Pondering non-religious opposition to gay marriage

"I often think that gay activists have no idea how crazy, and devoid of common sense, they can sound to ordinary people."

Exactly. I was able to see that in yesterday's post--I asked a simple, direct question: 'If gay marriage is a manifest right, where does that right emanate from?' and no one could give any credible explanation; and when they couldn't, they just slandered me personally,made inferences and judgments about my motives, and criticized my writing style. My writing style?!!??
There doesn't seem to be any idea of compromise with the pro-same-sex marriage advocates here--they absolutely want what they want, come hell or high water, no matter what it does to the society. My wife and I were both very much on the fence about same-sex marriages, but after witnessing some of the tactics, and hearing such bad arguments for it, I think we've both made up our minds to oppose it fully. I would suppose that many people of similar thinking have come to the same conclusion.

Jim Kunstler is 60+ years old, and a particular kind of man - you know the sort that has 3 or 4 ex-wives, all of whom he hates, and now a girlfriend young enough to be his daughter (I am not maligning him - he's been to dinner at my house, and Jim is 2 years older than my Dad and his girlfiend is exactly the same age I am), and who drinks tequila at lunch and meets a lot of women on the road with whom he does not discuss Kant. He's a smart and thoughtful and original thinker when it comes to architecture and design, politics and a whole host of other things - and he's clearly creeped out by male homosexuality, and lives in a world where men are either drinking buddies or aliens, and women, well, aren't.

I like the man, I admire things about him. But I don't really think he has his finger on the pulse of much of anything involving present-day love, sex or anything related to it. He's a dinosaur in that respect, and a symbol of why the gay marriage exercise will succeed - because opposition proceeds precisely from the kind of man, left and right, although of course more right, that Jim Kunstler is. Think about that tv show you like with all the 1950s advertising guys - their day is over, for good and ill (mostly good, I think).

Opposition from non-religious people to gay marriage doesn't stem from principle - Kunstler says as much - it stems from a relationship to sexuality that is largely past, and may matter a little now, but it won't in the long term.

Sharon

John E - Agn Stoic
November 5, 2009 8:19 AM
Is it really just the co-option of the word 'marriage' that bothers your side, Rod?
-----------------------------------------------------------
No. If we support what God detests, He judges us as guilty, too.

Sharon, Liam, just wanted to say that I really appreciate what y'all have to say, and the tone you've taken here. Same to you on the other side, Antonius Magnus. You all set a model for how we should discuss this. Everybody else, take note.

(Oh, and p.s. Sharon, I'm not defending Kunstler's reasoning here -- I think it's wack that he finds gay marriage the ultimate goal of the women's movement, and that the ultimate goal of the women's movement is to marginalize men -- but I bring him up only to suggest that the idea that opposition to gay marriage is exclusively the province of religious conservatives is mistaken.)

"There are no manifest rights - did George Washington's slaves have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
No, they did not. The then-current social structure was set up to make sure they did not.
But social structures change. The descendants of George Washington's slaves are now free citizens."

Ok, then if that is the way human rights work in our society, then the burden of proof is on pro-same-sex advocates as to exactly why the larger populace should vote to allow this change in society; shrieking "hater" and "bigot" at anyone asking "Why?" isn't an argument, and it will not get anyone on your side.

I should have said "non-religious opposition on the right proceeds" - my claim is not that all right opposition comes from archaic sexual attitudes, but that secular opposition in general does.

Sharon

Agreed on the ineffectiveness and unattractiveness of stereotyping, over generalizing and name calling. Not sure what accounts for its rise in recent years (Jerry Springer-ization?) but for too many people on different sides of various issues, it seems to be an acceptable tactic. It’s a turn off to people like me. Some people see things more in black and white and others see many shades of grey in any number of issues. Glad to see you’re appealing for toning things down, Rod.

Liam, thanks for bringing up the issue of federal tax law. I noted in the thread yesterday that I think states eventually get out of the “marriage” license business and will move to issuing certificates of civil union to gays and straights and that, as Bishop Robinson suggests, clergy will move away from being asked to act as “agents of the state.” The religious will be able to attain the spiritual benefits of a church sanctioned marriage by undergoing a religious blessing of their union. Those who can’t do that or don’t want to can partake in civil ceremonies. Some gay families include children, others do not. Your posting was a good reminder of the tax ramifications in terms of who presently can file joint returns and claim financial dependents and who cannot.

Thanks very much, Sharon, for the special insight in Kunstler. I was astonished at his assertion about the women’s movement and women wanting men to be “corralled” into gay groups. Since I believe sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, I don’t see how he can make that assertion, any more than people can argue that something or other might “turn” youths or young adults gay.

It makes much more sense to listen to people themselves when they try to explain their outlook and why they are who they are than to try to impose (often cartoonish) templates on them from outside.

Actually Antonius, I did answer your question, and accurately, with a short historical and legal summation. Perhaps you missed it amongst the other 290 posts. You might disagree with my legal analysis, but you cannot deny that it was credible.

As far as Maggie Gallagher's claim of American goodwill toward gay people, there is some merit to that. Even amongst those who oppose legal protections for gay people (and contrary to some personal posts on this blog, the majority of these don't just oppose same-sex marriage, but also oppose any form of civil union, open military service, and job protections) there are those who know and profess to like some gay people and wish them well, or at least are willing to let them be.. The problem with this is that polite regard for individuals neither justifies the denying of rights to the group of which those individuals are a part nor absolves one from the guilt one justly deserves for doing so. Nor, might I add, the proper label that society puts on such behavior when applied to other disfavored minorities.

"criticized my writing style"

Only after you pulled some "intellectual rank". And be honest - you asked about 6 "simple questions", shifting everytime someone answered you.

We gave you our arguments for why we feel gays should have the same marrage rights as straights, that is to marry the legally consenting adult of their choosing and gain access to state and federal protections that are better enforced than more difficult to obtain legal documents. You just don't agree. The same way that I don't agree with your whole bit about how its only a right if there's historical precedent, or if it's a norm, or if you can personally define it as a "manifest right". I believe it is the right of all people to equal treatment under the law, and that includes the right to the legally consenting partner of their choice. The same right you exercised when you married my wife. I see no reason why Liam617 shouldn't have the same right.

And don't pull that "he does have a right to marry a woman, just like I did". That wouldn't be the legally consenting partner of his choice.

Please tell me why his being allowed to do so is harmful and should be prevented. And if you don't even favour the "separate but equal" of civil unions, please expand on why. How does his theoretical marriage hurt you?

On the lighter side, frankly, in the midst the financial downturn, I'd think conservatives could understand how allowing more marriage could help economically - the wedding industry would see a lot of business. Not to mention health care - the un or underinsured would have access to partner benefits.

"I still believe that everything that gay people want from marriage can be supplied with a good will and power-of-attorney, but hey, what do I know?"

As I asked you yesterday (you did not deign to answer) would you be willing to give up your marriage benefits in favour of doing this instead? I know I sure as hell wouldn't.

"you married my wife"

Ok, this was a typo - don't worry, I'm not after your wife.

"Actually Antonius, I did answer your question, and accurately, with a short historical and legal summation. Perhaps you missed it amongst the other 290 posts. You might disagree with my legal analysis, but you cannot deny that it was credible."

I actually did miss it-I was asking as to exactly where these rights originate from--a Creator? is that the origin? Then please explain why if these rights come from a divine source, why would every major world religion reject gay sex as sinful and wrong in the first place? I agree that there are inherent rights to being human, and getting married and raising children is definitely one of them, but I fail to see how I could possess the right to marry another man, and how G-D gave me that right, when all faiths condemn it.
If society and social contracts are the guarantor of rights, then the burden is on the 'changer' to justify such change. Since the vote count is, by Mr. Dreher's count, 0--31, the ball is very much in the 'changer's' court.
If these rights are inherent to being human,why has no culture on the planet, in all of human history recognized them as such; legal arguments are much weightier with precedent to back them up.

Rod, I guess I'm not at all convinced that outside old dudes squicked by male homosexuality, such a thing as a secular-left opposition to gay marriage really exists. I think you tapped into an age thing, not a left thing ;-).

And may I ask a sincere question? Do you think that the right has any responsibility at all for the nature of the discourse? Or is it all the habit of the left of calling people bigots, in complete disconnect from their actual reasoning?

Looking at this through my own eyes, having been raised in the gay community (Mom came out in 1979) for decades, it looks like this - for a good 25 years of comparatively recent history, if the conservative right had said "we don't want gay people to be beaten or harmed economically or have their kids taken away from them, but we can't support homosexuality in the same way they do, so we're going to support carefully crafted legal protections that clearly distinguish between marriage and civil unions, between right and wrong, but that respect the basic rights of all persons" nearly every gay person in the country would have bowed down and kissed your feet.

What we saw, however, was that every time legal protections were proposed for gay people at even the most basic level - say, protections designed to keep gay kids from committing suicide or being beaten in school, protections that simply stated that gay parents weren't unfit simply because they were gay and shouldn't be afraid their children would be taken from them, the basic right to make decisions for your partner in a hospital, or inherit from them after death - they were opposed by the Christian right. As far as I saw, there was no distinction made between the legal protection of gay *people* and the social status of gays - none. And while I accept that one can believe that gay people should not be able to marry and not be a bigot, I don't think that it is possible to say that you believe kids should lose their mothers because those mothers are gay, or that we shouldn't enact protections for the physical safety of gay people are not bigots.

For 20 years, I have watched the right oppose civil protections at every stage. Now we come to the point where one way or another, gay marriage probably will be the law of the land, and I can understand why religious opponents who genuinely have no hostility to gay people are offended by being called bigots. But to my eyes, the right made its own bed - where were the conservative Christians calling for civil protections, for the culture of life to reduce the obscene rate of teenaged gay suicides, for example, or for making sure that gay people could get health insurance from their partners? I guess I never saw them. I think the habit of rightist bigotry against gay people makes it very hard for the right as a collective, rather than individuals, to claim that really, all along, you just cared about protecting religious values. And I find this lack of taking responsibility frustrating - sure, leftists need to change their language. But where is the contrition of the right for its prior acts of bigotry, and the articulation of a reason why this is fully different?

It is a sincere question.

Sharon

"(meaning that they accept that marriage is a contract between two consenting parties who agree that it means nothing more than that they love each other; it has no essential meaning beyond that)"

Rod, I couldn't let this pass uncommented. This, right here, is what you still seem to really, really not get. You couldn't be more wrong. People of my generation support gay marriage precisely because we imbue marriage with a great DEAL of essential meaning beyond simply a contract. If it was "just a contract" no one would fight for marriage rights when civil unions would do. It's BECAUSE we see marriage as sui generis that we demand it for all.

"Rod, I guess I'm not at all convinced that outside old dudes squicked by male homosexuality, such a thing as a secular-left opposition to gay marriage really exists."

Hello, nice to meet you. I oppose it (now) and you cannot get more leftist than me.

Antonius, I do not think natural rights come from God per se, except to the extent that we are God-created beings, and such rights flow from our nature as sentient, moral beings. I do think that these rights are inherent to being human. I think that they are capable of objective determination.

You ask:

"If these rights are inherent to being human, why has no culture on the planet, in all of human history recognized them as such"

I disagree with the premise that NO culture in all of human history has recognized human right sin general, or the rights of homosexuals in particular, in a limited way appropriate to the political and philosophical sophistication of the time and place, but concede that such recognition has been more local and temporal than universal. That said, I think that the answer to your question is that our understanding of individual rights and justice and the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state has evolved over time and is still evolving. Humankind's history is replete with barbarity, with tribalism, with war, with desperate traditions of disregard for the other, with the philosophy that might makes right in relationships from the interaction of nations to the dynamics of a family. Religions have evolved from worship of the all-powerful and unexplainable forces outside of human understandng and control to develop personal moral codes, and those codes have also evolved over time within the religions that have adopted them.

It is my belief that gay equality, while an inherent human right, was not ripe for recognition by a just and mature polity until

1, The concept of individual rights/natural rights/human rights was philosophically determiend adn approved (The Enlightenment);

2. the concept of human rights was adopted by a government with the integrity and national civic will to enforce them (The American Constitution);

3. most other more obvious disparities in human rights have been resolved (American civil war, universal suffrage, civil rights movement); and

4. science and psychology advance common undertanding as to the nature of homosexuality and its lack of objective immorality (occurred 1960-70).

