visceral feelings, but is purely spiritual and intellectual. If all this makes so much sense, why does it turn out to make so little?

I don't oppose gays getting married to members of the opposite sex, I oppose the re-definition of what marriage is.

Because the definition of marriage would be a loveless, sham relationship? I realize that for most of the history of marriage, love was never really a consideration, but are you suggesting we move back to that era?

Max Schadenfreude: I don't oppose gays getting married to members of the opposite sex, I oppose the re-definition of what marriage is.

Tied in with sigaliris: So I'm going to jump to a more general problem. All this fuss makes me wonder: what form of marriage would make Erin and co. happy? What is this thing they think gay marriage will ruin? I think John E. put his finger on it when he said: "The real Rubicon was 'companionate marriage' and its twin pillars of effective contraception/sterilization and no-fault divorce.

Exactly.

I don't want to claim that any one individual thinks this way or that. But my experience tells me that many Catholic religious traditionalists believe that *only* marriages incurred under Catholic auspices are "genuine." (The Eastern Orthodox are suspect because they do allow divorce under limited circumstances.) Annulments are granted in Catholic marriage courts if one or the other spouse intends to use contraception and never have children.

Other marriages not taking place under official Catholic auspices (i.e. in other churches, or for the non-baptized, in the county register) are also genuine *if* the people have never (sacramentally) been married before and *if* they are "properly" consummated (i.e. no impotence, no exclusive intent to contracept and have an unfruitful marriage, which is the equivalent - at least in some tribunals - of non-consummation.) A medically impotent man (or one, let's say, who has lost his male organs in an accident), who has no ability to have penetrative sex with a woman, may not "really" marry a woman - although they're both heterosexual, and presumably have other creative ways to sexually express their union.

Not to beat a dead horse, but remarriage-after-divorce also makes a civil marriage "not a real one."

I don't know if it was doctrinal or disciplinary, but in the early church, widows past the age of childbearing were strongly discouraged from remarrying. Slowly the Catholic Church changed its views on remarriage after widowhood. (This is discussed in Matrons and Marginal Women in Medieval Society, ed. by Robert Edwards, pp. 35-37.)

So in short, heterosexuality isn't enough in and of itself to make a "real" marriage. The argument that "it's a man and a woman, therefore good, versus a man/man, woman/woman" doesn't entirely wash.

"I think John E. put his finger on it when he said: "The real Rubicon was 'companionate marriage' and its twin pillars of effective contraception/sterilization and no-fault divorce."

Exactly."

I missed this the first time around. And can only echo your word: Exactly. Exactly right.

"So in short, heterosexuality isn't enough in and of itself to make a "real" marriage. The argument that "it's a man and a woman, therefore good, versus a man/man, woman/woman" doesn't entirely wash."

True. But don't forget the distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient".

A man and woman are necessary, but as you've aptly noted, are not sufficient.

A man and a man not only fails to be sufficient, it fails to meet what's necessary.

Stephanie, if you give me a citation for the Aquinas teaching I'll give it a look and let you know what I think.

Oh, and I doubt everyone was heterosexual back then.

"Please to define "ontological," I can't figure out what you're talking about.

If what you're trying to say is that just because the State recognizes gay marriage that doesn't mean the Church (any Church) must or should, well, that's a given."

I think we will both agree that just because the "state" says something is, it don't make it so.

When we say that slavery, and the Dred Scott decision were wrong, we are appealling to something higher than "the state". Call it nature, call it God, call it our innate sense of "the right". But it is still there and we still appeal to it. We all do.

Slavery was legal. According to the State. That is, the machinery of the State could have been and was mobilised to protect it. We all now think that was morally wrong, but not everyone at the time would agree with us. Were the slaves "ontologically" free? I guess, but I'm still not sure what you mean by that word.

I personally think abortion is morally wrong, but I'm divided on the question of whether and to what extent the machinery of the State should be called upon to penalize it. See the distinction? The State does not exist to enforce your or my ideas of morality. (It can't, since we disagree.) The State exists to keep order, and this State to keep order in a very diverse society where opinions on almost everything vary quite a bit. Hence we've tended to work towards "leave people alone unless there's some pressing reason to interfere."

When I say "gay marriage" is not possible onotologically I am simply saying that the term is Orwellian Newspeak. Like saying 4 equals 5; two left shoes make a pair; square circle; etc. The term is an attack on language and the meaning of words. But, like with marriage itself, our cultural ability to preserve meaning and rationality failed some time ago. But that doesn't mean that there won't be some of us will be quiet and ignore that the Emperor does NOT have new clothes.

"Marriage" according to the State is whatever the State says it is. It just won't do to pretend that the State is required to follow your personal ideas of morality, which is what I think you mean by "ontological." (Apparent definition: that with which Max, and hence God, agrees morally. Also known as "real," since that with which you and God disagree is thereby unreal.)

Polygamy used to be legal; here and now, it is not. Where you stand on this I don't know. Living together for a certain amount of time ("common law marriage") used to confer marriage rights according to the State; mostly it doesn't any more, but the Church (and you I presume) would not recognize that as "ontologically" marriage. You would not, I presume, say that divorced and remarried people are "ontologically" married.

What I am trying to say is that the State, whose proper goal is good order, is under no obligation whatever to agree with your and God's opinion (these being presumed to be identical). Perhaps if everyone agreed with you and God, a democratic State would be obliged to agree with you-all, but since there seem to be as many views about what is "ontologically" marriage as there are people talking about it, the State is by necessity thrown back on its proper function, good order, equal rights.

