Gay Marriage: Film Critics Flak For President-elect Bill Ayers’ Friend
Posted by Dirty Harry on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
Did you know that President-elect Barack Obama doesn’t support gay marriage?
You won’t find that out from the film critics fawning over “Milk,” the new biopic starring Oscar winner Sean Penn.
Many reviewers have noted the similarities between Milk’s political campaign slogans (think hope, think change) and that of the future White House occupant.
But the same critics can’t bear to critique, or even mention, Obama for his stance on gay marriage.
Think they’d be as silent on the matter if Sen. John McCain had emerged victorious last month?
Everyday it’s more and more obvious every that hard Leftists, like most film critics, aren’t at all interested in securing marriage rights for same sex couples. If they were, rather than pummel those, like Mormons, who won’t ever change their minds or light the torches and grab the pitchforks for a good old-fashioned witch hunt — these people would be out there (if you’ll pardon the expression) trying to persuade the persuadable — one of whom just happens to be the next President of the United States.
This movement has nothing to with “rights”and everything to do with hate, the tearing down of tradition, and seeking yet another excuse to attack conservatives and religion.
In a political battle that you’re actually interesting in winning your first move is always towards persuading the persuadable and these elitist critics can’t even bring themselves to try and shame Obama into moving to their side.
Let’s be honest here: they don’t want gay marriage any more than Pat Roberston.
Filed in General |
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 8:19 am 1Good points Harry. I’ve also heard some people theorize this is yet another bold effort at feminizing America, not sure how much stock I put in that but it’s an interesting theory. Personally I believe it’s just more anti-establishment hatred and a need to protest. My many conversations with people on the idealogical left have revealed one constant; they cannot tell you a single thing they are happy with but if you dare ask what they do not like you better pack your lunch. Some people just need to protest for the sake of protesting it convinces them that they’re somehow significant or different when really they are neither.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 8:32 am 2“Bill Ayers Friend.” It’s still funny!
Suggesting gay marriage/rights is a wedge issue for the Left? C’mon. The Right has been working this issue since Anita Bryant. Let’s at least attempt some small amount of perspective.
On the other hand, you’re right about President Obama. He, like a lot of Dem politicians, has been too clever by half — and a little cowardly — when it comes to this civil rights issue. That’s too bad.
But the passing of Prop 8 is not his fault. (As you know, he opposed it.)
Also, ‘hard leftists’? Heh. Are there any other kind?
Finally, the idea that folks on the Left don’t genuinely support marriage rights is moderately dim. Yes, they’re willing to ignore President Obama’s opposition to gay marriage, and do so because he is the candidate — winning candidate, ahem — they supported and support. I get that. It’s only natural. I also understand their animus toward the Mormon Church, if only due to the LDS’s financial support for the proposition. There’s no contradiction here, merely the usual mess that is politics.
And as for ’seeking another chance to attack conservatives’? Why bother? I’d suggest letting defeated ideologies alone, if only to better enjoy the circular firing squad that tends to ensue after every substantial electoral defeat.
blackhawk12151on 03 Dec 2008 at 8:39 am 3miles is the perfect example of leftist approach to argument.
“Be dismissive, sarcastic, and ride the talking points until you drive them into the ground, but avoid responding substantively at all costs”
This issue is no different that any of the left’s pet causes. From Feminism to elementary school sex ed, the actual cause is the MacGuffin, its just a device used to serve a larger purpose. The real end game is advancing liberalism at all costs.
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 8:40 am 4Miles,
You are correct that this has been a wedge issue employed by the right for years ( and a silly wedge issue at that) but I think Harry is more referring to the border line militant anti-religious response from the Left on Prop 8.
The fact is regardless of our beliefs the people have spoken and spoken strongly with rejecting gay marriage in the most liberal state in the country and that according to our founding principles makes it law. What the left is attempting to do now by essentially “lynching” anyone who disagrees with them and getting the courts to legislate and overrule the will of the people should be sobering and frightening to all of us.
Dirty Harryon 03 Dec 2008 at 8:43 am 5Miles is also being intentionally disingenuous with respect to Anita Bryant.
The fight against gay marriage is not a wedge issue by definition because it’s a fight based on principle.
What we’re seeing from the leftists, however, is that this is most certainly a wedge issue because principle has nothing to do with it. If it was they would be just as upset with Obama.
Principle doesn’t see the letter after the name.
John McClainon 03 Dec 2008 at 8:56 am 6The anti-war people of today were pro war in the 90’s when Slick Willie was playing president with Bosnia. Democrats then were saying “Politics end at the waters edge” meaning that no criticism of the current administration was allowed because we had troops over seas and in harms way. I can’t think of a better example of the hypocrisy on the left than that.
Die Hard Fan
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 9:03 am 7Brandon,
Fair enuf. And I don’t support the overly militant aspects of the response myself, if only because I believe it is counterproductive.
As for ‘founding principles’ and the law? That’s an interesting subject. Because the whole proposition process is in fact counter to the intentions of the founders, who supported representative rather then direct democracy, if only to avoid mob rule. One can make a ‘founding principles’ argument that the court’s decision in this case — or a law enacted by state legislature — are both valid responses to the issue, and both envisioned by the Founders.
But I can say with some surety that the Founders would think the Prop process is nuts, and counter to the reprensentative democracy they fashioned.
Dirty,
That’s just semantics. One man’s principle is another man’s bigotry. (Let’s not forget, the Bible was employed to justify both racism and miscenegation laws in the past.) And of course it’s a wedge issue. That doesn’t mean the people on either side don’t come to it with honestly held opinions, it means the issue is used as a wedge to gain larger electoral advantage — as the GOP has done in the past. I find it hard to believe that the Dems see any electoral advantage in supporting gay marriage — heck, most of them, the newly elected President included, can’t fun away from it fast enough.
Maybe the problem here is that you have an incorrect understanding of what a wedge issue actually is. Again, just to be clear, the term of art does not refer to the content of the issue, but rather to the way in which the issue is utilized in the larger political context.
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:06 am 8Harry,
Regardless of rather it is an issue of principle or not I still view it as a wedge issue. I think this really depends on how you define a wedge issue though; you define a wedge issue as any issue where principle is not involved and I view a wedge issue as any issue that extends beyond the purpose of government. Beyond that you and I are essentially in agreement.
The reason I believe this extends beyond the purpose of government is I am opposed to the government attempting to legislate morality in any way, shape, or form. This is not because I disagree with the morals they are attempting to legislate but only because I realize there may be a time when they attempt to legislate morals that go against my beliefs but by allowing them to legislate my morality I’ve lost the right to argue when they attempt to legislate beliefs that run counter to mine.
This really is a no win for either side in my opinion. The left can’t win this because marriage at it’s core is an abstract concept wherein people are united in the eyes of their God or in the case of Pagans in the eyes of Gaya. No amount of legislation from the left will give a gay couple the right to walk into a Baptist church and force the Pastor to marry them and this appears to be what they want. The government’s only role in this is in the tax benefits of being married and the extension of benefits, the left has been offered this by way of Civil Unions and many insurance carriers even allow life partner benefits which ironically are unavailable to unmarried straght couples. This to me proves Harry is correct and the left really isn’t interested in what they say they’re interested in.
Conversely the right can’t win this because by arguing this from a moral or religious perspective they only give the left more ammunition to stereotype the right as religious fanatics which allows them to continue to use this as a wedge issue between the religious and the secular. It’s a self perpetuating cycle.
Angry Dumboon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:06 am 9Look at that Brooks Brothers blazer and rep tie on Spicoli.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 9:08 am 10Quick follow-up and example. Social Security is a wedge issue employed, and employed pretty effectively, by the Left/Dems. That has nothing to do with the content of it or whether or not the argument itself is based on principle, but rather with the way they are able to use the issue to scare up votes come Election Day.
Dirty Harryon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:13 am 11Miles and Brandon:
A wedge issue is cynically produced to divide. There is nothing cynical about the motives of those opposed to gay marriage. Agree or disagree they are sincere in their cause.
But as we’re now seeing on the other side, it’s the complete opposite.