That is why historical precedent is spotty and doesn't fit into modern socio-political contexts. That also is why the time for gay equality has finally come.

I'm not surprised that secularists feel about homosexual marriage the same way the more pious amongst us do. The logic is exactly the same. They view homosexuals as different from heterosexuals.

Homosexuals are different from heterosexuals of course. The same way blondes are different from redheads, southpaws are different from the right handed, etc and so on.

The thing that bothers the general population more than anything else about homosexuals is male homosexual promiscuity. That's easily explained by obverving a heterosexual situation.

I'm talking about the heterosexual promiscuity that we see around miltary bases and college towns. We can look at this and see the heterosexual version of the part of homosexuality that makes most of us uncomfortable.

There is a reason for their similarity. It's what's missing. Marriage.

Imagine that? We remove and or discourage marriage as an option and we get promiscuity. The way society has generally curtailed promiscuity is to provide an avenue for marriage.

As for Rod's moaning about the youth of today abandoning marriage as a sacred entity. It isn't the youth of today that abandoned the concept of marriage. Their great-grandparents, grandparents, and their parents abandoned marriage as a sacred event long before them. All the kids today have done is abandon the mouthing of the bs their immediate ancestors said and didn't believe.

It's easy to understand the average American's discomfort with homosexuality. That's human nature alive and well stumbling along. We always assume the worst about those different from ourselves.

So we assume that homosexuality is all about sex. Even though in our own relationships we believe sex is not the most important thing. We're with our partner because they make us a we. They have what we're missing and together we make a whole, a we, so much bigger and better than a me. They're our friend most of the time before and after they're our lover. Sex is there, but it's not the most important thing. Unless of course if it's missing. What's missing is always the most important thing it seems in relationships.

Why can't homosexuals feel the same way? Why is it so hard for us to accept that maybe the reason they're together is just exactly like what makes our own relationship so special?

What if the reason the gay man wants to be seen as a couple with an attractive man is exactly like our own wishes to be seen as a couple with a member of the opposite sex that's attractive? No difference.

Open your eyes, invariably your heart will follow, it's the way we're made.

I love a gay man. He's our son.

The most terrible thing that I can imagine would be for a grandchild or great-grandchild be homosexual and have to fight the fight we've watched our son fight, just to be.

""As I asked you yesterday (you did not deign to answer) would you be willing to give up your marriage benefits in favour of doing this instead? I know I sure as hell wouldn't."

Since my wife and I are of different faiths, and our marriage is not a sacramental one, yes, I would. I will not lay out the whole episode, but let's just say that my wife and I had to use the legal documents route to insure access to one another during the first years of our relationship. Enough about me personally."

And yet you think that others should have to go through the same trouble? Why is that? I imagine not having to deal with the legal documents anymore is a relief. What about social security benefits and other federal benefits you enjoy as a married couple? Why should you have those, and gay couples not, even though they pay for them?

Fundamentally, I disagree with you on the idea of "origin of rights" (additionally, I think you're getting a few posters confused - I was not the only one discussing that point with you). IMO, rights come from an assessment of a situation, recognition of an inequality, and extension of rights to correct that inequality. They come from our ability to analyse our society and recognize that there are unequal harms and benefits. I don't think they are endowed by a creator, though it is certainly true that a major part of religion is the framing and formalizing of rights.

I think a major source of our talking past one another are these sorts of fundamental disagreements. Yesterday, you had some point about how rights had to "benefit society as a whole". Why? Why is it not enough to benefit a portion of society while not overly harming the other portion? I disagree that rights to some must benefit all. Look at women's rights. It's certainly the case that men did experience some harm from the extension of rights to women - a loss of power and privilege. But I think that smaller cost was worth the overall larger gain to women. Additionally, there is the fact that what was "lost" was an unfair advantage to begin with.

In same-sex marriage rights, I don't see the cost to straights. I've never seen a convincing cost put forth. Some people claim "harm to children". There is no research in support of this supposed harm. Some claim "harm to religious freedom" - well, churches will not be forced to perform or recognize gay marriage, not to mention that the current ban is a harm to the religious freedoms of some belief systems.

Basically, I approach my thinking about the rights of other not with "how does this benefit me and society generally" but with "how does this benefit them (usually in a manner I already enjoy) with no or relatively less cost to others". It seems that you and others think about this in a different way and have different criteria for accepting rights expansions.

Your Name
November 5, 2009 9:22 AM
Well at least we have the agnostic Stoic on record as believing might makes right.

No, I believe that might secures rights.

For example, did the US slaves have a right to freedom before the armies of the North secured those rights?

Gays and Lesbians will have the right to marry when they also generate that social change.

Hello Rod,

I have said privately to Maggie that I think the pro-marriage forces are going to lose in the long run, because younger Americans have internalized the emotivist logic of our culture, regarding the meaning of marriage (meaning that they accept that marriage is a contract between two consenting parties who agree that it means nothing more than that they love each other; it has no essential meaning beyond that).

Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree, and I reached that conclusion some time ago.

Yes, the same-sex marriage failed again a the ballot box, but only by 5%, or not much more than California's did. 10, 20 years ago, it would have been by an overwhelming margin in both places. And it is clear that while pro traditional marriage referendums keep winning, they are doing so by steadily smaller margins. And it is apparent that the shift is most pronounced among younger voters.

What's most frustrating about this whole debate - and let us be frank, what has happened with other marriage debates, like no-fault divorce (far more damaging to the institution than anything else) - is what is almost never mentioned: children. Marriage, to my mind, exists because of children. If children came about and were reared through some other means, marriage as we have known it would simply not exist. But the reality is that the debate is mostly about what the adults want or need. The children are afterthoughts if they are thought of at all.

Just one more brick in the wall of modern American narcissim.

Alanmt
November 5, 2009 9:46 AM
Antonius, I do not think natural rights come from God per se, except to the extent that we are God-created beings...
-----------------------------------------------------------
God created Man originally.

Then, Man created himself in his own image. That's why we must be born again.

Re creation in God's Image occurs when we are born again.

So, in which sense you say that we are "God-created beings"?

Alanmt
November 5, 2009 9:46 AM
I do think that these rights are inherent to being human.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, you disagree with Jefferson, then.

I think that they are capable of objective determination.

Alanmt
November 5, 2009 9:46 AM
It is my belief that gay equality, while an inherent human right...
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is not. Rights are bestowed on persons, not types of what persons choose to "be."

Alanmt
November 5, 2009 9:46 AM
4. science and psychology advance common undertanding as to the nature of homosexuality and its lack of objective immorality (occurred 1960-70).
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is no objective, unbiased, uncorrupted, scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is natural and innate.

Alanmt
November 5, 2009 9:46 AM
... the time for gay equality has finally come.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A man who claims to be homosexual already may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.

A woman who claims to be homosexual already may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.

No one may same-sex marry.

The law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, doesn't discriminate against anybody cuz everybody is either male, or female. All males are treated the same, and all females are treated the same. That equal protection and application of the law.

hlvanburen
November 5, 2009 9:48 AM
Were committed same-sex relationships always condemned by the Church? Research seems to be saying no, they were not.
-----------------------------------------------------------
We care ONLY what the Word of God says. If the Church conflicts with Him, the Church is wrong.

I agree with others here, that the accusations of bigotry come in when we see people with anti-gay attitudes (religiously-based or otherwise) opposing not just marriage, but any and all forms of legal protections.

Just as the Catholic church was telling Mainers that they were OK with giving gays domestic partnerships, they were funding the effort in Washington State to repeal domestic partnerships (and not to mention, they opposed a previous effort in Maine to expand the state's domestic partnership program). And now, just days after marriage equality was repealed, the same people are trying to put up another referendum that would roll back the state's anti-discrimination laws and ban civil unions.

At the same time, while "supporters of traditional marriage" are attacking gay marriages, they do nothing about the countless more straight marriages that do not live up to their religious ideal (contraception use, divorce, adultery, abuse). There is plenty of evidence here then that "supporters of traditional marriage"'s main concern is not promoting good and stable marriages between men and women, but instead condemning homosexuality. Am I wrong?

One other point of Rod's I'd like to address. He says he has a problem with the idea that straight couples and gay couples being seen as identical. I'm not sure I would go that far either, I know very well that there are clear differences. But certainly just because any straight couple can marry does not mean that all straight marriages are identical (I'm looking at Vegas marriages, abusive marriages, elder marriage, to name a few that I don't think anyone would consider "identical" to the model white picket fence with 2.5 kids marriage).

My point is that gay couples and straight couples are similar enough that they should be granted an equal status by the state. Case in point, the US Census' American Community survey just found that gay and straight couples are indeed pretty similar. Key quotation, "The [gay] couples had an average age of 52 and household incomes of $91,558, while 31 percent were raising children. That compares with an average age of 50, household income of $95,075 and 43 percent raising children for married heterosexual couples." Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCdZqWgPVPTXeB1bQGw_j7YOIvHAD9BNP59G0

I understand that there are many many people out there that will never ever accept homosexuality, and that is fine, I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to recognize that some people are gay and they always will be, regardless of the legal/social dissaproval thrown at them. And even though you may not like what they do in bed, the families they create contribute to their communities and society in positives ways, just as straight families do. This should be encouraged, not scorned.

I've been reading the on-line comments in a Maine paper about their referendum, and am struck by how much the two sides flat out loathe one another. Probably had the vote gone the other way, there'd be an equal volume of ill-will exchanged. On this as on so many other contentions, it does seem to boil down to "this country ain't big enough for the two of us."

Maybe there will be a gradual process of population exchange, as people pick up and move to states more congenial to their views. Washed up s**holes like the rust belt states might acquire an entire technocracy overnight by legalizing same-sex marriage. Other states would turn somewhat dour and kill-joy, but maybe you need a strain of that to keep old Adam in line. Such would be the rancor and suspicion between the opposing states that the activities of the Government would be reduced to those essential functions that everybody could agree on, which would take us back to our Old Republic.

Wow! I've cheered myself up!

Imagine, a civil thread on same-sex unions!

Rod, I want to encourage your growing skepticism about the inevitability of same-sex "marriage." My take on Maine is re-drawing a moderate line in the cultural sand: legal rights and basic civility, fine; the approval carried (however damaged by poor use and treatment) by the title "marriage," no.

Moreover, Sullivan's confidence and your pessimism about the inevitability of SSM assume a liner movement to history that seldom appears. Cultural fashions, the category to which this issue sadly belongs (Frank Rich remains a "drama" critic), change like hem lines. As for the next generation and their opinions: one of the more enduring qualities of young people is that they GROW UP (unless cradled in the permanent infantilization of popular culture) and, in that process, CHANGE THEIR MINDS. It's happened to many. Ideas we once thought archaic and stupid (like Mark Twain's father), are discovered to have more wisdom and worth as we age. Sustainability. Limits. These good CC themes would counsel deep skepticism about the future of same-sex "marriage" in spite of conventional wisdom and the best efforts of media and political establishments.

No, actually, the chance for people to object to the marriage no longer exists in most ceremonies. And it originally was inserted because of the lack of record keeping. Look at the way it's worded: "If anyone here knows of any reason why these two should not be lawfull joined..."

It's not a chance for dramatic hijinks. It's a chance for someone to stand up and say, "Yes, actually, these two may not be lawfully joined because his crazy wife is up in the attic!"

"Just so long as those legal protections do not extend to adoption, which I believe should remain the sole province of (traditionally) married couples. "

Over the wishes of many of the birth mothers?

And since many gay couples adopt "unwanted, troubled" children, do you think it's better for these kids to be shuffled around with not permanent home?

Hello hlvanburen ,

This notion that the ancient or medieval (Greek) Church instituted same sex union ceremonies - at least of the kind Boswell means - was not any more convincing or empirically sound when John Boswell was peddling it.

More here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history-50

"IMO, rights come from an assessment of a situation, recognition of an inequality, and extension of rights to correct that inequality. They come from our ability to analyse our society and recognize that there are unequal harms and benefits. I don't think they are endowed by a creator, though it is certainly true that a major part of religion is the framing and formalizing of rights."