Hence same sex marriage. Aside from this "ontological" stuff, the only objection I read here is the "ick factor."

Valid questions, Max, asked and answered:

Would you oppose legalizing sibling marriage? Why or why not?

Adamantly oppose. Legality takes a back seat to evidential proof of harm. The offspring of siblings have an overwhelming increase in illness and harmful conditions, made even worse in subsequent generations. The highest profile evidence is in European royalty.

Would you oppose tran-special marriage? Why or why not?

Adamantly oppose. There is the simple fact that a non-human species cannot partake in any human endeavor. An animal cannot talk, write, vote, conduct commerce, fight in a war (stipulate the semantically different "be used in conducting a war") or come to the aid of humans in the aftermath of a calamity.

Neither rejection can have a rational rebuttal. That is an assertion, not an opinion.

What is your definition of real marriage? Why?

Marriage is a social and economic construct. It is based on property ownership derived from objectively verifiable blood relationship. The Jewish tradition defining descent through the maternal line is based on the simple logistical fact that one could see a baby being born to a woman, but one couldn't necessarily see that the baby was conceived with any given man. The importance of female virginity is a direct consequence of the propertied man wanting a guarantee that the son who got his inheritance was conceived by him and no other man.

The concept of fornication, of sinful sexual conduct, is irrelevant to the economic pressures.

Every story of tragedy resulting from romantic love, historical and fictional, has its primary motivation from property ownership or, later, politics.

So "real" has two logical definitions: romance and property. I submit that the religious contraints around marriage create conflict when they straddle those definitions. I further submit that the modern conflict is pointing to removing that boundary "transgression", placing religion solely on the romantic side, and leaving the property side to civic, secular considerations and codifications.

No.

(John, just a hint. If you and your wife had married with the intention of continuing to sleep around, you could have made it three!)

John, did you vow "till death do you part" in your first "marriage"?

Did you vow "till death do you part" in your second "marriage"?

Well put Franklin. I agree wholeheartedly.

Max, your definition of marriage is fairly close to my idea of what I wanted in my marriage. But I recognize that other people are entitled to call themselves married and be recognized as such by the state even if their ideas of marriage are somewhat different from mine.

My definition of marriage may include a love that, as in the NIV version of First Corinthians, is always patient, always kind, is not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. My definition of marriage may include Charles Williams' statement that "that which is loved is, for the lover, an image of God." But I don't require that everyone in the country who wants to be married follow the same path. I will allow a man who imports a mail-order bride from Russia to call himself married if he so chooses. I will allow rock stars whose loves are as ephemeral as mayflies to call themselves married in the eyes of the state.

As to your other questions, oh dear, I believe we've been here before. But I'll recap. Informed consent is the one non-negotiable item. On that basis, sibling marriage could be acceptable to me, even though I personally find it kind of icky. True, if it became universal, it could cause genetic problems, but I doubt that marrying one's brother will ever become widely popular. If you're going to forbid it on a genetic basis, you'd really have to institute genetic testing for all and also forbid non-sibling marriages where the spouses had a high risk of producing damaged babies. The real problem with marriage among close kin is the likelihood of some form of emotional or physical coercion taking place.

And again with the animals . . . how you people do harp on this subject. No, animals cannot consent to marriage. They can't even understand the concept. Hence, the answer would be no. I would also argue that if a human being is so damaged that they can't comprehend the idea of marriage, they can't get married either. No marriages to anyone in a permanent vegetative state, for instance. No marriages to people who are already dead. Ya happy now??

You did say "trans-special," so let me cover all the bases by saying that if intelligent aliens ever discover our planet and are dumb enough to want to get hitched to one or several of us, by the power vested in me as the resident science fiction writer, I will permit it. Let their courts and comments sections obsess about the incredible perversity of it all!

As for my objective, I too aim always to speak the truth as I understand it. Though I modestly demur from dignifying my utterances with a capital T.

Next to most recent post. We're moving fast here.

(smile) Yes, John, and I think that while Max and his cohorts are fully entitled to their views, I think those views should be kept well out of the charter of the State of Texas.

Max, I believe, agrees with me on that.

Old Susan: "Yes, John, and I think that while Max and his cohorts are fully entitled to their views, I think those views should be kept well out of the charter of the State of Texas."

One, I have no cohorts. Two, I think the state charter of Texas should contain what the polity in charge of its content decide.

@Max S: It's in this book: Matrons and Marginal Women in Medieval Society, ed. by Robert Edwards, in the chapter by James Brundage called "The Merry Widow's Serious Sister: Remarriage in Classical Canon Law." Sorry I can't find it online (I apparently reached my limit reading it with googlebooks. But a little google-fu will probably turn it up.)

Stephanie, I see that it was you who asked the Aquinas question. I thought it was someone else.

I really don't care what Brundage says that Aquinas says. I will comment on what Aquinas says if I know where to look. I have most of his writtings, which is quite a lot of text. Thus my need for a citation. Indeed, I'm very interested in reading what Aquinas says, but I don't have the time to search for it now.

If men and women are no different even for marriage, what about other things? Will bathrooms in government buildings have to be co-ed? Why not?

This ridiculousness is almost not worth answering, but anyway, Japan has co-ed bathrooms, and the world has not ended over there.

"I have also been told by a travelling student that the Vatican has co-ed bathrooms."

Yeah, but that's just for the Jesuits. ;-)

"Don't worry about gender. Most people figure theirs out eventually."

Well, one would hope so.