Carolynon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:15 am 12I got a sniff of Leftist hypocrisy when Gloria Steinem kept dead silent as the President of the United States put his dick in a kid’s mouth. Strange - Gloria screamed to the hills when Senator Packwood only put his tongue in.
Gloria has always preached that her mission in life is to defend all/i> females. Guess the kid spitting semen down the front of her blue dress wasn’t female enough, huh? Or maybe - maybe Gloria does have a mission. But it’s just not the one she’s telling us about.
MovieBobon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:17 am 13Just asking… aside from getting off on being snarky and dismissive of those who disagree with you on a “gotcha” point (which, believe me, I understand)… do you really think this is a point that matters to anyone who cares?
Since you’re demonstrably intelligent enough to operate a keyboard, you’re intelligent enough to know that Obama is full of it in regards to gay marriage. He’s for it, or at least he’s not going to fight against it. You know this, I know this, 99% of his supporters know this, Prop 8 protesters on both sides know this; and in a few years when he A.) openly comes out in favor of marriage rights or B.) vetos some symbolic anti-gay bill we all know it will be the single least surprising presidential turnaround since “Indeed I DID have sex with Mrs. Lewinsky.”
It’s politics. If you’ve never supported a candidate you thought was being dishonest about one issue or another to get elected… well, I’ll take you at your word but I WOULD like to ask how things ARE up there in Care-A-Lot?
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:18 am 14Miles,
You make a valid point our nation is technically a republic of laws and not a true democracy, we are a republic with a democratically elected government as laid out by the founding fathers and you are correct in this was an effort to avoid mob rule. However one of the laws our republic has passed is a law that allows things like proposition 8 as well as the petitioning for constitutional ammendments, these are the rare instances where our nation functions as a true democracy. As such I think allowing the courts to legislate against a democratic vote by the people as is framed out by our own laws to in fact be an over extension of the powers of the court.
Dirty Harryon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:20 am 15I love that MovieBob’s only rebuttal to all of this is to chastise us for taking Obama at his word.
Nothing sums up the intellectual corruption of liberalism better.
Stephanieon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:21 am 16Heh awesome DH! AWESOME!
Stephanieon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:24 am 17As such I think allowing the courts to legislate against a democratic vote by the people as is framed out by our own laws to in fact be an over extension of the powers of the court.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Which would be unlawful and judges who do that ought to face impeachment and in fact should. Checks and balances. The Legislature makes law, the President proposes law, the Courts make sure this is all done constitutionally. Courts do not make law. Period. Get it? WHat part of that Archer do you not understand? Or do you like Ologarchys? Maybe you want to be tucked in at night by Uncle Sugar and told bedtime stories? The immaturity of the arguements the leftists bring up is staggering. Its like did you ever leave your childhood? I guess not. Apparently growing up and doing for yourself, with your own two hands, using the opportunitys presented to you is something Archer and company are not able to do? Can’t quite grasp the concept? Hmmm
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:26 am 18Personally I’m impressed anyone is able to articulate Obama’s point of view on anything…unless you count “not present” as a point of view that is. Empty suit.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 9:28 am 19Brandon, fair enuf. I’m not a big fan of the prop process, as you can tell. But you’re right about the process and the law. I’d still suggest it was not something envisioned by the Founders. Madison in particular.
Dirty, I disagree. Again, the wedge of it all is about the way in which the issue is utilized (usually to amp up the party base). That has nothing to do with the issue itself. I mentioned Social Security. The Dems frequently use this as a wedge issue. That doesn’t mean they don’t come by their opinions on the subject honestly. And I agree with you re gay marriage opponents. There is nothing cynical about their motives, they are wholly sincere.
But to suggest that those on the other side are not? I don’t get it. I take my kid to the West Hollywood park almost every day. I know plenty of gay/married couples, many of whom have provided loving homes for kids who would not have one otherwise. Trust me. There is nothing cynical or insincere about feeling anger when society condemns the most important thing in your life — love and family — to a kind of moral ghetto. I’m not asking you to agree with the latter, btw. But it wouldn’t hurt to respect it, exactly as you ask for respect for the countering view.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 9:35 am 20Stephanie,
Not sure what an “ologarchy” is. “Argument” not “arguement.” The plural of “opportunity” is “opportunities.” “Its” is a possessive, “It’s” is used when you mean “It is.”
As for what I do, and how well I do it, with my two hands? I’m not sure how you’re reaching that conclusion based on my political opinions. It would be as if I assumed you were a drug-addicted welfare mother based on your inability to spell.
One doesn’t necessarily follow the other. In either case.
Dirty Harryon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:39 am 21Miles,
Other than a single paragraph on election day, I stayed out of this issue for exactly the reasons you write about in your third paragraph. Up until the vote my editorial decision was to stay mum on the issue because it is so divisive and I was very sympathetic to both sides and knew nothing could be accomplished here other than a fight.
It was even difficult to wade in after because it forced me to evict at least a half-dozen long time commenter’s/ customers because I won’t stand for even a hint of gay-bashing.
Anyway…
Today, I can only judge people on their behavior and everything since the vote — the witch hunts, blacklisting, protests, and targeting has not a damn thing to do with furthering the cause of same sex marriage and has everything to do with hate, prejudice, and religious bigotry.
I too know and have in my family gay and lesbian individuals I care for and respect, but the movement is not about them. It’s about attacking and destroying.
Your friends in West Hollywood and my friends can either stand up and say this is wrong or go ahead and start their own movement, but until they do I’m calling a bigoted, intolerant, and hypocritical movement just that.
MovieBobon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:42 am 22DH
“A wedge issue is cynically produced to divide. There is nothing cynical about the motives of those opposed to gay marriage. Agree or disagree they are sincere in their cause”
You’re falling into the classic idealist’s trap of assuming that everyone who may stand with you does so out of the same honest and (subjectively) noble intentions you do. Never forget Sturgeon’s Revelation: “98% of EVERYTHING is crap.” It includes Prop 8 supporters, as it includes all of humanity and all of creation.
YOU support this measure out of some allegiance to religious/societal tradition, I’ll take you at your word on that. But I refuse to accept that YOU are naive enough to honestly believe that everyone else on your “side” is there for the same ‘pure’ reasons. SOME of them are like you, certainly - but the rest? Give me a break. This is School Busing all over again: SOME of the folks angry had legitimate, well-thought-out concerns over societal standards, educational procedures, etc… but MOST of them just didn’t want black kids around their white kids. Deny it all you want, but at some level you know I’m right.
A TINY minority (somewhere around, oh.. 2%, mebbee?
) who voted for Prop 8 are like you - sincere and not truly (by self-acknowledgment, at least) bigoted. A rather larger minority of them are merely cynical power-players using this as a wedge issue to advance their larger political objectives - like Mitt Romney, who talked about tolerance for gays earlier in his political career here in MA but turned into a hardline traditionalist when the marriage vote became a big issue for him - the mandatory mirror-image, y’see, of the folks you note on the other side who really just want to use this as a hammer against traditionalists. But the VAST majority? The ones who made the numerical difference? Ignorant sheep, acting out of bigotry, seizing upon the chance to bully those different from them.
Minorities of vision, character and willpower dragging majorities of small-mindedness, sloth and uselessness across the yard-lines of evolution. It gets less depressing when you realize that this has ALWAYS been the story of mankind, and that on-balance it’s worked out pretty well so far
mjkon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:46 am 23test
blackhawk12151on 03 Dec 2008 at 9:50 am 24MovieBob must have some kind of superpower that allows him to perceive the motivations of every person in the world, even those he hasn’t met!
From Obama to the random Prop 8 supporter, MovieBob knows the deep, dark motivations behind all their actions.
Please MovieBob, enlighten us all more with your supreme understanding of the human condition and your super-human ability to sound like a pompous, arrogant ass while at the same time not making a single coherent point.
Dirty Harryon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:50 am 25MovieBob — I can only judge a cause by its actions — not the people supposed to benefit by the cause.
As of today this is a cause completely uninterested in furtheirng the cause of same sex marriage and we see that in their actions which are doing nothing to further the cause and everything to damage it.
By your flimsy arguing what I’ve decided to do is take up the cause of a billion Catholics for our right to pray in school. To further that cause I will start burning down schools.