If rights are not endowed by divine power, they are granted by the society--which you seem to presuppose if I read your last post correctly. The fact remains, you have to convince at least fifty-one percent of the people in that society to vote to change or create rights--society can give them, and society can revoke them as well. I can say, we are not convinced.

MOST people do not want gay marriage and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. The gay activists are crazy, and you're right, they have no idea how crazy they appear to be to normal people. I'm sick of their demands and I wish that they would shutup. We have so many problems in this country, and males who want to have sex with other males are not high on my list of concerns. Give it a rest.

Antonius Magnus:
Hello, nice to meet you. I oppose [gay marriage] (now) and you cannot get more leftist than me.

But are you also secular, which was the original premise? Haven't you been repeatedly asking people where they think rights come from if not from God?

The Torah opposes homosexuality

The Torah is full of a lot of things that even the Orthodox don't take seriously anymore. When Christians are asked "you say X about gays, so why don't you also kill people who mix types of cloth or work on the Sabbath, etc.?", their invariable response is "that was Old Testament, Jesus made it go away."

Well, Jews don't believe in the NT or worship Jesus--all the old death laws are still very much legally in effect. Literally thousands of years ago, rabbis much more conservative than nearly any alive today simply chose to ignore those statutes, or creatively re-interpreted them in such ways as to make them unenforceable. "You say your son disrespected you and he should now be put to death? You must now provide X number of witnesses, and also prove that he wasn't insane or possessed by a demon at the time." If the first didn't put the kibosh on following Torah, the second would.

Things change. You might say it's traditional for things to change.

"Mr. Incredble: you know how obnoxious your posts are? I'm not even talking about the content, because I can't even stand to read your endless strings of quotations and one liners. Your really trashing up the comment page. Perhaps consider just getting a few coherant thoughts in readable format? Thanks. "

Even not quoting the time for every single quote (we get it, all from the same message) would be an improvement. Right now, they're all pretty much tl;dr.

I'm still saying gay people are presenting the argument the wrong way. It's nothing to do with 'gay marriage'. Yes, yes, it really is discrimination aimed at them, but bear with me.

But don't assert it's discrimination against homosexuals. In theory, straight women and gay women can both do exactly the same thing: marry the man of their choice. (Mr. Incredible has already used this argument.)

So instead of that approach, just call it what it is: Sexism.

Men (Straight or gay) are allowed to marry women, women (Straight or gay) are not. This clearly discriminates against women, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Likewise, men are barred from doing something women can do, marry a man.

The fact that the structure of the law requires each gender to be paired with the opposite somewhat hides this discrimination.

But that's sorta like putting a form that says 'Name of male application' on a job application...that, um, isn't some sort of magical protection against it being sexist. 'Look, women don't qualify for this job, it requires a male applicant, right there on the form! That's not sexist!' Uh...no. (That would be an almost surreal argument to make in court.)

Having to put one male and one female, one male applicant and one female applicant, down is novel, but 'hiring two people at once to work as a pair where one has to be male and the other female' is just as sexist, and, more importantly, just as illegal.

Please note I'm not attempting to say that it is illegal to not have SSM. I'm saying that in the private sector, if you tried to do exactly what marriage law currently does, hiring people to be in opposite gender pairs, you would rightly be sued for sexual discrimination and lose.

This viewpoint gets rid of all the nonsense 'slippery slope' crap too. No one can marry multiple partners, or a relative, or a child, or an animal, those rules have nothing to do with gender at all, or anything else we refuse don't discriminate against. (It does, however, include interracial marriage in the 'same slope', which can't help but look good.)

And, speaking of that, it's very strange that gay people have looked at the obvious parallels to the miscegenation laws, but failed to notice those people were not claiming some right to 'interracial marriage'. They were not claiming that 'people sexually attracted to other races' (hetroracesexuals?) have the right to marry. That is not how the argument was framed. They were instead asserting the ability to marry a specific other person which they would be able to marry if they were a different race.

You guys need to assert you have the ability to marry someone you'd have the ability to marry if you were a different gender, instead of asserting that there is something called 'gay couples' that want to get married. That has absolutely no basis in any sort of precedent in this country, whereas 'People should not be barred from something solely based on their gender' is pretty well established.

Show up in court, say 'If I was a woman, I'd be able to marry this person. That is ipso facto discrimination. I have been discriminated against on the basis of my gender.'

I've read the "gay marriage is inevitable because young people support it" argument in quite a few places now, and just wanted to raise this point: all young people don't remain liberal their whole lives—many people move rightward after they leave the college cocoon, learn sobering life lessons, and start families of their own—indeed, I think becoming a parent can be a transformative experience that makes people more conservative than they once were.

I'm 25, and not too long ago accepted the consensus of my peers that not allowing gays to marry was a grave injustice. Finally, a few years ago, I read the arguments of the other side—Blankenhorn, Gallagher, and others—and found them persuasive and indeed so logical that I was amazed I had never been exposed to them before.

Finally, many people in their twenties have grown up seeing the destructive effects of the sexual revolution first hand, and while it makes plenty of people cynical, it makes others (like me) better appreciate the social good of traditional marriage, and not want to see it erode any further.

"Sometimes it is the role of elected leaders or judges to make the choices people aren't ready to make for themselves"

Obviously you're not an American. Here in the US the power to rule comes from the consent of the governed, not from career politicians who may or may not have the best interests of the greater society as a whole in mind; we are not currently respecting that axiom, since we elect only the most contemptible and scurrilous criminals to hold office, but the idea is germane to our nation. While I really like and appreciate the social stance of many European countries with regards to paid vacations, governmental-insured health care, emphasis on non-military endeavors rather than military ones,I do not like the Foucault/Derrida reverence in social structure--and this may have led to the adoption so freely of gay marriage--if you think that the difference between men and women is mere plumbing, then it is easy to say that their roles are interchangeable.

As to the civil rights movement, many leaders of that very same movement have condemned gay activist's attempted co-opting of their struggle loudly; it is not the same thing at all.

"Here in the US the power to rule comes from the consent of the governed, not from career politicians who may or may not have the best interests of the greater society as a whole in mind; we are not currently respecting that axiom, since we elect only the most contemptible and scurrilous criminals to hold office, but the idea is germane to our nation."

So how often have rights been granted through popular vote, rather than through the legislative or judicial branches? I'm honestly asking you. If it's not common, why is it being demanded on this particular fight?

Or was your last sentence meaning to head off the question - sort of a "well, not in the past but we could trust them then, see?". I suspect your view of past politicians as being who wholesome is an idealistic one.

"Even Americans in liberal states do not believe that two guys pledged to a gay union are a marriage."

Mrs. Gallagher is being only 53% "truthful". Talk about being selective with the "truth". What an ugly campaign.

"Americans have a great deal of goodwill toward gay people as friends, neighbors and fellow citizens."

I call major B.S. The lies in those ads showed utter contempt for our very humanity. "goodwill"??? Bearing false witness is a far worse sin than loving someone.

Yes. About thinking and assessing. What do you like to do, react purely on emotion? Wait for a sign from on high?

"But are you also secular, which was the original premise? Haven't you been repeatedly asking people where they think rights come from if not from God?"

You are mixing two arguments; I was asking Yourname where rights originate, and she/he said that they do not come from a creator. I wasn't citing my own belief; and my opposition to same-sex marriage isn't religious. You cannot, however say that there are rights endowed by some religious/divine power and then say that religion does not play a role in the society--I oppose same-sex marriage on the ground that it is unnecessary, profoundly indulgent of less than two percent of the population while giving absolutely no benefit to the greater society, and while I am still open to being convinced the other way, I've not heard any credible arguments for it. I also hate bullies with a white-hot passion, and i get that vibe from a lot of gay activists--"We'll call you a bigot if you don't support us" is the mantra, and since that is one of the worst things you can be judged to be in our society, no one wants that. Same reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV; not one study corroborated the assumptions of the panel, they just did it from political pressure.

As for your uninformed arguments about Judaism, Jews are called to follow the Torah--the Law, and the 613 Mitzvot--if some Conservatives and Reform Jews choose to ignore that, it's not on me, but them. I challenge you to find more than a couple of Orthodox who would agree with what you say; and just because there have been lax Jews who ignore parts of Halakah doesn't make it acceptable--there also was Hezekiah and Josiah as well.

Rod,

Young people can change as they grow up. I think you are being too pessimistic.

"younger Americans have internalized the emotivist logic of our culture, regarding the meaning of marriage (meaning that they accept that marriage is a contract between two consenting parties who agree that it means nothing more than that they love each other; it has no essential meaning beyond that)."

This describes me to a tee a decade ago. Even after converting to Orthodox Christianity, I held that "marriage" as recognized by the State and "marriage" as recognized by one's faith could be kept separate. It was not until being spurred to dig more into the issue (by a gay pro-ssm friend, ironically) that I read some of the very convincing religious and non-religious arguments from various corners and was persuaded by the unworkability of it all.

This is possibly the long defeat, but hope is not necessarily lost. Granted, as a Christian, you cannot believe that hope is lost even if SSM becomes the law of the land and even if those who are opposed lose their liberties. Our true freedom lies elsewhere.

"March 8, 2004 If the New York Times is any measure of things, the national superego is in a state of terrific confusion about sex.

Exhibit one: we get Jonathan Rauch's lead-off article in the Sunday Magazine promoting gay marriage. Rauch, of the Brookings Institution, is the author of a forthcoming book on the subject by (who else) Times Books. Rauch's idea is that President Bush's stance on social value of marriage is unwittingly an argument favoring gay marriage. Essentially, Rauch says, any marriage ought to be construed as a benefit to society.

Exhibit two: the lead article on page one of the Sunday Styles section about "transgender" students at elite colleges. Here's the lead:

Arriving in Providence last fall to begin his senior year at Brown University, Luke Woodward didn't have to tell friends what he had done on his summer vacation. They could tell with one glance. Before the summer, Luke had the body of a woman. Now Luke's breasts were gone, leaving a chest more compatible with Luke's close-cropped hair, baggy jeans and hooded sweatshirt. Some classmates had chipped in to pay for the surgery; to cover the rest, Luke took out loans.

Note that this story ran in what is essentially the fashion section of the Sunday paper, and note also the emphasis the reporter puts on sex change surgery as a fashion statement. The surgery goes with the outfit.

Exhibit three: the "Lives" endpaper of the Sunday Magazine, an article by a woman whose life was devastated because a 21-year-old male babysitter had given her 9-year-old daughter kissing lessons."

Seriously, what is he intending with this third example? Rod, you posted it - please clarify.

As for your uninformed arguments about Judaism, Jews are called to follow the Torah--the Law, and the 613 Mitzvot--if some Conservatives and Reform Jews choose to ignore that, it's not on me, but them. I challenge you to find more than a couple of Orthodox who would agree with what you say; and just because there have been lax Jews who ignore parts of Halakah doesn't make it acceptable--there also was Hezekiah and Josiah as well.

I specified that I was talking about the Orthodox too, for a reason: because I was talking about the Orthodox too. In Judaism AS A WHOLE, the death laws have been ignored en masse. Don't think you can bluff your way past me by claiming I'm "uninformed." I challenge you to find TWO Orthodox Jews, anywhere, who still follow the death laws pertaining to garments and filial disrespect. Name them, and name the people they killed, under which statute. Or admit that the entire religion has simply moved on--which undermines your assertion that Judaism must be anti-gay just because the Torah is. The Jewish community is actually the second-highest reservoir of support for gay marriage, surpassed only by gays themselves. Again, things change.

TTT

I don't care about the death laws, we are talking about same-sex marriage--and right back atcha: find me two Orthodox rabbis who endorse gay marriage. And, in addition, if an Orthodox rabbi says you don't have to follow all the mitzvot, he isn't an Orthodox rabbi. The Torah does not change, it is eternal and for all time--what changes is the society Jewish people find themselves in, and how that affects the community, but this one doesn't change: "Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22) (CCN116)".
Just because some of the Jewish community endorses doesn't mean we all do.

Sorry, Antonius, but only Christians can squirm out of the "Death to gays is right next to death to cloth-mixers" argument, and from your use of that "we," I suspect you are not a Christian.

Torah forbids them both equally. Torah mandates both be punished by death. Torah doesn't change, you're right--they're both still there. But if one forbidden thing has been completely ignored and unpunished by everybody for thousands of years, the fact that "Torah doesn't change" doesn't matter. Either all of Judaism as practiced by every Jew changed, or there are tens of thousands of halachic ritual revenge killings going on every year.

"Even Americans in liberal states do not believe that two guys pledged to a gay union are a marriage."

Where do you get your information? You simply spout the moronic BS that's in your brain? The state of Washington refutes your position. The people of Maine were lied to by a hateful group that had everyone convinced Gay marriage was about to be taught in schools.

You have a problem if you're truly a non-believer and against gay-marriage. You have a deep seated hatred, indeed a bigotry against your fellow man. You're willing to accept their tax dollars to support tax brakes and rights directed at heterosexual married couples all the while denying the 14th amendment of the constitution. I suspect our forefathers would think you're stupid.

The physicist Max Planck had the final argument on this.

"Ideas do not become accepted because the opponents suddenly see the light. They become accepted because the opponents ultimately die."

There will be gay marriages performed on Maggie Gallagher's grave.

Regarding non-religious opposition to same sex marriage, I think there are four major reasons(that can and do overlap):

1) Homosexual acts are disgusting and/or "useless",
2) Anxieties over masculinity and the proper roles for males and females,
3) Gay couples cannot produce biological children together, and
4) Simple prejudice against gays (this might not be pure hatred, it could just be the opinion that gays are inferior human beings in general (or pedophiles, or moral degenerates, whatever), not just their sex practices).

Please jump in if you have any more non-religious reason.

I don't think any of these reasons are good enough to justify discrimination against gay couples. Some are invalid, when it comes to marriage.

For example, point #1: many, if not most heterosexual couples engage in sodomy for I would bet the majority of their marriage (I'm thinking birth control, as well as anal and oral sex). Regarding point #3, I also don't think that's acceptable, since many straight couples also cannot or refuse to produce biological children, but can still be legally married. Further, there are plenty of gay couples that are raising children (as noted in my earlier post, the percentages are pretty close to straight couples); I don't think their families should be penalized just because the children are not biologically of both parents.

Upon further reflection (there's not much else to do when feeding a newborn other than stare in awe at the beauty and miracle that she is) I winder if teh story of these votes might really be very simple after all, from a human perspective.

People either think homosexuality is wrong or it isn't. Those who do not think homosexuality is wrong generally support both liberty and equality for gay people. Those who think homosexuality is wrong fall into two camps:

1. those who would deny homosexuals equality and liberty (These people, a shrinking minority, but still sizable) support the imposition of criminal penalties against gays and include the even smaller minority that still think it is okay to physically harm gay people; and

2. those who would deny gay people equality, but are willing to grant them liberty. These people oppose marriage, civil unions, employment protections, open military service and sometimes even things like health insurance benefits, but they generally believe that gay people ought to be free to live their lives, partner up and otherwise enjoy the fruits of civil society.

There are a few exceptions, of course, but I submit that this model is largely representative of the American polity at the current time. Which means, of course, that debate, while helpful in the general sense of identifying issues and perspectives, will never be persuasive to those engaged in it, since debate almost invariably results in entrenchment and since core issues of self-esteem are involved for both sides. It also means, as most understand, that while some reasonable people will come to release the error of their beliefs as to homosexuality, the demographic change will occur gradually over time as young people unburdened with the pre-existing prejudices of earlier generations, reach the better understanding of the objective moral neutrality of homosexuality and thus findit easy to apply the fundamental American principles of both equality and liberty to gay people.

Hlvanburen:
This is supposed to be a thread about non-religious opposition to marriage, but for the sake of historical accuracy, I think I need to address one of your early remarks. If you think the liturgies you mentioned were church blessings for two people of the same sex to go have genital relations with one another, you are mistaken. I am an Orthodox Christian with a degree in theology, and I am currently teaching a course on Christianity's attitudes toward sex. I can assure you, that with the exception of a few heretical groups, the Church has said sex is only holy between one man and one woman in the union of marriage. If someone could find evidence of a gay marriage as we understand it (and these are not), what could we make of it? One analogy would be what is going to happen when historians in the future notice that some women in the 20th c. were ordained as Roman Catholic priests. Does that mean the RC church ordained women, and it was part of the institution's life? No, what it means is that in the 20th century some rebellious women were ordained by some other rebellious people, and they insisted on continuing to call themselves Catholic even when they are not. The Orthodox position on "gay marriage" is more like what happened a few years ago in Russia. I was told a priest there did attempt to marry two men to each other. He was defrocked, the church was bulldozed and the ground was salted. It is also important to note that we have to find out what people thought they were doing when they participated in these liturgies-I think we have little or no evidence that they thought they were entering what we would recognize as a "gay marriage." The preaching against homosexual activity was way too strong for that. Boswell's scholarship has been pretty much debunked by respectable academics.

Geoff, I post here because the commentary is often thoughtful and interesting, and you are by far my favorite commenter to read for just the reasons you show here.

Sharon

I think Alanmt is right, but I have a question: why is it so hard for people who find homosexuality morally objectionable to grant both liberty and equality? After all, I can name a thousand other things that they would find morally objectionable that they still tolerate: Buddhism, Islam, divorce, corporate greed, hate groups, violent subcultures, and the like. I am a committed Christian who is mindful both of my Bible's opposition to homosexual behavior and my constitution's mandate to promote equal protection under law (and note no exception exists in the constitution for either gays or marriage), and don't see the contradiction between the two, as I would much rather convince gay people to become Christians and go from there. I wonder why this simple view leaves me feeling so alone sometimes.

MichaelS
November 5, 2009 1:11 PM
... why is it so hard for people who find homosexuality morally objectionable to grant both liberty and equality?
-----------------------------------------------------------
We already have.

MichaelS
November 5, 2009 1:11 PM
After all, I can name a thousand other things that they would find morally objectionable that they still tolerate: Buddhism, Islam, divorce, corporate greed, hate groups, violent subcultures, and the like.
-----------------------------------------------------------
However, something as filthy and repulsive and ungodly as homosexuality is particularly repellent.

MichaelS
November 5, 2009 1:11 PM
I am a committed Christian who is mindful both of my Bible's opposition to homosexual behavior and my constitution's mandate to promote equal protection under law...
-----------------------------------------------------------
They already DO have equal protection.

MichaelS
November 5, 2009 1:11 PM
(and note no exception exists in the constitution for either gays or marriage)...
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution doesn't protect types of persons, rather persons. They are already protected. As persons claiming to be homosexual, they get no extra protection just cuz they claim they are homosexual.

MichaelS
November 5, 2009 1:11 PM
...I would much rather convince gay people to become Christians and go from there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
They want not to go there. They SAY they are Christian, but they are what the Word of God calls a "stumblingblock" -- that is, by engaging in homosexuality, something God detests, they give the impression that, if you sign up for Christianity, you don't have to give up worldly, pleasurable inequity, that you can sin and still walk with God and Christ.

MichaelS
November 5, 2009 1:11 PM
I wonder why this simple view leaves me feeling so alone sometimes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cuz, for some reason, you perceive that we are not giving the Word of God to those who claim to be homosexual. But we are, and they reject Him. Yes, they honor Him with their lips, but not with their hearts. I call them "kristians." Like phony crab is "krab."

Now, they claim that we are not merciful toward them.

Jesus' kind of mercy/compassion was for those who would die without Him [Matthew 9:36]. Those who claim to be homosexual say that they will not die without Jesus. So, why do they need mercy and compassion?

In fact, if, by "Mercy," they mean, "forgiveness," then they err cuz, when I forgive, it is for my benefit, to erase the resentment that stands between me and God and hinders me. They, on the other hand, indicate that I should wanna let them be, which, of course, would enable them and, thereby, cause me to be guilty, too.

So, by "mercy" and "forgiveness," they mean the worldly "mercy" and "forgiveness." They need enablement. I'm not gonna give it to them.

Geoff G.
November 5, 2009 1:13 PM
Mr. Incredible
So, in YOUR world, "bigots" are those who resist allowing even the eensiest, teensiest enablement of those who claim they are homosexual, is that it?
So, I gotta choice whether to be called names by you people, or separate myself from God Who detests homosexuality.
Y'know, I'm gonna stick with God. I don't care what the world thinks. Thanks anyway.

Yup, you summed up the argument pretty well.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, then, that's tough.

Geoff G.
November 5, 2009 1:13 PM
And yes, if your religion...
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't have a religion. I have a relationship with God through Christ. Muslims have a religion. Atheists have a religion.

Geoff G.
November 5, 2009 1:13 PM
... tells you that you have the obligation to be a bigot, then my suggestion is that you wear the label proudly.
-----------------------------------------------------------
YOUR suggestion??? Who are YOU?

Well, anyways...

The insult, "bigot," is so overused that it doesn't mean anything anymore. It doesn't land.

Geoff G.
November 5, 2009 1:13 PM
In a similar way, if you want to call me a sodomite, faggot, whatever, my response will be, why yes, that is indeed true.
-----------------------------------------------------------
YOU said it.

harvey lacey wrote:

Imagine that? We remove and or discourage marriage as an option and we get promiscuity. The way society has generally curtailed promiscuity is to provide an avenue for marriage.

This can be tested. Homosexual marriage is legal in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in Massachusetts and other places. Are the gay bars of Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Boston etc. all either out of business due to a huge decline in cruising traffic, or supported by monogamous gay couples? What percentage of homosexuals in those places have chosen to marry? Is there any notable decline in certain STD's, indicative of a reduction in promiscuity?

Answer these questions, and the hypothesis can be found to be true or false.

Apologies for multiple postings, and please someone remove the redundant ones. I'm on a flakey link. I do not wish to be repetitious or abusive of the site.

Mr Incredible

I don't have a religion. I have a relationship with God through Christ. Muslims have a religion. Atheists have a religion.

Fine, substitute the word of your choice. Faith, very special friend, voices in your head, whatever. Not my business. The point still stands.

YOUR suggestion??? Who are YOU?

Just some guy on the Internet. Who are you? I explained my reasoning and definition of bigotry. You appeared to agree, not that it really matters. If you fit the definition of a bigot, regardless of the motivation, then you're a bigot. No need to get upset at me about it.

As for it being a suggestion, that's exactly what it was. Take it or leave it. If you get upset that someone's accurately describing your ideas and actions, that's hardly anyone's problem but yours. Either amend the ideas and actions or reject the definition. There are plenty of online dictionaries out there. Find a definition you like and show how you don't meet it.

That's assuming that you care what others think of you. I gather that you don't particularly care about my opinion at all, one or or the other, in which case, why are we having this conversation?

YOU said it.

Yup, because it's true. Certainly, those words are meant to be insulting and to cause emotional pain (which says more about the people who use them routinely, IMO), but when we get down to brass tacks, they are an accurate description of one of the things I am and do.

And, by the way, God did not make Covenant with the animals.

He very plainly and explicitly did. Gen.9:10.

I have yet to see a single proof that homosexual marriage will endanger or undermine heterosexual marriage. Nor will the acceptance of homosexuality endanger or undermine anyone's gender identification (that is not already endangered or undermined). The stereotypes of homosexuals as an equivalent to being abusers is simply baseless - there are far more heterosexual abusers of children and adults. Once more, if the sexual references were removed and racial references replaced, there would be far less questions - though there are still a whole lots of people who feel interracial marriages are a mistake, too.

The whole self-orientation on both sides is a problem. This fascination with other people's sexuality is becoming the cholesterol that is clogging our political system. We need to allow and accept that responsible people make responsible decisions. If they are responsible in every other aspect of their lives - they pay their bills, care for their children and parents, keep a tidy home, and are not obnoxious in social settings - then we should expect that their personal, intimate relationships will be as responsibly. Denying them this right while honoring all of the others seems not simply inconsistent (the hob goblin of little minds), it seems foolish.