By your reasoning because I’m backing a billion Catholics judging me and my cause would be also condemning them.
By your reasoning shooting abortion doctors…
Yeah, think about it.
I judge based on actions. How else can you judge them? Would those opposed to same sex marriage give a pass and ignore a Republican in favor of same sex marriage? No. Would they commit acts hurtful to the cause of stopping same sex marriage? No. Therefore they can be judged as sincere in their desire to stop same sex marriage, whereas the other side is most definitely not sincere in their desire to have it. Were they they would persuade persuadables like Obama, shame him, and work smart to gain sympathy and respect from persuadeables (and I was among them until the witch hunts began). Instead they are turning persuadables against them because all they’ve revealed themselves as wanting is to bash Christians and conservatives and divide and get their hate on.
Most, most insincere.
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:53 am 26MovieBob,
You are waaaaay over reaching with your assessment that this was more about hatred than belief. Harry is able to make that arguement about the left due to the violence of their response. To the best of my knowledge no assaults have been made on gay couples attempting to get married. Neither you, I, or anyone else knows what’s at the heart of these individuals so Harry is commenting on what is visible and that is the lynch mob mentality of the left in response to this.
Also comparing sexual preference to the Civil Rights movement is insulting to the whole Civil Rights movement on more levels than I can count. There is no comparison between the treatment of Jim Crow era blacks and modern day gays and you know that.
Stephanieon 03 Dec 2008 at 10:01 am 27Blackhawk LOL! Maybe Movie Bob actually thinks he is one of teh super heroes he reads about in the comics?
And as for Archer….stop writing novels. Be concise and the point. OK? Your boring the crap out of us Beta..
Carolynon 03 Dec 2008 at 10:08 am 28…But it wouldn’t hurt to respect it, exactly as you ask for respect for the countering view…
Ohhhh, yeah, Miles! Lovely self-righteous sniff there about OUR lack of respect. All the while you ignore the whopping great example of Leftist ‘respect’ for a ‘countering view’. You know, the one where they ‘respectfully’ assaulted an old woman, burned the Bible, defaced a church, screamed hate at congregations, stalked people on the Internet to find out if they contributed money to ANY cause the Left doesn’t like, boycotted them, fired them, etc. Yeah, that kind of ‘respect’ just glides right past your moral radar with nary a blip. Doesn’t bother you a bit, not a word of it.
But let us vote quietly, honorably, for a Proposition and boy your self-rightous little finger wags damned quick in our faces about our lack of ‘respect’. The bitter irony is that we DID respect. We respected our Christian values, our morality, our history, our tradition by voting for a Proposition which would uphold it. Did we assault an old lady? Nope. Did we burn a Bible? Nope. Did we scream abuse or boycott or stalk someone on the Net? Nope, nope, nope. Yet - sigh - you’re landing on us with both feet.
Another thing which annoys me about your, Miles. Your sniffy way of twisting words to mean something they don’t. You’re lying when you say you demand ‘respect’ for gays. That’s not what you want. You want condoning of a sexually deviant lifestyle, you want us to pronounce that sexual deviant lifestyle normal. Well, it isn’t - which is why we won’t. And when we won’t, you use your weapon against us. Hypocrisy. Yes, you swing your club of disrespect straight at our heads and when we complain that it hurts, you sneer that we should ‘respect’ the pain.
MovieBobon 03 Dec 2008 at 10:31 am 29DH
“MovieBob — I can only judge a cause by its actions — not the people supposed to benefit by the cause.”
So you’d have opposed abolition because of John Brown?
HARRY HERE: Was John Brown the leader of the abolitionist movement? Not any more than the those who kill abortion doctors are the leaders of the nati-abortion movement. What a stupid comment.
“As of today this is a cause completely uninterested in furtheirng the cause of same sex marriage and we see that in their actions which are doing nothing to further the cause and everything to damage it.”
Careful there. That’s dangerously close to the argument that America “invited” 9/11 by having an “aggressive” foriegn policy. I’m pretty sure you don’t think that, yes?
HARRY HERE: On what planet is that ‘dangerously close.’ Good grief, you actually managed to top the stupidity of your earlier statement.
“I judge based on actions. How else can you judge them?”
Goals, membership, equally valid.
“Would those opposed to same sex marriage give a pass and ignore a Republican in favor of same sex marriage? No.”
Yeah, like ANYONE needs proof that Republicans would frequently rather lose and stay “pure” than WIN
“Were they they would persuade persuadables like Obama, shame him, and work smart to gain sympathy and respect from persuadeables”
They DID persuade him: He was AGAINST Prop 8.
“(and I was among them until the witch hunts began).”
“Well yeah, I USED to hate communism but… y’know, that McCarthy is just soooo mean!”
“Well yeah, I USED to be down with Preserving the Union but, y’know… that General Sherman is just going waaaaay too far!”
Brandon
“You are waaaaay over reaching with your assessment that this was more about hatred than belief.”
When dealing with human beings, one will seldom if ever be incorrect or dissapointed by assessing in favor of the most loathsome possible basis for any behavior.
“To the best of my knowledge no assaults have been made on gay couples attempting to get married.”
With the exception of that whole LAW PASSED to STRIP THEM OF LEGAL RIGHTS, yeah, you’re right
“Also comparing sexual preference to the Civil Rights movement is insulting to the whole Civil Rights movement on more levels than I can count.”
“We’ll take the _______ and the _______… but we DON’T WANT THE IRISH!”
(I’m a little unclear as to what the posting guidlines would say about the actual quote here.)
Carolyn
“Did we assault an old lady? Nope. Did we burn a Bible? Nope. Did we scream abuse or boycott or stalk someone on the Net? Nope, nope, nope.”
No, you didn’t. All YOU did was use the mechanism of law and mob rule to bully a group of fellow citizens for the crime of being different from you; for the sole and sufficient reasons that they WERE different, and that you COULD.
You’re right, you’re hands are immaculate.
Floyd R. Turboon 03 Dec 2008 at 10:35 am 30Does the movie go into Milk’s close relationship with Jim Jones? If I recall he took a lot of money from Jones and his followers and praised Jones to high heaven. There were even thoughts — originally — that Jones put out a hit on Milk (until Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs Dan White was arrested and tried).
blackhawk12151on 03 Dec 2008 at 10:57 am 31“With the exception of that whole LAW PASSED to STRIP THEM OF LEGAL RIGHTS, yeah, you’re right”
You are absolutely right MovieBob, those evil Prop 8 supporters forced that law on California’s homosexual population without any respect for the democratic process. It would be totally different if the citizens of California actually voted on it…
Oh wait a minute…that’s exactly what happened
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 11:08 am 32“All YOU did was use the mechanism of law and mob rule to bully a group of fellow citizens for the crime of being different from you”
Funny how MovieBob equates non-elevation of alternative lifestyles with bullying and mob rule for merely “being different.”
Contrary to MovieBob’s implication, many of us who strongly oppose gay MARRIAGE are perfectly capable of loving and respecting and those of our family and friends who are “different” from us, i.e., gay. We can happily love their partners and hope the couple spends their lives together. We can joyfully attend private commitment ceremonies.
We can also recognize the value in keeping the institution of traditional marriage.
I thought liberals were supposed to be the nuanced ones?
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 11:12 am 33MovieBob,
How do you explain their refusal of Civil Unions which give all of the exact same rights as marriage? All they did was use a different word to appease the right. Any difference between the two is strictly semantics. If this was really about winning and not trying to imopse their moral beliefs on others that they would have gladly accepted that as a compromise. This coupled with the fact that they ignore the opposition of blacks, hispanics, and muslims leads me to agree with Harry on this not really being about gay marriage at all.
Also I feel great sympathy for you. Always assuming the worst in people must be a really sad way to exist.
blackhawk12151on 03 Dec 2008 at 11:23 am 34MovieBob can claim this is all about hate on the part of Prop 8 supporters but he has no response for the fact that the militant gay marriage advocates go after Mormons and other white people but they won’t go after Muslims and black churches.
In his fantasy world they are all noble oppressed people and the Prop 8 supporters are all myopic hate-fueled bigots.
I’m starting to think MovieBob’s world is a very scary place.
The truth is there is a big difference between tolerance and approval but that is lost on people like MovieBob.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 11:45 am 35Oh, Carolyn. If you need a Proposition to uphold your tradition and values? You reveal a lack of faith in both.
As for ‘deviant lifestyle’, that’s your opinion, and an unfortunate one.
Wowzer. Nothing like a bigot with a persecution complex to brighten up my day.
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 12:00 pm 36Miles –
de·vi·ant /?divi?nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-vee-uhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
Homosexuality doesn’t depart from the norm? Estimates are that homosexuals number 1-5% of the population. I’d say that “deviates” from the norm?
How about calling homosexuality an “alternative lifestyle” — does that wrankle you less? Or does that still make one a bigot?
Or, do we have to create another PC lie to satisfy the overly-sensititive that homosexuality is as “normal” to human beings as heterosexuality.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 12:12 pm 37Bob,
Fair enuf. Tho’ I’m not sure Carolyn is using the word in the way you are. And of course, ‘alternate lifestyle’ wrankles me less. Because it is both accurate and does not offer cheap condemnation at the same time.
As for ‘departing from the norm?’ That is an accurate descriptive for every minority group in the country — Mormons and conservatives among them. Would you suggest they are ‘deviant’ organizations?
I know that’s slippery wordplay. But no less so, in my opinion, than your own.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 12:34 pm 38As for ‘departing from the norm?’ That is an accurate descriptive for every minority group in the country — Mormons and conservatives among them.
Not specifically. Conservatives aren’t a minority to begin with, and neither conservatives nor Mormons are generally noted for their tendency to spread venereal diseases through compulsive indulgence in deviant sex acts with multiple anonymous partners.
MovieBobon 03 Dec 2008 at 12:38 pm 39Brandon
“How do you explain their refusal of Civil Unions which give all of the exact same rights as marriage?”
The same way I explain the refusal of the previous generations Civil Rights leaders to accept a seperate drinking fountain even though water was water.
“Any difference between the two is strictly semantics.”
Semantics can be a powerful thing, as in this case where the mere semantics are used to create a permanent barrier. Even while the same “on paper,” by the simple act of semantic-seperation the “Civil Unions” would always be reinforced as inferior-by-implication to “Marriage.”
“Also I feel great sympathy for you. Always assuming the worst in people must be a really sad way to exist.”
I tried assuming the best, but the greater sadness caused by near-constant dissapointment was rather crushing. At least this way I’m aware of the reality around AND capable of being genuinely and happily surprised when one of my fellow humans actually does something decent.
blackhawk
“MovieBob can claim this is all about hate on the part of Prop 8 supporters but he has no response for the fact that the militant gay marriage advocates go after Mormons and other white people but they won’t go after Muslims and black churches.”
You KNOW the answer: Strange bedfellows. There’s only two political power-blocks in this country, and gays have to “share” what passes for the Left with blacks, muslims etc. It’s a bad tactical decision to fight your own side AND the other. Also, Muslims and black aren’t numerically powerful enough to make a difference on this nationally - white Christians (of which Mormons would be a part) are. Ideological purity doesn’t win a war, strategy does.
“In his fantasy world they are all noble oppressed people and the Prop 8 supporters are all myopic hate-fueled bigots.”
98% is HARDLY “all”
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 12:44 pm 40Templar,
I was kinda joking. But duly noted. ‘Compulsive deviant sex with multiple partners.’ Which brings an obvious question to mind. Why oppose those gay men who in fact want to be married and leave that scary-for-you lifestyle behind? Isn’t that an indication of progress, and a desire to live within the ‘norm’?
Just asking.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 12:57 pm 41‘Compulsive deviant sex with multiple partners.’ Which brings an obvious question to mind. Why oppose those gay men who in fact want to be married and leave that scary-for-you lifestyle behind?
“Scary-for-you”? Oh, come on, is that really the best you’ve got?
Isn’t that an indication of progress, and a desire to live within the ‘norm’?
No, it’s not, because homosexuals don’t recognize “long-term relationship” and “monogamy” as being necessarily interrelated concepts. Promiscuity is the hallmark of homosexuality, whether the individual homosexual has an ackowledged “significant other” or not.
Chris E.on 03 Dec 2008 at 12:58 pm 42Miles, what’s to stop gay men from doing what you propose first — leaving behind that lifestyle –, then asking (as opposed to demanding) for the recognition of marriage?
To put this in slightly relevant historical perspective, Mormons didn’t demand that Utah be made a state, and then they’d give up polygamy.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:04 pm 43The same way I explain the refusal of the previous generations Civil Rights leaders to accept a seperate drinking fountain even though water was water.
Yes, by attempting to convince people of the laughable proposition that what skin-colour you’re born with and what sex you decide you want to sleep with are somehow equivelent.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:05 pm 44Templar,
I see your point, disagree with it, and can say with some confidence that you know next to nothing about homosexuality, and more importantly, the evolution of same.
I’m not sure how to make this clearer to you. (I’m guessing it would help to hear it from DH, and not from me.) But there are many gay men and women who believe long term relationships and monogamy are in fact one and the same. They do not view promiscuity as the hallmark of anything, except perhaps, the rabid fantasies of those who own the Director’s Cut of ‘Cruising.’
And seriously, your opinions seem founded in fear. Fear of something you don’t understand, fear of something you can’t change. Given that it has little or nothing to do with you (unless this is about latency; hmmm), I’m confused as to why it is so important to condemn something you clearly don’t understand.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:15 pm 45I see your point, disagree with it, and can say with some confidence that you know next to nothing about homosexuality, and more importantly, the evolution of same.
Likewise.
I’m not sure how to make this clearer to you. (I’m guessing it would help to hear it from DH, and not from me.)
It would not.
I’m not sure how to make this clearer to you. (I’m guessing it would help to hear it from DH, and not from me.) But there are many gay men and women who believe long term relationships and monogamy are in fact one and the same. They do not view promiscuity as the hallmark of anything, except perhaps, the rabid fantasies of those who own the Director’s Cut of ‘Cruising.’
Belief and practice are, sadly, two very different things.
And seriously, your opinions seem founded in fear. Fear of something you don’t understand, fear of something you can’t change.
Your opinions seem founded in ignorance. Ignorance of something you cannot see for what it is, and would prefer not to.
Given that it has little or nothing to do with you (unless this is about latency; hmmm), I’m confused as to why it is so important to condemn something you clearly don’t understand.
I’m confused as to why it is so important for you to defend something you clearly do not understand. There’s also this accusation of my necessarily being a latent homosexual, as why else could I possibly have any objection to such a debilitating psychological disorder? But that’s more amusing than anything else.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:19 pm 46Chris E,
But that’s my point. The people I know did that a long time ago. They’re raising kids, worrying about schools, trying to figure out a way to get thru the economic nightmare intact. (The Hollywood job market is a nightmare.) And in many cases, they’re already married (it’s unclear if Prop 8’s passage can take that status away from them). It’s not like they’re trying to fool anybody. They’re in love, they got married, they adopted kids. They don’t need to leave anything behind.
Templar,
Yikes. I hesitate to even get near this, but you are born with both your skin color and your sexual orientation. Nobody chooses to be gay because the music is better. It’s simply who they are.
blackhawk12151on 03 Dec 2008 at 1:23 pm 47MovieBob
“Ideological purity doesn’t win a war, strategy does.”
That’s some strategy. Ignoring the persuadable and attacking their ideological opposites. Somehow I don’t think that will work.
The truth is they are out there to make a spectacle of themselves. They are engaging in an unrestrained hatred of traditional social values. The left hate traditional social values and they will use any group to tear down institutions that have been part of this societies traditions.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of these groups do not know that they are being manipulated.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:28 pm 48Yikes.
Again, likewise.
I hesitate to even get near this, but you are born with both your skin color and your sexual orientation. Nobody chooses to be gay because the music is better. It’s simply who they are.
And I hesistate to even waste energy responding to this, but no one is born homosexual. Entering into the lifestyle is as much a conscious decision as voting Democrat. It’s simply what they choose to do.