Sharon Astyk,

"For 20 years, I have watched the right oppose civil protections at every stage. Now we come to the point where one way or another, gay marriage probably will be the law of the land, and I can understand why religious opponents who genuinely have no hostility to gay people are offended by being called bigots. But to my eyes, the right made its own bed - where were the conservative Christians calling for civil protections, for the culture of life to reduce the obscene rate of teenaged gay suicides, for example, or for making sure that gay people could get health insurance from their partners? I guess I never saw them. I think the habit of rightist bigotry against gay people makes it very hard for the right as a collective, rather than individuals, to claim that really, all along, you just cared about protecting religious values. And I find this lack of taking responsibility frustrating - sure, leftists need to change their language. But where is the contrition of the right for its prior acts of bigotry, and the articulation of a reason why this is fully different?

It is a sincere question."

And it is a good question Sharon. I see two issues from that post that need to be separated.

First, you are absolutely correct that many Christians opposed the most basic standards of decency for gays when it came to protecting them from being beaten, hospital visits, etc. In treating gays as subhuman, certain 'christians' have given Jesus a bad name. In remaining largely silent about that sort of abuse, many more 'christians' gave their assent.

When it comes to rights that are reserved to married people, then I am of two minds. If heterosexuals wanted to protect marriage, then they should have drawn the line at civil unions, adoption, shared benefits, etc. Marriage is defined in no small measure by its goods. Those goods are the essential components of what makes marriage work, and are goods reserved to people who are willing to make a lifetime commitment to one another.

But the heterosexual community, opposed as it is to gay marriage, were not good stewards of the goods of marriage. A 50% divorce rate tells the story. Two Federal institutions also tell the story. According to the US Census Bureau, 92% of Americans will be married at some point in their lives. According to CDC, 80% of American adults will contract at least one STD as adults. Think about that.

The heterosexual community sat passively by as one after another of the goods of marriage were legislated away to the gay community, giving them marriage in everything but name only. It seems somewhat farcical and hypocritical, arbitrary and even capricious to suddenly get religion.

Yet, this may serve as a wake-up call to the heterosexual community insofar as it now forces us to consider the most existential and metaphysical questions surrounding and permeating marriage as an institution, questions long ignored as far too many fertile marriages have allowed their fields to lay fallow:

What IS marriage?
What is its purpose?
What are its goods?
What are the needs of children?
What is Motherhood? Fatherhood?
Are mothers or fathers REALLY optional in the lives of children?
(Rod's desire for this thread to focus on non-religious opposition notwithstanding) How does marriage amplify, reflect, complete the religious dimension of human existence?

I don't view gays and lesbians as any better or worse than heterosexuals as humans beings go. I think that being products of the same degenerate culture, they will do no better at marriage than the heterosexual community has to date, and are thus, not the answer to heterosexual's problems, or that of the institution of marriage.

The real issue here is that homosexual marriage has become a looking glass into how badly heterosexuals have damaged the institution, how little we have cared about it, in the aggregate. It forces us to define our sins against the institution, especially in permitting its goods to be enjoyed by those, either gay or straight, not wedded. The real work for heterosexuals is to come to an understanding of the goods of marriage, and to then focus on revitalizing our marriages. That's independent of whether gays marry or not.

Rod,

It's all but impossible to treat the subject completely and in a coherent fashion without a mention of God's wise design, and whence those goods originate. But thats as much as I can distill from the purely secular side.

jesterfyl writes:
I have yet to see a single proof that homosexual marriage will endanger or undermine heterosexual marriage.

I recall the exact same argument in the 1970's for unilateral divorce. "How could another couple, ending their loveless marriage, possibly endanger or undermine anyone else's marriage?" The answer, as many now know, is that by making the ending of a marriage a mere matter of hiring an attorney and filing papers we have made all marriage less secure. Every mother who stays home with her children knows, at some level, that her husband could come home on any particular day and announce that he's leaving her for a younger woman with no children, and she cannot prevent this from happening. Every father knows at some level that on any given day his wife can announce that she's leaving and he will have to fight in a court to get to see his children ever again...or have him served with protective orders at his place of work informing him that he won't be going back to his home ever again, indeed must remain 300 feet away from it at all times, and that all his assets are now frozen pending decision of a judge.

This insecurity permeates even the most stable and loving of marriages, because every couple has rough times when each person will find themselves wondering, perhaps in the middle of the night, "Does he/she still love me? Is he/she planning to divorce me?". That is but one example of how unilateral divorce has undermined and affected and damaged all marriages.

If you take as a premise that "one man and one woman" is arbitrary, capricious and bigoted, then there is no logical way to argue that "two and only two" is not likewise. Therefore, to alter marriage in one way is to open the door for further alterations, specifically polygamy/polyandry. It takes very little thinking to realize that gay marriage sets up the legalization of polymarriage.

Legalization of polymarriage further undermines marriage. Look to the Moslem world for the effects of multiple wives, both on family and on society. When a man can announce to his wife "I am marrying a younger woman, you can stay or you can go", that can only further fray the fabric of every marriage.

This is but one example. There are more, I do not have the time now to continue.

I'm barely old enough to remember the early 90s. The pro-choice crowd was dominant & claimed that they had time on their side. We were told that my generation would increasingly support abortion rights. That claim has not been vindicated.

Tough to say why the pro-choice movement peaked. Nor can we rule out a future resurgence of the pro-choicers. More important, there is no evidence of an emerging youth movement against gay marriage. In fact, youth are increasingly secular & tolerant of homosexuals. Some argue that this translates to liberalization of attitudes about marriage. That may be right.

But In the 90's, data told us that youth were increasingly secular & supportive of gender equality. Supposedly, this would lead to support for abortion rights. After all, pro-lifers were misogynists & religious nut-jobs. Right? Those people were old & dying.

The pro-choice movement didn't account for the growing trend of sexual monogamy among youth. This lowered the demand for abortion.

There could be another sleeper trend which will raise the salience of my arguments against gay-marriage. Have no idea what that trend could be, so I agree with Rod's pessimism.

Anti Dhimmi,

How about how legal and accepted divorce has probably saved thousands (or more) women and children from abusive partners? A hundred years ago, a woman had pretty much no societally accepted way of removing herself from an abusive marriage. Now they do. Some marriages should end in divorce. It's not a tragedy when marriages like those end- it was a tragedy when they married in the first places.

Of course there are tons of good marriages, good husbands, good wives, good families. Some of those divorce anyway, and perhaps they shouldn't. But abused women NEEDED society to accept divorce, and it's a good thing society accepts divorce now.

The post at 3:09 is me.

More...

Anti Dhimmi,

With regards to homosexuality and choice. Why would someone ever choose to be homosexual? Did you choose to be hetero? I have no attraction to men (I'm a man). The idea of having sex with a man physically repulses me. I didn't choose to think it would be unpleasant for me, I believe it was inborn. If my heterosexuality is inborn, and (presumably) yours as well, where is any evidence that it is a choice for others? Sure, some may make the choice to "experiment", but chances are, they were attracted to the idea in the first place (or pressured, or whatever).

I didn't choose to be hetero. Why should I believe most hetero people choose it, or most gay people choose it?

smorrow:

Because it's fun to debate people who disagree with you. At least for me.

Here's a slightly off-topic rumination about the prevalence of divorce and multiple marriages in current western society.

I am not a divorce attorney, per se, but occasionally I will represent an existing client in a divorce or serve as guardian ad litem for the children of divorcing parents. I know many people who have divorced and I availed myself of court procedures to divorce my first spouse.

It does occur to me that some people who enter into the marital state do so too freely, too lightly, without proper consideration of the commitment and sacrifices necessary, occasionally involving simply incompatible personalities. But the far greater majority of divorces involve couples which contain at least one person who should not be married. Many people shouldn't ever marry. They lack the moral character, or they lack the fundamental empathy, or they lack the ability to perform as a team, or they lack the moderation of temperament. They still want to get married, and they still do get married (often multiple times), but such marriages are marked by infidelity, arguments and in more extreme cases domestic abuse, financial and parental irresponsibility, until they fall apart due to their own inadequacy or through sufficient escalation of behavior as to lead one spouse to say "enough".

Christianity may be idealistic, and may work to encourage and enable people to better themselves, but conservatism is generally realistic and understands the Hobbesian view of human passions. Not all straight people deserve to be married or are actually capable of meaningful marriage, and their participation in the social institution generally results in a net increase in their personal misery and socity's as a whole.

My point is that it is probably wrong to blame modern society for the degeneration of marriage. Rather, it is better to understand that hman nature is what it is, and that modern society makes it easier for those who shouldn't be married to end their miserable marriages, which is a good thing compared to previous times where the misery was perpetuated lifelong, not only in cases where two miserable people deserve each other, but in cases where the innocent or naive made the wrong choice. For better or ill, our governmental guarantees of freedom cannot stop such people from remarrying or such couples from bearing children.

AC writes:
How about how legal and accepted divorce has probably saved thousands (or more) women and children from abusive partners?

Considering marriage as a contract, there is no logical problem with dissolution of contract for due cause, i.e. violations of the contract. Prior to the 1970's there were divorces for adultery ('alienation of affection') and
other reasons. But that isn't what we have now.

Of course there are tons of good marriages, good husbands, good wives, good families. Some of those divorce anyway, and perhaps they shouldn't.

There's no question that divorces happen now that would not have occcured years ago. About 2/3 of divorce actions are initiated by women, and only a minority of them are for such things as adultery, abuse, etc. It is clear that many divorce actions now are in marriages that otherwise would survive. We have studies showing that proper counseling to get a couple through a rough patch saves the marriage, although I regret I do not have cites to hand (so feel free to dismiss my argument if you prefer).

Summary: we don't need unilateral, "I'm bored so get out / you're not sexy anymore so I'm leaving" divorce to protect women and children and, yes, men from physical abuse. You are conflating two different things.

With regards to homosexuality and choice. Why would someone ever choose to be homosexual? Did you choose to be hetero?

You are making a number of assumptions, starting with the idea that you know what I believe. If you want to know what I think, don't tell me, ask me...

There's no Covenant-making there. If God made Covenant with the animals, where is it spelled out? Why don't they have their own Bibles? Who died for their sins? After all, Man and the animals are separate creations. Where's the separate Covenant?

It's spelled out in Gen.9:10--the verse I already cited for you but you didn't recognize and didn't bother to look up--and the next 7 verses after that. God says about a half-dozen times in as many sentences that he has established a covenant with all animals, all living creatures, and all flesh. If you have a problem with his methods, by all means, complain to him.

In the meanwhile don't wave your Biblical rules around other peoples' personal lives if you clearly haven't even bothered to read the thing.

"the church was bulldozed and the ground was salted"

What, so another church wouldn't grow? Seems like hysterical overkill.

Hours later and still no answer, so I'll try again:

How often are rights in the US actually determined through direct popular vote rather than through representatives (e.g. through legislative or judicial processes?) Is this apparent requirement peculiar to the gay marriage issue? You said:

"I don't want to digress into a civics lesson, but the most glaring and obvious example is elected office--we vote people into office, give them the right to make laws and rule, but with the understanding that they are answerable for those laws they make, and sometimes, when a particular legislature makes a law that is unjust in some way, a popular vote can strike it down. The L and J branches of government aren't there to hand down patriarchal decrees saying "we know better than you ignorant population", they are there to enforce the will of the people and uphold the already established laws we have.
Other rights include much more mundane things like buying alcohol in formerly dry areas, and zoning and school board issues. "

I appreciate the attempt, but you didn't actually address the core marriage of why gay marriage is this subject to popular vote (and treated as if it must pass it), when to my knowledge women's rights, equality for minorities, interracial marriage, and similar unpopular extensions of rights previously restricted to only one group were not subject to a vote? From the sound of things, the latter two at least would not have passed a popular vote, if not all three. Your answer doesn't address this.

maybe you guys should stop talking to Mr. Incredible so much. You're not going to convince him that homosexuality is a part of the natural world any more than he's going to convince you that God hates homos.

anyone who truly believes the bible is the Ultimate Truth isn't using logic, so you can't use logic to dissuade them. not to bash the bible, it's pretty cool at times, but if you believe it can say no wrong, that's a leap of faith, with no basis in any kind of logic.

If one takes the premise that sexuality is totally inborn, then given the modern political environement what rational, logical argument can one make against polygamy, polyandry, group marriage, marriage of adults and children, bestiality or even forcible rape?

I would not make arguments against polygamy, polyandry or group marriage - best of luck to those who want to give that a try. I have enough on my hands with just one wife.

Children cannot give consent to a marriage contract, nor can animals.

Obviously, forcible rape is an assault on another person and doesn't seem to belong in that list.

It is with much trepidation that I copy & paste the following, but it is definitive proof of the existence of hatred against gay and lesbian people. (Frankly, I'm shocked that Rod allows it to remain,but I guess it is in line with his thinking...

"And here it is in a nutshell: Homosexuals don't love, they just have sex. Not just the face of prejudice, but the sign at the end of the dead end road. When the American culture war is finally dead and buried, it should have these words engraved on its tombstone: Homosexuals don't love, they just have sex.

They're fighting for societal approval. They're fighting for benefits rightfully reserved to heterosexual families and their children. They're radical anti-family militants who want to destroy the institution of marriage and replace it with free love hedonism. They hate America and want to destroy it and they know they have to destroy the family structure first. They are narcissists who crave attention. They think marriage will erase the shame and brokenness they all feel deep down inside. Underneath it all is the bedrock: Homosexuals don't love, they just have sex."

As I said, this is so very much in line with the reduction of the humanity of gay people that is prevalent on this blog. (To whit, that gays 'believe' that " marriage is a contract between two consenting parties who agree that it means nothing more than that they love each other; it has no essential meaning beyond that", the constant reduction of our humanity to "plants", "rocks", "bicycles" and "just roomies shackin' up, sharin' stuff").

And Rod says gays are the haters.

Rod, if you're still reading these comments, please explain how treating other human beings with such contempt, such obvious (to us, anyway) false witness, such transgression against the Golden Rule ("the sum of the laws and the prohets") - is NOT hateful?

This is a sincere question. I really want to know. You've always allowed those odious comparisons and never acknowledged the inherent hate in them. "Gay people do not love!" Really!? This is a loving statement? There's simply no truth in it.

Before becoming a Christian, I regarded male homosexuality (sodomy in particular) as sort of like smoking. People are free to do it as long as it doesn't interfere with public health, but it's a demonstrably unhealthy practice, destructive to the human body. I felt that because sodomy is unsanitary for reasons I hope I don't need to detail, it should not be encouraged at all, for gays or straights. While male homosexuality admittedly made me ill (I'm a guy), like most men I found lesbians provocative. I really didn't question that much.

Having converted to Christianity, I'm far more concerned with matters related to human longing and fulfillment, the complexities of dealing with our broken natures, etc. I see imperfect people, of which I am one, and that has resulted in more nuances to my beliefs about homosexuality. I still believe it is scripturally forbidden, but there is no "otherness" in my relationship to gays and lesbians, whether I personally know them or not. To be repeatedly told that I hate them because I do not endorse every facet of their lives seems a little absurd, but I guess that's just what some people need to believe for some reason. It just SO does not fit or land on me when I hear it.

Ok, all progressive-style argumentation aside, do you see how slippery the slope is, once you accept the premise that all sexuality is inborn?

I don't believe that you are fairly characterizing 'progressive-style argumentation' or that a slippy slope leads to your conclusions.

Sacramental Bea, you really need to read more carefully, much more carefully. The first post you object to IMO was written by a supporter of homosexual marriage.

Nowhere did I compare homosexuals to anything. I stated that if one accepts the premise that sexual behavior is inborn, then one should think carefully about where that leads.

I note that you have no real objections to polygamy, polyandry or other group marriage, despite the clear effects that it has on children. Do you have any objections to incestous marriage? Because there's no logical reason why two brothers, or two sisters, should not be free to marry, is there?

Do you have any objections to incestous marriage? Because there's no logical reason why two brothers, or two sisters, should not be free to marry, is there?

As long as one of them gets sterilized first...

John E - Agn Stoic writes:
Ok, all progressive-style argumentation aside, do you see how slippery the slope is, once you accept the premise that all sexuality is inborn?

I don't believe that you are fairly characterizing 'progressive-style argumentation' or that a slippy slope leads to your conclusions.

Likely you have not discussed this issue with progressives very much from the point of view of opposition, then. All progressive argumentation in time devolves to "You Are A Hater", in my experience, with various emotional flourishes on the side. "Homophobe" is still a popular epithet, therefore I use the term "pedophobe" in argumentation sometimes to demonstrate where that kind of namecalling can lead. In point of fact, NAMBLA used to have "studies" that they claimed proved no physical or psychological damage to children that had sex with adults. One of their standard lines: "it's not the sex that hurts, it's the bigoted reaction of society" is certainly in line with progressive thinking.

Now, you conceded that starting from the premise of "all sexuality is inborn" it is easy to reach the point where society has no way to prevent legalization of polygamy/polyandry/polymarriage, yet you assert that my slippery slope is not true? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

Re: I note that you have no real objections to polygamy, polyandry or other group marriage, despite the clear effects that it has on children. Do you have any objections to incestous marriage? Because there's no logical reason why two brothers, or two sisters, should not be free to marry, is there?

Anti Dhimmi,

Careful. John Agn Stoic speaks for himself, but not for all supporters of gay marriage, and certainly not for me. Many of us abhor polygamous and incestuous marriage as much as you do, and have no intention that they be legal.

Now, you conceded that starting from the premise of "all sexuality is inborn" it is easy to reach the point where society has no way to prevent legalization of polygamy/polyandry/polymarriage, yet you assert that my slippery slope is not true? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

Anti-Dhimmi please take a closer look at my responses.

I don't care if polygamy/polyandry/polymarriage is legalized.

I do care about consent. The part of your slippery slope was the part that led to pedophilia and beastiality.

NAMBLA's studies are irrelevant because children cannot consent to marriage or sex with an adult.

Anti Dhimmi,

"The first post you object to IMO was written by a supporter of homosexual marriage."

thanks for your 'opinion', but IMO, it is you that has the reading comprehension problem if you think someone saying that 'gays just have sex; they do not love' is in any way a "supporter".

"Nowhere did I compare homosexuals to anything."

If you are still referring to my first post, then there's nothing in it where I said you compared ... anything, since I hadn't even got to reading your post by that point. The comparisons I listed appear here with some frequency.

"I stated that if one accepts the premise that sexual behavior is inborn, then one should think carefully about where that leads."

And that is the problem: you keep referring to "sexual behavior"; we are discussing sexual orientation. I agree that behaviors (of any kind) are not "inborn", and it would be absurd to think that they are. But again, they're not what we say is "inborn". Orientation, otoh, IS (to use your word) "inborn"; our word is "innate" - and most psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists tend to agree with us.

"I note that you have no real objections to polygamy, polyandry or other group marriage"

Very observant of you. Congrats.

"despite the clear effects that it has on children."

First off, you are assuming that every such marriage will result in children. The vast majority of them probably do, but child-bearing is a different topic than just marriage itself. (Yes, I know that you believe producing children is the very reason for marriage, but on that we will have to agree to disagree.)

However, I'm sure that the women in Saudi Arabia (or any other country where polygamy is the norm) would disagree that their marriages have deleterious effects on their children. Plus, I would like some citation of these "clear effects" that you claim. (Frankly, I'd be far more worried about the effects on the women involved. I wonder how wife #1 feels when hubbie makes love to wife #2 in the next room? I wonder how wife #3 feels when the inheritance goes to wife #4, the one that bore him a son? I wonder how wife #5 feels when the job pension goes to wife #6? etc.)

"Do you have any objections to incestous marriage?"

Yes. Mainly that there's no need for them. Marriage establishes kinship where none previously existed. Incest means the people involved are already related (i.e. already have kinship established). But thanx 4 tryin'.

Because there's no logical reason why two brothers, or two sisters, should not be free to marry, is there?"

Yes. See above.

John G - Agn Stoic writes;

Now, you conceded that starting from the premise of "all sexuality is inborn" it is easy to reach the point where society has no way to prevent legalization of polygamy/polyandry/polymarriage, yet you assert that my slippery slope is not true? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

Anti-Dhimmi please take a closer look at my responses.

Ok. Done. You argue that there is no slippery slope at all, yet concede:

I don't care if polygamy/polyandry/polymarriage is legalized.

This is contradictory.

I do care about consent. The part of your slippery slope was the part that led to pedophilia and beastiality.

Sorry, to me the slippery slope starts with the fact that if "one man and one woman" is somehow arbitrary and capricious, then "two and only two" is the same. It then goes on from there, to such notions as incestous marriage. You appear to have conceded both of these, is that correct? You have no objection to a father marrying his daughter, so long as both give consent, for example?

NAMBLA's studies are irrelevant because children cannot consent to marriage or sex with an adult.

NAMBLA insists otherwise, they claim that consent can be given by anyone at just about any age, and they claim "studies" to support their position. This did not matter 30 years ago, but if and when the societal elites adopt the position that sex with children is the next frontier of "liberation" then I fully expect such "studies" to receive a lot of chin-stroking debate.

You say it is unthinkable? Think again.

Sacramental Bea, I hear you, and that makes sense. Here's my experience: I run in pretty diverse circles, in terms of worldview. At least four times, once it's known what church I attend, I have been pointedly asked what my beliefs are about gay marriage or homosexuality. Usually, I state that I prefer not to discuss it, but when pressed, I'll put it out there. I never hear, "Wow, how interesting. I totally disagree." What I get back is incredulity, venom, and accusations of being a "hater", or something similarly unflattering. I just feel this reflects more on the accuser than on me.

In terms of equal treatment under the law, I believe "gay marriage" represents lousy constitutional thinking. Seriously.

Here is my issue. If we say, right now, "Marriage is now expanded to include two men or two women", that is flatly unconstitutional.

Marriage, for all of history, has been based on a biological reality that exists exclusively between a man and a woman. It is unique to the sexual union of a man and a woman, and it produces children in most cases. That's the foundation of marriage.

The term "Girl Scout" means something specific, based on biology (I understand that there is a radical understanding of gender identity that would suggest that a biological male can be female in gender, but that's specious at best). "Girl Scout" means something unique, and objectively true in the biological sense. When we deny boys the right to join Girl Scouts, we are not discriminating, and it is constitutional to do so. We are recognizing a separateness that is rooted in biology. When we deny girls the right to join the football team, that is another matter. You don't need a penis to play football. But if you have a penis, you cannot be a Girl Scout. You're still equal, but you can't join.

With very few exceptions, we all get this.

Currently, marriage is a unique state based on unique biological facts and capabilities. That is the sole reason for marriage, historically. It's is the only reason we can define it at all.

If we change that, we have stepped out of the biological and into the completely arbitrary. If we say, "These two men can get married, but not three", we have drawn an arbitrary boundary that infringes on the constitutional right to privacy of a polygamist. Throughout history, siblings have had sexual relationships and fallen in love romantically. While most of us abhor the thought, 30 years ago most people abhorred the thought of two men making love. Why can't siblings marry? What is the constitutional basis for that? Can I marry my uncle so that he can get health benefits on my family health plan, if we share a residence? If marriage grants me rights I otherwise can't have, who are you to exclude us as a family if we choose to define ourselves that way?

If we categorize those concerns as absurd, we discriminate. I find it far more constitutionally sound to say that any group of people who want to share a residence and be a household or family unit can do so, with a domestic partnership. I don't see how any other boundary isn't exclusionary and discriminatory once we discount the biological uniqueness of marriage.

That's the irony. I do not support gay marriage. But if we're going there, then we need to get government completely out of the business of defining marriage, and they need to concern themselves entirely and dispassionately with shared households and benefits. Anything else, once we push away from the dock, is no less moralizing than what we currently have.

If someone disagrees, then tell me what is NOT a marriage and why, and defend your view from the Constitution, not popular morality or opinion.

Hector writes:
Re: I note that you have no real objections to polygamy, polyandry or other group marriage, despite the clear effects that it has on children. Do you have any objections to incestous marriage? Because there's no logical reason why two brothers, or two sisters, should not be free to marry, is there?

Anti Dhimmi,

Careful. John Agn Stoic speaks for himself, but not for all supporters of gay marriage, and certainly not for me.

Where did I ascribe any of the above to you? Do you assume that my replies to John e - Agn Stoic are also to you? If you assume that, why?

Many of us abhor polygamous and incestuous marriage as much as you do, and have no intention that they be legal.

How do you propose to oppose such things, since you accept the idea that "one man and one woman" is mere bigotry? How is "two and only two" not just as bigoted?