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 1:29 pm 49MovieBob,
The white’s only drinking fountain comparison to homosexual marriage is an enormous reach. The drinking fountain was a symptom of a significantly larger problem; not being able to enter certain buildings, difficulty finding employment, the list goes on and on. Gay people have no such difficulty that is why this comparison does not work.
Leaders in the gay community profess that this is only about wanting the same benefits as straight couples (hospital visitation, insurance, etc) this is their demands not mine. They were offered this and refused. You seem entirely too intelligent, and given your admittedly pessimistic thoughts on the human condition, you have to see there are other motives here. They want to stick it to Christians this is why they choose to ignore everyone else who disagreed. In their defense I do not blame them for feeling this way since the Christian community has done little to endear themselves by calling them abominations and telling them they were going to hell.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:32 pm 50Templar,
Really? Entering into ‘the lifestyle’ is just like picking a political party? That’s it. That’s your actual belief.
This is like discussing civil rights with Bull Connor. We’re both wasting our time.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:34 pm 51They want to stick it to Christians this is why they choose to ignore everyone else who disagreed. In their defense I do not blame them for feeling this way since the Christian community has done little to endear themselves by calling them abominations and telling them they were going to hell.
It’s not the mission of the “Christian community” to endear itself to anyone. Just to speak the truth as it has been given to them.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 1:36 pm 52Really? Entering into ‘the lifestyle’ is just like picking a political party? That’s it. That’s your actual belief.
What part of “conscious choice” do you pretend not to understand?
This is like discussing civil rights with Bull Connor.
Thank you, Miles, for yet another pointless ad hominem in lieu of an actual response.
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 1:53 pm 53Miles –
I think what Templar is trying to communicate is that there’s a difference between orientation and acting upon it. Maybe orientation is genetic, maybe not, or some combination of environmental or genetic.
But, whatever one’s orientation, one makes a “conscious choice” to engage in the behavior. Heterosexuals can be celibate and so can homosexuals.
I’m not certain Christianity, Judaism, etc. decries orientation, rather, they decry the PRACTICE of homosexuality.
This is why the analogy of gay marriage to miscegenation does not work. Behavior versus genetics. Blacks were not allowed into an established institution (male-female traditional marriage) because of their genetics - they did not want to change the institution itself.
Homosexuals want to CHANGE the institution. There’s nothing preventing them from marrying a person of the opposite sex — a situation which existed for minority races. Homosexuals want to marry a person of the same sex — changing the institution. Behavior versus genetics — crucial difference.
Brandonon 03 Dec 2008 at 1:58 pm 54Well said Bob.
Orientation and rather it’s genetic or choice is a whole different can of worms but is one that needs to be considered when weighing this issue as a whole.
Templaron 03 Dec 2008 at 2:14 pm 55Yes, very succinctly put, Bob.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 2:51 pm 56Bob,
Well said. And of course I disagree.
First and foremost, marriage is an evolving institution. When first introduced, it had little or nothing to do with love or happiness. From historian Hendrik Hartog:
The “before” to this fundamental right is a world in which marriage is about continuing property relations and about sexual reproduction. Or, to join the two, the “before” is a world in which men possessed property rights in children understood as necessary labor power and as valuable resources. Marriage was how the legal system marked children as owned — possessed legally or legitimately — just as all legal systems develop mechanisms for marking valuable property as possessed. And for the wealthy, who were the main consumers of marital law until the nineteenth century, it was also a way to define lineage and to negotiate alliances between families. Happiness (and love) had nothing to do with it.
This of course changed over time. But that did not leave the institution without inequality. Again, from Hartog:
The second line of continuity is closely related: again, a two century struggle to remake marriage as a contractual relationship between legal equals. But the focus here is less on the individual, more on the dyadic relationship between husband and wife. Much of this story is contained within a history of coverture, a history of the notion that in marriage a wife’s legal identity was covered over by her husband’s. In my book I argued that it is a mistake to see coverture as the legal marching orders of patriarchy. I thought coverture was better understood as a set of legal regulations — limitations and controls — on male power within marriage. But all that said (and fine historians disagree with my interpretation of coverture): the inequality that was marriage was fundamental, whether or not coverture was the creator of that inequality or the law’s way of moderating the effects of inequality. And everyone knew, in 1820 in 1880 and still in 1950, that husband and wife meant a dyadic relationship between two unequally situated individuals.
This then, led to further changes and evolution:
Real change in the law only came in the post World War II world, and in particular, in the 1970s and 1980s. The reasons for and the markers of that change are the conventional markers of late twentieth century history: women entering the paid labor market in much larger numbers, easily available contraception and the separation of sexuality from marriage, the power of an analogy drawn between the harms of racial subordination and those that came to be identified with sex discrimination, a woman’s liberation movement successful at identifying marriage with oppression, an increasingly hegemonic legislative culture of equality and equalization that assumed it was “wrong” to give preferences to mothers in child custody law or to assume that husbands earned more than wives. With some small exceptions, marriage has been reordered as something like a partnership between imagined contractual equals. Today the default rules of marriage may produce more egalitarian effects than would a pure and free regime of contract. There are continuing substantive inequalities that lie behind the fantasy of formal equality. Real lives may or may not have changed in consequence. But marriage as an institution no longer publicly defines a relationship founded on sexual inequality.
Which brings us, and Hartog, to gay marriage:
Why might this matter for gay marriage? Why not regard this story as a curious sideshow — call it the odd habits and practices of heterosexuals? I defer to Estelle on this, but I think there has been an important and historic change in queer understandings of marriage over the past fifteen years that connects to the undoing of legalized hierarchy within marriage. Fifteen years ago there was a significant literature of critiques of marriage and rejections of argument for gay marriage, from within the gay and particularly within the lesbian communities. Those critiques were shaped by statements of the form: Why would we want to buy into this historically unequal, oppressive institution designed for the subordination of women? I may be wrong, but it is my impression that such critiques have disappeared in the last few years. There are many possible explanations for that disappearance, but I suspect that one reason for the disappearance of the critique is the change in the meaning of marriage, as the egalitarian changes of the past generation have become normative and predictable parts of the legal landscape.
Hartog’s essay is worth a read. Thoughtful, fair-minded, and I think, a pretty good brief for the place of gay marriage within the larger institution.
Read it all, here.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 3:19 pm 57More briefly (you’re welcome!), much has been made on this site about the fact that activists are giving Obama and other Dems a pass on the issue while unfairly targeting the Mormon Church. (By ‘much’ I mean a post per day. Which is ‘much.’)
Setting aside the fact that I believe Obama and others deserve to be criticized, there is one salient difference. President Obama and the other Dems believe that gay couples should enjoy civil unions that have the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage.
The LDS church doesn’t.
David A.on 03 Dec 2008 at 3:19 pm 58I’m so very tired of the whole SSM politics.
But, I can’t avoid it either.
In any event, with regard to California’s Prop 8, from what I understand, there is no difference whatsoever between marriage and a civil union, as it pertains to the benefits conferred.
Some gays might say that the term marriage matters because it implies a second-class status. But, in general, it is a second-class union. It is not one that is generally going to produce children, for example.
Yet, as I wrote, the civil union has the same benefits as marriage.
An honest assessment by gays would allow for their declaring the real and apparent differences between heterosexual marriage and proposed SSM. It would allow for the historical reality of nearly the entire human race being regenerated via heterosexual copulation. It would allow for declaring that marriage has traditionally been the way that a family has been created.
There just isn’t that with SSM.
If California is willing to give all of the benefits of marriage to gays with civil unions, which allows for a differentiation between the two institutions, as it regards the history and expectations of the two, then, I think, gays should accept this compromise.
Gays should accept that heterosexual marriages are different than same-sex unions.
This, I think, is what so many object to with regard to SSM: traditionalists will allow that things ought to be changed to accommodate gays, but SSM advocates cannot seem to accept that there is any legitimate difference regarding heterosexual and homosexual relationships–not even to the extent that heterosexual relationships can produce children while homosexual ones cannot and that this difference has profound consequences.
To SSM proponents, there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and SSM.
Of course, this is nonsense.