Sorry, to me the slippery slope starts with the fact that if "one man and one woman" is somehow arbitrary and capricious, then "two and only two" is the same. It then goes on from there, to such notions as incestous marriage. You appear to have conceded both of these, is that correct? You have no objection to a father marrying his daughter, so long as both give consent, for example?

Maybe we ought to define the term 'objection' here.

Do I think, in general, that incestuous marriages are a good idea? No, I don't. Would I work towards or support the repeal of laws that forbid incestuous marriages? No, I wouldn't.

But would it bother me if a father and daughter entered into a consensual marriage as long as one of them were sterile? No, not really?

NAMBLA insists otherwise, they claim that consent can be given by anyone at just about any age, and they claim "studies" to support their position.

Surely you understand what the term 'consent' means in a legal context, don't you? As in 'age of consent'?

MWorrell, need I point out that the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts are private institutions? To the extent that they don't accept government money (with government strings) or use government facilities (also with government strings), they are free to set any membership rules they please.

It's an entirely different matter when we're dealing with handing out a government imprimatur to a relationship, together with government funding.

Likewise a church can call whatever relationship it pleases a marriage. As a matter of fact, many already do, quite independently of what the government says is a marriage. Obvious example: get married to a Jew in front of an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas and the Catholic Church doesn't consider you married. Nor does it accept civil divorce. Other faiths do accept same-sex marriage, and will considered such couples to be married regardless of what the government says.

Sacramental Bea writes:
Anti Dhimmi,

"The first post you object to IMO was written by a supporter of homosexual marriage."

thanks for your 'opinion', but IMO, it is you that has the reading comprehension problem if you think someone saying that 'gays just have sex; they do not love' is in any way a "supporter".

Evidently you are not familiar with the concept of "sarcasm", then? Because the post you object to is dripping with sarcasm. The person who posted it is named Bruce Garrett, and I suggest that you go and view the weblog of Bruce Garrett
http://www.brucegarrett.com/brucelog for a while. You clearly did not read his comment very carefully, although I'll agree he could have formatted more clearly, and frankly you owe Rod an apology.

I wrote:

Sorry, to me the slippery slope starts with the fact that if "one man and one woman" is somehow arbitrary and capricious, then "two and only two" is the same. It then goes on from there, to such notions as incestous marriage. You appear to have conceded both of these, is that correct? You have no objection to a father marrying his daughter, so long as both give consent, for example?

John E - Agn Stoic replies:

Maybe we ought to define the term 'objection' here.

Ok.

Do I think, in general, that incestuous marriages are a good idea? No, I don't. Would I work towards or support the repeal of laws that forbid incestuous marriages? No, I wouldn't.

So do you object or not?

But would it bother me if a father and daughter entered into a consensual marriage as long as one of them were sterile? No, not really?

So do you object to incestous marriage or not? Why do you insist on sterility, isn't it just bigotry to seek to limit the reproductive opportunities of others because you find their potential offspring to be, oh, "ikky"? Or consider the scenario of a father with a long-term sexual relationship with his daughter who wishes to marry her in order to reduce the chances she'll testify against him in court. Would you have any reason to oppose such a marriage?

I wrote:
NAMBLA insists otherwise, they claim that consent can be given by anyone at just about any age, and they claim "studies" to support their position.

Surely you understand what the term 'consent' means in a legal context, don't you? As in 'age of consent'?

Yes, I understand. Are you unaware that NAMBLA and other groups have been urging a much lower age of consent for years? Suppose that the cultural elites adopted "inter-generational sex" as their next frontier for liberation, and pressure was brought to bear upon age of consent laws, lowering them to, oh, 10. How would you logically oppose the marriage of a 30 year old man to an 11 year old, given the position that you take here?

So do you object or not?

I'm still waiting for you to define 'objection'.

Would I say, "Hey guys, bad idea?" Probably.

Would I march in the streets to prevent it? Probably not.

Why do you insist on sterility, isn't it just bigotry to seek to limit the reproductive opportunities of others because you find their potential offspring to be, oh, "ikky"?

No, that's just good eugenic practice.

Or consider the scenario of a father with a long-term sexual relationship with his daughter who wishes to marry her in order to reduce the chances she'll testify against him in court. Would you have any reason to oppose such a marriage?

We know that is the reason for the marriage? If it is known that he had sexual relations with her before she reached the age of consent, he should be prosecuted for statutory rape.

Suppose that the cultural elites adopted "inter-generational sex" as their next frontier for liberation, and pressure was brought to bear upon age of consent laws, lowering them to, oh, 10.

Get back to me when that happens.

Sacramental Bea, since orientation leads to behavior, you are arguing in circles. Polygamists and polyandrists can just as easily argue that their sexual orientation is inborn as homosexuals can, and so can other sexual orientations.

I'm surprised you can't see how polyandry could easily lead to the abuse of children. It is a settled matter, after over a generation of study, that the danger of sexual abuse of children is higher in stepfamilies; in particular, the risk of stepfathers and stepdaughters becoming sexually involved is greater. In a situation where one woman is "married" to two or more men, all the children are in a sense going to be stepchildren, and since the family already accepts unconventional sexual roles, incest isn't that unlikely. The same applies to group marriage of any sort.

The slippery slope should be plain to see. You want marriage to be redefined from "one woman and one man" to "two adults", I assume. Once the precedent is set that marriage can be redefined, given sufficient political pressure and /or judicial fiat, then it is only logical that other groups should wish to redefined marriage to suit them. I would expect the polys to step up next, possibly with aid from the Moslems, but really any group that can get the cultural elites to agree with them would then be empowered to re-redefine marriate. For example, if two brothers or two sisters wanted to "marry", they could try their case in Massachusetts, citing Goodridge and of course Lawrence in support of their plea. It then comes down to, what, 4 people? Once the precedent of incestous marriage is set, where and how would a line be drawn against the next re-redefinition?

I can easily construct an argument for all sorts of "marriage" forms, using the same arguments that progressives use in support of homosexual marriage. It's easy, when one gets to dismiss all who disagree as "haters" and "bigots"...

A couple of comments here.
1. It isn't our view of marriage that has changed. Marriage has been seen as a love-union for many centuries, albeit one that could serve other purposes too. The high falluting stuff about procreation and the like may have been bandied about by theologians, but it never gained any purchase on popular thinking. What has changed is not how we look at marriage, but how we look at gender. We accept that men and women are equal, period. That's why we no can longer devise a rational argument against homosexuality, and why gay marriage increasingly makes sense to many people. And I do not see sexual egalitarianism changing any time soon.
2. Some young people say that thay have changed their view on gay mariage. Fair enough, but some old people have changed their minds too an in the other direction. My step-mother certainly considered it outlandish 15 years ago, but had come to accept it before she died. The lesian couple down the street from her, whom she chatted with often on her walks, played a role there.

Re: "Um, he's not arguing that it should or should not be. He's pointing out that it's irrelevant to the debate, because right now men (but not women) have the right to marry a woman, and women (but not men) have the right to marry a man. Neither men nor women have the right to be married to multiple people at the same time (in the US)."

I grasp his argument. Completely. I'm simply saying that proponents of "gay marriage and nothing more" have drawn a moral boundary, not a legal one, and it will not hold. Given the prevalence of polygamy in human history, this ought to be just about the easiest thing in the world to see coming.

I just think it's really funny to watch people draw lines in the sand right after they erased someone else's, and then act exasperated when questioned.

Since Anti Dhimmi argues so vociferously against the idea that sexual orientation is inborn, I must assume that she thinks it isn't. Thus, both homosexuality and heterosexuality are just behaviors that are enforced on people via social controls. Logically, then, she must believe that heterosexuality isn't any more innate than homosexuality. Thus, the entire population, male and female, could be made gay if the social rules changed. Or maybe we'd all become polygamous and polyandrous . . . and incestuous marriages would run rampant, since the only reason women don't want to marry their brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers right now is that it's against the law. Wow. What an odd view of human relations!

Also, on an earlier point- Anti Dhimmi, do you believe sexual orientation is inborn, or a choice, or some sort of combination?

I think with most people it is inborn (me, for example), though life circumstances can probably have some influence (a woman who has been abused by men through much of her life may only feel comfortable being intimate with another woman, for example).

Anti Dhimmi
So do you object to incestous marriage or not? Why do you insist on sterility, isn't it just bigotry to seek to limit the reproductive opportunities of others because you find their potential offspring to be, oh, "ikky"? Or consider the scenario of a father with a long-term sexual relationship with his daughter who wishes to marry her in order to reduce the chances she'll testify against him in court. Would you have any reason to oppose such a marriage?

Laws against incestuous marriages do not deny government services to people because of their gender, which laws controlling the gender of people who get marriage licenses do.

What other licenses should we deny to people based on their gender? Maybe only men can getting hunting licenses, and women can get fishing licenses? Only men can drive and women can fly?

Laws against incestuous marriages instead deny a government service based on familial relationship, which is not generally a protected class under the law, and in fact we specifically have other laws doing the same sort of thing. (Laws against nepotism and conflict of interest, for example.)

MWorrell
I grasp his argument. Completely. I'm simply saying that proponents of "gay marriage and nothing more" have drawn a moral boundary, not a legal one, and it will not hold. Given the prevalence of polygamy in human history, this ought to be just about the easiest thing in the world to see coming.

The idea that people have the right to do, or at least try to do, whatever they want regardless of their gender is a generally accepted concept in this society. And, in fact, Federal law codified this in many aspects, especially when it comes to the government's behavior.

The idea that people have the right to do whatever they want as many times as they want when the law allows them to do it once...that's just silly. I'm filing my income tax 100 times, so I get 100 tax refunds! Yeah, doesn't work that way.

Society does not want people stopped from doing something based on their race, or their gender, or their religion. They have no problem, however, with them restricted from doing things for other reasons.

AC writes:
It seems like your slippery slope arguments could have been used to block interracial marriage... as in, if two people of different race can marry, what's to stop two people of different legal status (adult and child)?

This is simply inaccurate. People of different skin colors surely were marrying in different parts of the Christian world long before the existence of the United States. Overturning miscegenation laws did not change the essential element of marriage, "one man and one woman".

To me, that "slippery slope" argument is as bogus considering gay marriage as it would have been with interracial marriage. How is it different?

Redefining marriage from "one man and one woman" to "two adults" is a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship. If "one man and one woman" is mere prejudice and bigotry, how can you say that "two and only two" is not?

All those in interracial relationships were arguing for was the right to marry. That's all gay couples are arguing for now. The slippery slope is irrelevant- each issue should be and will be argued and decided on its own merits.

Interracial marriage doesn't redefine the institution. Homosexual marriage does. Once the precedent is set that marriage can be redefined by the loudest pressure group, or by judicial fiat, then what stops other groups from seeking to re-redefine it?

AC writes:
Also, on an earlier point- Anti Dhimmi, do you believe sexual orientation is inborn, or a choice, or some sort of combination?

Likely it is a combination of factors. I've known individuals who lived a homosexual lifestyle for several years, only to abandon it, marry and have children. I've known people who insisted they were gay from infancy. I've known others that clearly were influenced by politics into pursuing a homosexual lifestyle. There could be a multitude of environmental influences that we don't know about, including effects in utero. I'm quite skeptical of a "gay gene" for a variety of reasons.

I think with most people it is inborn (me, for example), though life circumstances can probably have some influence (a woman who has been abused by men through much of her life may only feel comfortable being intimate with another woman, for example).

There are studies that indicate a much, much higher percentage of people who self-identify as homosexual were molested in childhood or adolescence than in the general population. This is not to say that all homosexual people were molested, but it is suggestive of one possible environmental influence for some individuals: early sexual experience coupled with some sort of powerful emotional situation.

Re: There are studies that indicate a much, much higher percentage of people who self-identify as homosexual were molested in childhood or adolescence than in the general population.

If you are referring to the "studies" of Paul Cameron or his colleagues at the FRC, frankly you may as well cite the works of Soviet propagandists in a debate on the Wall Street banks. Two words: Not Credible.

Wow - it took 191 posts, but kudos to Robin Thomas for making the obvious point about the political reality of this thing.

As with California the gay marriage side in Maine had almost universal backing among the political and corporate establishment, a massive campaign spending advantage, deliberately slanted ballot language, and a socially liberal electorate. And as with California and every other state where this has been on the ballot, in the privacy of the voting booth the public rejected gay marriage.

Aversion to "gay marriage" has been a universal feature of the human condition -- homosexuality itself has been punished or ostracized in nearly every society, whether the dominant religious tradition has been Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, animist, pre-Columbian Amerindian, Greco-Roman pagan, or 20th century militantly atheist. What makes advocates think that religious belief is the source of that aversion?

Robin

Let's switch just one term in your statement to make it relevent to 1948.

"Clearly, the majority of Americans do NOT want inter-racial marriage.
Time to give up."

Note that inter-racial was banned in many states by popular demand of the people until over-turned by the black robed tyrants in 1967.

We will win this, and 30 years from now people will majically have memories that recall how they never (nope, never) opposed it. Just like you have a pretty hard time today finding anyone who will admit to opposing black and white people getting married (a certin idiot judge in Louisiana excepted...)

"Aversion to "gay marriage" has been a universal feature of the human condition -- homosexuality itself has been punished or ostracized in nearly every society, whether the dominant religious tradition has been Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, animist, pre-Columbian Amerindian, Greco-Roman pagan, or 20th century militantly atheist. What makes advocates think that religious belief is the source of that aversion?"

I'm a professor of linguistic anthropology, and I can confirm that this is not accurate. While my area of research does not concern sexuality, I can say that many, likely most, societies in North America had a kind of same-sex marriage before the 1700s and imposition of European norms. I don't believe that the majority of human societies have had something like same-sex marriage (analogous to male-female marriage) but it is by no means unusual historically. The fact that most of the societies that had same-sex marriage had unwritten languages and orally transmitted cultures meant that Europeans could more easily censor aspects of those cultures they deemed repugnant.

Most human societies (going by numerical number of societies, not the population of each one) have always been hunter-gatherers or practiced subsistence agriculture. It is not unusual that in small-group societies there is no formal marriage ritual at all, men and women who live together are considered "married". Two men or two women who live together are not looked down upon in any moral way, rather the concern is that all men do their share of the hunting, and the women if they do not hunt must provide some labor in exchange for receiving meat from the men. There was no government as we would understand it, and so no marriage business to privilege straight people over gays.

In North America gay marriage was a bit different from gay marriage today. A minority of men were considered "two spirit", i.e. special beings who were endowed with both male and female characteristics and who were often gifted shamans, having access to multiple worlds at once. They would sometimes dress not as women, but with a style that was rather intermediate between male and female. They crossed traditional divisions of labor, too, engaging both in hunting and cooking. These "two spirit" people never married each other. Rather they married "normal" men and were expected to take on the female role sexually just like any other "wife", while still being recognized as a sort of male by the tribe. These "two-spirit" or berdache marriages were considered an attractive choice particularly for widowers who needed someone to sew them clothing and cook but who did not want to support any more children. These were certainly same-sex marriages with the full sexual component, although they are more gendered than some same-sex relationships in modern American culture.

This idea that gays are experts in magic and spells persists in many indigenous societies of the Americas.

The vast majority of human societies historically did not care much about homosexuality, and were more concerned about men fulfilling their economic role in the community.

"Logical fallacy. Straights who engage in that practice outnumber gays who do only because straights outnumber gays. As a percentage far fewer straights engage in it than gays."

Not at all. If acts of buttsex are what offend, then it's numbers, not percentage, that should worry people. More injuries and "spontaneous disease" (???), even if the rate is lower.

I am coming to this late because of work.

I am wondering if you exclude the possibility of a religious objection to homosexuality that can use "non-religious" arguments? As one who opposes homosexuality from a Christian view, I also have MA in philosophy and can argue against using more secular arguments:

1. Statistically speaking, homosexuality is not normative or found enough to warrant the broader societal acceptance being pushed by gay activists.

2. Human nature and free will issues destroy the innate or born argument that pushes this. If human sexuality is determined and innate then there is no ultimate morality or responsibility to it. Thus, homosexuality cannot be isolated from other sexual activities or preferences. To be consistent one must then argue that rapists, pedophiles, adulterers, and any other sexual activity is equally innate and therefore must be accepted.

3. HIV/AIDS is still a majority gay men disease. It makes no sense to promote a lifestyle that is prone to the disease.

4. Evolutionary arguments refute the acceptance of homosexuality. There is no advantage to homosexuality in the propagation of the species.

That's all for now.

It shouldn't be "bigots and Christians". They're one and the same. As far as the taxpayer-funded sex change (not that I agree with the idea)... The same people who would kick and scream about it are the same ones who thought the faith-based initiative was a super idea. Reading the comments, its really frightening that people still classify HIV/AIDS as a "gay men disease". Ban heterosexual divorce and then maybe we can talk about this idiotic idea of "protecting marriage." It's not going to have any affect on how I feel about my husband, whom I've been married to for nearly 10 years.

Crazy and devoid of common sense is how I feel about this blog.

@ Your Name, 1:32 AM

If gay marriage being super-important to gay people is all it takes to turn you against it, then your support was unprincipled and disingenious to begin with.

There is certainly a correlation between homophobia and gay promiscuity - the harder society makes it for gays to be out and settle down, the more they will sleep around and prefer anonymous flings that don't put their reputations at risk.

SSM proponents always claim there is no evidence showing that marriage rates (for heterosexuals) go down when SSM is introduced, or that there is no evidence that children are less "well-adjusted" or whatever.

Well then were is the evidence that homosexuals will be "less promiscuous" if gay marriage is allowed. After all, while gay marriage was illegal during the heyday of homosexual SF, a homosexual couple would certainly be accepted, yet promiscuity was rampant. Just about a week or so ago a singer from the Irish boy band Westlife died after apparently visiting a disco in Majorca (Spain) with his "husband" and picking up a rent boy.

It seems likely to me that homosexual marriage -- especially among men -- will not at all turn out to be the sort of arrangement that heterosexual marriage is

"It shouldn't be "bigots and Christians". They're one and the same."

Spoken like a true anti-Christian bigot.

There is nothing bigotted about trying to protect marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years. There IS something bigotted with calling names of those who dare to have a different opinion from you. Are you that narrow-minded that you have to call everyone you disagree with evil?

OK, I'm going to make everyone mad who has a strong opinion about orientation. We don't have a clue what motivates people to identify themselves as "gay" or not. Sexual emotions and hormones and organs are obviously designed for procreation, on a strictly animal biological level. That's why I've said heterosexuality is the norm for the species. Now, why and how do some individuals find themselves swept up by intense emotions for individuals of their own gender, rather than the opposite gender? We do know that men isolated from women will, some of them, turn to other men because they feel they can't do without... Greek soldiers, prisoners... and women often the same. Many who seek fulfillment homosexually when there is nothing else available will revert to heterosexual when they have more common options. So apparently it isn't ALL about how someone is born.

There are individuals who have gone back and forth in civilian society, from one to the other, and even back again. There are individuals who identify as bisexual, which means on any given day, they like it either way. There are individuals who never find their own gender the least bit attractive. Maybe it just means, our nerves and hormones aren't too sophisticated, and anything stimulating will turn them on. I wouldn't doubt that some individuals develop a strong same-sex orientation at an early age. I don't doubt that if a vague yearning at an early age becomes the focus of social workers and counsellors, it can became an "identity" when it might have been a passing phase, left unattended. There may be some element of choice. There may be some element of inherited predisposition. It may be different for each individual. In short, I don't think we have a clue, and we shouldn't be quick to put people in boxes by insisting that they define themselves. Let people grow up and live their lives, and don't make too big a deal about it.

SJ: "In short, I don't think we have a clue, and we shouldn't be quick to put people in boxes by insisting that they define themselves. Let people grow up and live their lives, and don't make too big a deal about it."

...an eloquent argument for gay marriage, if ever I heard one.

I wrote:
Re: Then again, 30 years from now it could be that Sharia will be the law in parts of North America,

In some alternate reality maybe. The possibility of that happening here in 30 years is about equal to that my becoming Pope and canonizing Barak Obama to the communion of saints.
Now if you want to tack a zero onto that and discuss what might be possible in 300 years, I might be able to find a stray possibility or two of a Muslim majority in North America-- though the Shari'a 300 years in the future won't be the Shari'a of today any more than the US Constitution, or the Roman Catholic church's canon law, is what it was a couple centuries back.

History shows that Sharia can be imposed upon a society that is majority Christian. That's what happened in North Africa, in the Middle East. Sharia can be imposed upon a society that is majority Hindu/Bhuddist: that's what happened in India.

You evidently are unaware that Sharia of today is substantially the same as Sharia of 1,000 years ago. Given the Moslem belief that the Koran is literally the word of Allah, and to change even one word is blasphemy, this should not be a surprise. For example, can you tell us why the age of consent for marriage in the Islamic Republic of Iran is 9?

Finally, have you ever spent any time in Dearborn, Michigan? It's part of North America...

Anti Dhimmi, you are wrong. Sharia was NOT imposed upon the conquered territories of the Greek/Roman empire, nor upon the portions of India conquered by the Mughuls much later. Sharia was, in those times and places, considered the law of and for Muslims, NOT the law for the conquered population -- which were allowed to continue following their own religious laws, as long as they remained orderly, did not challenge the Caliphs (or late, Sultans), and paid the jizzya, a tax on non-Muslims. Only many centuries later did some Muslims concoct the notion that Sharia should be imposed upon everyone, or upon an entire nation or territory. By the way, do you have any evidence that the Constitution of the United States is not operative in Dearborn? I know many people of the Muslim faith live there. I haven't heard that courts which can order a woman stoned to death for adultery are operating in that city.

I also must note that Pól Ó C's backhanded compliment strikes me as a non sequitir. Since we don't have a clue whether or how much or on what basis a person can objectively be defined as "gay" or "not gay," it may not make sense to establish a formal institution around it. That is not, per se, an argument AGAINST licensing same sex couples as marriages, but the statement you cite is not an argument FOR gay marriage at all. What I was more concerned with is, e.g., building programs around high school students on the assumption that they "are gay." Maybe they are. Who knows? Maybe its a passing phase? Who knows? I'm not for suppressing or ostracizing them, but let's not be quick to IMPOSE an identity, or to make them "choose" to be or not to be. Again, that is not an argument particularly relevant to whether mature adults who are certain they ARE gay should, or should not, receive a marriage license.

There was some discussion of this thread of sodomy, and that sort of surprised me, because sodomy's that stuff that heterosexual couples do.

I'm going to tread carefully here.

Sodomy is any form of sexual contact other than a penis in a vagina. Everything else: oral sex, anal sex, it's all sodomy.

Gay people engage in a subset of those activities that are possible between a man and and woman. Gay people do the "everything else." But so do straight people.

Yeah, the incidence of anal sex is fairly high among gay men, something like 85% Oral is near universal. But, we're talking somewhere between 1% and 5% of the population. I've never seen a number on lesbians and anal sex. I'm betting they don't.

Now among heterosexuals, about 50% practice anal sex. I don't remember the number on oral sex, but once again, higher. Heterosexuals represent some 90% of the population. That's a lot of sodomy.

It seems strange to criticize gay people for doing what heterosexuals are doing in vastly greater numbers.

Hector
November 5, 2009 2:45 PM
Re: I call them "kristians." Like phony crab is "krab."
Dear Lord. That has to be one of the silliest suggestions I've seen in awhile in these comment threads, and there have been some pretty silly ones. Are you twelve years old or something?
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 John 4:1 [KJV]

Hector
November 5, 2009 2:45 PM
I'm not sure what qualifies Mr. Incredible to define who is, or is not, a Christian...
-----------------------------------------------------------
To Word of God is the Standard. I take measurement by Him, not by some stupid website.

Elizabeth
November 6, 2009 1:02 AM
It shouldn't be "bigots and Christians". They're one and the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rod, if my using the word, "pantload," to describe the content of a post is worthy of your notice, saying that Christians and bigots are one and/in the same oughta also get your attention, dontcha think?

To Word of God -- -- > The Word of God

"In reality, the norm of male gay social behavior is extreme promiscuity with predatory overtones"

That tends to be true. I accept that as fact.