I am sure that SSM will eventually pass in California, but it will largely be done on the basis of a disingenuous reasoning: tha there is no real differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 3:27 pm 59David A.,
The idea is not that there are no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but that when it comes to the institution of marriage and what it represents, there is no difference in the quality of their love.
Couple points:
Regenerating the entire human race via heterosexual copulation — you make it sound so romantic — has been around a whole lot longer than the institution of marriage. Longer, I’m guessing, than you think.
If procreation is the hallmark of marriage, does that make infertile couples gay?
Gay couples are well aware that they are not able to ‘produce children.’ That’s why they adopt.
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 3:36 pm 60Miles –
Right back at ya. Wish there were more people on both sides willing to engage in a substantive discussion and not hurl epithets at one another. Marriage is worth it.
Gay marriage is more than changing marriage’s “meaning.” Changing marriage’s “meaning” is a purely insular process, WITHIN the insitution as established –i.e., changing attitudes ABOUT marriage and the roles individuals play WITHIN marriage.
Gay marriage is a fundamental change in what the institution of marriage ACTUALLY IS. Moving from man-woman traditional marriage to permitting same sex marriage is a change to marriage’s very definition — not merely an individual’s or society’s view of what marriage ‘means’.
The fact that some women were viewed as chattel within marriage and now are viewed as equals is a change in “meaning,” not a change in institution - one that most of us can all agree is a welcome change.
Gay marriage is a DEFINITIONAL change, much like making marriage no longer between 2 persons of opposite sexes (hence, the frequent comparison to polygamy) who have certain rights and responsibilities (monogomy, etc.).
Can we agree on this point?
“First and foremost, marriage is an evolving institution. When first introduced, it had little or nothing to do with love or happiness.”
Yes, but again — it’s ‘evolution’ within vs. change from without. You imply that because it’s more about love and happiness, thus the institution should be open to same sex couples.
However, I’d argue that the move to “love and happiness” has swung too far towards a narcissism born of the ’60s– today, people view marriage has having ONLY (or MOSTLY) to do with love or happiness. Mine and my partners’. And, this leaves out the most important reason for marriage — child-rearing and the continuation of society/civilization. This opens a whole other can of worms (child-rearing and same sex vs. opposite sex couples), one which I’d be glad to discuss.
But, for now, let me just say that it’s this view that marriage has mostly to do with love or happiness which is responsible for the breakdown of marriage — high divorce rates when one spouse is no longer “happy,” etc. Gone is any notion that marriage is a crucial social institution and not merely a personal one. That we have a responsibility in and through our marriages to preserve society, civilize our children, control our baser impulses, etc. In that respect it is also an insistution which actually BENEFITS women — making men out of boys, and demanding that in exchange for sex, a man has responsibilities. We owe SOCIETY to stay married and work it out — the society that has given us so much and into which we were lucky enough to merely be born. Rights do come with responsibilities.
Thanks for Hartog’s analysis — pretty deep. But, it misses the fact that marriage for Catholics is a sacrament, for Jews, it is a holy institution — perhaps the holiest. Ordained by God. This adds a crucial element which transcends his social analysis. As mentioned above, it brings the human animal closer to God (or away from his/her animal self), by demanding people (read: men) curb their natural desires for the sake of preserving civilization, society, protecting children and those who bear them, etc. Again, this begs another question, but just wanted to respond to your post before we go off on another juicy topic.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 3:50 pm 61Thanks, Bob.
I agree with you in that yes, gay marriage is a substantial change to the institution itself, not just the way it is perceived in our society. Tho’ to be honest, I’ve never bothered to define marriage in terms of heterosexuality — because that was assumed, of course — but rather as a commitment made between two people who wish to share their lives and create a larger family. The latter is not just semantics to me, it’s how I view the institution. Gay or straight makes no difference to me. The fact that I am not particularly religious certainly plays into that. (And while I respect the members of any religion to abide by their belief system, I don’t believe marriage and its meaning should be dictated to society as a whole by any of them. Catholicism and Judaism included. Also Scientologists.)
By the way, I don’t disagree with you about the ‘love and happiness’ problem. And certainly view marriage as a crucial social institution. That’s why I applaud those gay men and women who wish to be a part of it. It is, interestingly enough, an essentially conservative act on their part. You’d think they’d get a little credit for that.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 4:14 pm 62Bob!
One more quick point, and yes, it’s moderately tricky. I apologize in advance.
Property ownership is a pretty important institution. Private property ownership even moreso (found an interesting piece from the Hoover Institute that suggests changing from communal to private property rights basically saved…the Pilgrims). It is certainly one of the ways we define our society.
You know where I’m going with this.
Not so long ago, our nation defined property in such a way as to include men, women, and children of a different skin color. There was nothing new in that. After all, the institution of slavery was far older than marriage, among others. And while it may seem incomprehensible to us that property could be defined that way, it was. But over time, a change was made, a definitional change, to the way in which we view the institution. Which was a good thing.
I’m not attempting to make a direct connection between slavery and gay marriage/Prop 8. That is, IMO, somewhat hysterical. But, but…the scope of the definitional change in one does not seem all that greater (or lesser) than what is being suggested in the other. Sometimes change is simply too big for us to fully comprehend and accept. That doesn’t mean it is wrong or inappropriate.
I genuinely believe that in 50 years time, no one will even think to question the validity of gay marriage. I sympathize with those who would rather not wait.
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 4:24 pm 63Miles –
Credit, applaud, conservative act, yes. And that’s why it’s such a difficult issue, especially for us with gay friends and family. Compassion vs. standards.
Ultimately, it’s a calculus:
Those of us against gay marriage believe there would be serious consequences to gay marriage: the further erosion of marriage as an institution (and of society); the increase in ‘experimentation’ that would come with a societal sanction (the equalizing of gay and heterosexual marriages); etc. I can elaborate on these, but it’s getting late.
Whereas, if gay couples want to commit to one another, there’s a whole lot they can do financially, legally, to cement their relationship (and yes, they will not get all of the rights of marriage in the absence of a civil unions law).
“And while I respect the members of any religion to abide by their belief system, I don’t believe marriage and its meaning should be dictated to society as a whole by any of them.”
You may not believe that religious values should guide societal institutions, but they do nonetheless. “All men are created equal” is a RELIGIOUS value, not a secular one. The Constitution is the product of an Anglo-Protestant worldview, not a Catholic one, not a Muslim one, not a Hindu nor a Buddhist one nor a Scientologist one. Religious values shape society — change society’s religious underpinnings (and the religious underpinnings of institutions which are key to society) and you have a VERY different society.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 4:33 pm 64Bob,
Agree re the religious underpinnings. And while ‘all men are created equal’ may be a Religious value, it took secular institutions to make that a reality in this country. (And let’s be frank, the Founders’ attitudes toward religion were hardly monolithic.)
Our primary area of disagreement is in your third graf. I simply do not believe that the institution of marriage will erode due to an expansion of its definition. But I would genuinely, and sure, at some other time, it’s late, hear some concrete examples from you as to how this would occur. (And let’s face it, heterosexuals haven’t done a great job with the institution as of late. I’m not sure gay marriage is going to make it any worse than it already is.)
An ‘increase in experimentation’? I find that curious, and again, need some concrete examples. How does a gay couple’s union lead to greater experimentation in other marriages? (Gay marriage is a move toward monogamy by definition, so I’m unsure what kind of experimentation you’re talking about. Straight couples start singing show tunes?
)
I guess that’s my biggest problem with opposition to gay marriage. If it’s purely based on religion — the Bible made me do it! — okay, I get that, and even respect it. (Though as mentioned, I don’t think that gives one the right to force their religions beliefs on me and mine.) But if it’s not based on scripture, then what is it based on? What is the specific harm that gay marriage brings to both the institution and society at large?
Without examples, the ‘calculus’ doesn’t add up. So to speak.
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 4:34 pm 65Miles –
A reply to your reply (you make such good points I can’t help myself).
Humankind has ALWAYS struggled with the institution of slavery and of the notion that people can be property, even when the institution was widespread. The Hebrew Bible of more than 3,000 years ago contains the Exodus, and the first requirements to treat your slaves humanely (i.e., they were something more than mere ‘property’ even then).
Indeed, it was religious people (the Mennonites, I believe; and the abolitionists) who fought their co-religionists on slavery. The Founders struggled mightily with slavery and the notion that people, because of their color, could be regarded as nothing more than property.
However, NO SOCIETY in the history of humankind ever seriously even entertained the notion of gay marriage. Indeed, American society didn’t until, what, 10 years ago? And, we expect to implement such a drastic change in one or two generations?
You may be right that we’ll get gay marriage. But, I think religious people will be lamenting that fact for much longer than 50 years.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 4:46 pm 66Bob!
I’ll stop, I promise. But I found this in Wiki — yeah, I know, Wiki — and it seems relevant.
The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.
Cripes. Prop 8 in the year 342!! On the plus side, I guess they couldn’t blame the Mormons.
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 4:51 pm 67But, the secular institutions which made it a reality were based on religious values. No Anglo-Protestantism, no Parliament, no Congress, no “representative Democracy.”
“But if it’s not based on scripture, then what is it based on? What is the specific harm that gay marriage brings to both the institution and society at large?”
Crucial question, my friend.
“Without examples, the ‘calculus’ doesn’t add up. So to speak.”
Agreed. Short answer is that you and I may have different opinions on human nature. I believe that human nature is amoral (note: not immoral) and is shaped by external forces, influences, taboos, mores (societal, familial, religious, etc.). I believe that male sexuality is mercenary and self-justifying and without proper external forces will be ruthless and omnivorous (and not monogomous in a million years). I believe that gay marriage crosses a very clear line — or rather, blurs a very crucial one: the essential/key differences between men and women. It says, it’s not important to children to have a mother or a father, as long as you have two people. It says, men and women are the same, so why (if your a man) struggle to understand and bond with a woman with all her complexities, moods, etc. Historically, the majority of men have done so and gotten married because they wanted sex and couldn’t get any without marriage. Promiscuity among women has weakened marriage and so will gay marriage.
So, Miles’ 2nd grader, are you going to marry a boy or a girl? That question is not innocuous. It’s devastating. You might think that there’s something innate in our children which can process that kind of question. I don’t think so. And, I think a question like that is emblematic of an attitude which will change America. You might welcome or doubt the possibility of that change. Not I.
Stephanieon 03 Dec 2008 at 5:07 pm 68You used words too big for Archer to comprehend. Archer I suggest a dictionary.
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 5:13 pm 69Bob,
Okay. I think our major area of disagreement is now about orientation, and, more specifically, if one is born gay or chooses it as a groovy lifestyle that guarantees lots of sex and disposable income. I simply do not believe the latter. And given that, find it hard to believe that the existence of gay marriage would impact male behavior any more than the existence of homosexuality already does. In other words, in the alternate universe you imagine, the amoral man who decides to pass on traditional marriage to a woman so that he can hang out with the boys and watch football, so to speak, the institution of marriage is hardly required for that act to occur. But more importantly, as I believe you are born with your sexual orientation, the idea that someone would simply change teams, so to speak, for reasons of convenience is sorta nuts.
Furthermore, speaking as someone well aware of and in thrall to the differences between men and women, I similarly do not believe that gay marriage will in any way impact the fairly long history of men and women getting together, marrying, and procreating. It just doesn’t make sense to me. And again, it would seem that the opposite of gay marriage — gay promiscuity, club life, etc. — would be more likely to convince straight men and women to experiment with less ‘moral’ lifestyles. Again, I do not believe embracing a tradition undermines it.
As for promiscuity, gay marriage will lessen it within that community. Again, I don’t see how it would have the opposite effect with hetereosexuals. Frankly, much of this seems to be based on a lack of faith in the institution generally, as if it cannot withstand the challenge gay marriage represents. I disagree.
Your last graf is a far more difficult subject, and I don’t have an answer. It is not an innocuous question, tho’ I don’t believe it is devastating either. My four year-old, Tess, has already declared that she intends to marry her schoolmate Milan, and that Sammy will be her boyfriend. This is not to suggest I’m teaching my daughter about open marriage, but rather that she is combining terms and institutions as part of her play. She is also, innately, processing questions about both. What I don’t know, and I’m sure there are or will be studies that look at this, is how the son or daughter of same-sex parents answers that question when they are my daughter’s age. I’ve simply never thought about it before. But it’s worth considering. (That’s not to say, however, that I believe the son or daughter of same-sex parents is being ‘taught’ to be gay. I find that absurd.)
Stephanieon 03 Dec 2008 at 5:13 pm 70Can I say this: Gay marriage and all of this stuff is a paltry pile of garbage in comparison to the 195 people slaughtered by Islamic Fascists in Mumbai and yet how much Bandwidth does Archer and the rest have to use up in defense of it? Hows about some priorities? Maybe?
This issue means nada to 90 or more percent of the people living in this country. More important issues are fighting Jihadists, defense funding, energy policy, education policy, taxes and the economy and yet here is Archer and the uber wedge issue. Sighhhhhhhh
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 5:17 pm 71Stephanie,
I understand the fact that two people with opposing views are having a civilized conversation shakes the foundations of your world view. This does not, however, require your presence or interruption. Thanks in advance.
Stephanieon 03 Dec 2008 at 5:45 pm 72Sigh……..background noise. Thats all it is Archer. Truly.
Bobon 03 Dec 2008 at 5:46 pm 73Stephanie –
I love your pizzazz, but I think the issue is quite important. Essentially, Miles and I may agree that great civilizations die from within and not from without. I think gay marriage is a betrayal of American principles which will hasten America’s death in the long run (at the risk of being melodramatic), Miles thinks it won’t and is granting a deprived minority what they are entitled to under the Constitution, and as full members of a democratic society.
Islamic terrorism is my #1 issue, believe it or not, gay marriage is not too far behind.
Miles -
Orientation may be genetic or environmental or a combination (or so deeply ingrained environmentally, that it might as well be genetic). I’m not talking about orientation. I’m talking about actions. You don’t have to be homosexual to have homosexual sex — millions of women ‘experiment’ in college even though they’re not homosexual. With the advent of gay marriage and a greater acceptance (and elevation) of homosexuality, I believe men will do the same. I believe sexual confusion and promiscuity will increase exponentially.
Heterosexual men have sex with other men in prison, in armies, etc. where women aren’t available. Men have had sex with whatever their society permitted — dead bodies, children, multiple partners, holes in the ground, animals, etc. Sure, men will still hook up with women to have kids, sex, etc. But, as I said, men are mercenary when it comes to sex. If there’s no societal stigma to homosexual behavior (or an elevation of homosexuality), men’ll be married, but they’ll know they can go have sex with any guy because guys don’t care about free sex, frequent sex, anonymous sex, etc. In fact, we love it. Men’ll just keep it from their wives if their wives have a problem; or, like men did in the sexual revolution, men’ll psych out our wives to believe if they disapprove it’s THEIR problem and they shouldn’t be so uptight (after all, I’m not connecting with other WOMEN).
See, I believe it’s the “ewwww” factor and men’s fear of loss of societal esteem that are crucial elements to men COMMITTED and monogomous to their women. And, men being taught that WOMEN AREN’T MEN and, consequentially, you must cherish, and remain faithful to them, for they are the bearers and primary raisers of society’s next generation. I don’t believe orientation keeps men from having sex with other men. Societal, peer, familial disapproval does — and, I believe that disapproval, internalized from childhood, is what shapes the goodness of our hearts to not cheat. Men are born to cheat on women and have multiple partners and to orgasm as much as possible. Outside forces teaches marriage and commitment.
50 years ago, if you had sex out of marriage, you were a cad, a playboy, and no self-respecting dad would let you near his daughter with that reputation. That’s gone and now we have men delaying marriage because they can get sex from women easier, ‘open’ marriages, greater infidelity, divorce, etc. Whatever you permit/sanction/celebrate, you get more of.
Chris E.on 03 Dec 2008 at 5:53 pm 74The scientific basis behind homosexuality is tenuous at best. But it leads to disingenuous argument. One side assumes it as fact, the other either does not, actively argues against it, or is at least agnostic about it.
So my question, miles, is if it could be scientifically proven to an nth that homosexuality isn’t a person’s natural state, would you then be against gay marriage?
Stephanieon 03 Dec 2008 at 5:57 pm 75Actually in the real scheme of things its not that important. Tell you what when we decide to get rid of the Jihadis and remember the importance of fighting this war and the economy then maybe we can revisit this issue. However and I am saying this after talking to people who are moderates and have too much to worry about its not a big deal and frankly it distracts all of us from the realitys of the world. Just saying.
Kiton 03 Dec 2008 at 6:14 pm 76What NEEDS to happen, and Gay Patriot has done some good blogs on this, is for sensible Gay Rights activists to push for smarter Gay Rights protests.
When I see a Gay Rights protestor puling a cross out of an old lady’s hand and calling her a “nazi” all I can think is:
“Does this guy WANT a Federal Marriage Amendment*?”
*The Bush Kind.
Buck Turgidsonon 03 Dec 2008 at 6:54 pm 77Miles sez: “Why oppose those gay men who in fact want to be married and leave that scary-for-you lifestyle behind? Isn’t that an indication of progress, and a desire to live within the ‘norm’?”
So I ask: Why do gays require marriage in order to leave a lifestyle of promiscuity behind?
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 7:20 pm 78In order of appearance!
Stephanie, I understand you think this issue is not worth your or our time. And yes there are far more important issues out there. But, uhm, this is actually the Milk movie thread. So it doesn’t seem all that inappropriate in here. And DH has been posting about it, or about some of the hypocrisies he sees in it, for several days. If you have a problem, take it up with him.
Bob, I just plain disagree. You seem to be embracing the After Five Margaritas, Everyone Is Gay notion, and that runs counter to thinking and experience. Maybe I just have a higher opinion of men. But I don’t believe they will look for gay sex as an alternative to their marital bed, as if everyone is really and truly bi-sexual at heart. Again, doesn’t make sense. Yes, you’re right about prison, etc. But I find it hard to believe that gay marriage — something that affirms the opposite of promiscuity — will somehow lead to this. And given that homosexuality has been accepted by and large in almost every major urban area in the country, it shouldn’t be too hard to find out if droves of suburban men have sought relief there when their wives got on their nerves. Again, I certainly am no aware of any anecdotal evidence to support this. In truth, it sounds nutty to me.
Chris E., you’re right, there is still some debate about a genetic component in homosexuality. But if it was proven that this was simply a life-style choice and nothing else? I honestly don’t know what my answer would be. I’m guessing I’d still feel pretty much the same.
Buck, that’s just sloppy writing in search of a joke on my part. This is not a zero sum situation regarding promiscuity and marriage (it ain’t either/or). My point, as made above, is that it’s always struck me as weird that conservatives would oppose gay men and women who are basically embracing a conservative part of our society, the sanctity of marriage.
Jake Was Hereon 03 Dec 2008 at 7:41 pm 79it’s always struck me as weird that conservatives would oppose gay men and women who are basically embracing a conservative part of our society, the sanctity of marriage.
Forgive the “sloppy writing in search of a joke” on my part, but: It’s always struck me as weird that gay men and women who want to embrace the sanctity of marriage aren’t doing anything else to fight against their quite-possibly-unfair reputation for promiscuity.
This is going to sound bigoted, but I don’t intend it that way — if you’re offended, I’m sorry… When I look at the bizarre goings-on at parades and fairs that purport to celebrate gay “pride,” I can’t help but cast a skeptical eye on their claimed desire for monogamy. No one who wants to get married, be they gay or straight, behaves like this.
Once it’s made absolutely clear to me that this kind of behavior is shunned by the gay community at large, I’ll be not only willing but eager to grant them marriage rights.
(URGENT ADVICE: DO NOT ACTUALLY CLICK ON THAT LINK.)
miles archeron 03 Dec 2008 at 8:40 pm 80Jake,
Judging the entire gay community by what happens at parades is like judging football fans by what happens in the stands at Oakland Raider home games. It’s an easy judgement based on bad information. (And it helps if that is your sole exposure to gay men and women. Which, I’m guessing, it is.)
Buck Turgidsonon 03 Dec 2008 at 9:16 pm 81miles,
Be honest. Isn’t one of the main motivations of gays who claim they want to be married, simply the desire to be regarded by everyone else (and themselves) as normal?
David A.on 04 Dec 2008 at 4:27 am 82To Miles Archer:
“The idea is not that there are no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but that when it comes to the institution of marriage and what it represents, there is no difference in the quality of their love.”
I never said anything about the quality of love. I’m sure that Ellen DeGeneres loves Portia Di Rossi, but the quality of love is beside the point.
I am talking in generalities and in general, the institution of marriage serves a different function then would SSM. It isn’t about the quality of love. It’s about what the differences are between heterosexual marriage and SSM.
You just gloss over those differences with your comment.
“Regenerating the entire human race via heterosexual copulation — you make it sound so romantic — has been around a whole lot longer than the institution of marriage. Longer, I’m guessing, than you think.”
I don’t care about making it romantic and I know that sex predates marriage. Caveman had sex and that is why we are here.
But, I mention that there is a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals and that is the possibility of regeneration of the species.
The marriage laws were created to codify the responsibilities between men and women in marriage because of this biological truth.
There’ s always talk about the benefits of marriage amongst SSM advocates, but rarely any about the responsibilities and the costs of marriage.
By and large, because of the biological difference, homosexuals have been exempted from this. It is heterosexuals who re-create the human race and it is they that bear the costs of it all.
This is why there are “benefits” to marriage: to offset the costs.
“If procreation is the hallmark of marriage, does that make infertile couples gay?”
Uh, no.
“Gay couples are well aware that they are not able to ‘produce children.’ That’s why they adopt.”
I was going to write that SSM advocates always bring up the exceptions to heterosexual and homosexual relationships to diminish the former and elevate the latter.
There are going to be infertile heterosexuals, heterosexuals that will simply not have children, and homosexuals that will adopt.
All are in the minority.
It is the generalities that matter.
The general expectation of heterosexuals is greater than homosexuals. Though it has lessened, in general, society EXPECTS heterosexuals to get married and have children when they do.
They don’t expect that of homosexuals.
I wrote that civil unions in California provide all of the benefits of marriage, but that gays still want SSM.
This is because they cannot accept that there are differences between the relationships.
It is quite selfish because it becomes only about the individual. As you note it’s all about the “quality of the love.”
Fine, have the greatest “quality of love.”
No one is stopping you.
But, there are greater things than just the “quality of love.”
Marriage, despite the exceptions, has been more than that.
SSM partisans will point to every exception with regard to marriage but in doing so, they just diminish the very differences that you say actually exist between SSM and regular marriage.
David A.on 04 Dec 2008 at 4:58 am 83Miles wrote something about SSM having a goal, in part, that would reinforce monogamy in the gay community. I find this to be a very minor goal and it is one that isn’t going to happen, if it happens, any time soon.
There are just too many differences between homosexuals and heterosexual relationships for this to occur.
There has been hundreds, if not thousands, of years of reinforcement of monogamous standards for marriage, whereas there hasn’t been one for homosexuals.
So, this goal of SSM is probably not going to happen.
I just want to mention that where gay marriage exists (or where even civil unions exist), there are very few gays that enter into the union.
That is because they generally do not want to be married. While they may like the idea of taking marriage down a peg and of having the possibilities of the benefits of marriage, it still remains that marriage is, derisively, for “breeders.” Marriage is bourgeois, square, whatever.
Canada has had SSM for years. In 2007, Toronto had exactly one Canadian SSM.
One.
Apparently, only one gay Canadian couple in 2007 Toronto (population: 3 million) has the “quality of love” on par with heterosexuals.
In short, there is no evidence that instituting SSM will create some cultural force that will push gays to get married.
I am sure that SSM will pass eventually, but let’s not delude ourselves with the argument that if gay marriage passes, there will be some sort of massive change in the gay community.
There won’t be.
The only affect will be in how society will be forced to treat gay marriage and gays, in general.
It will just be a greater enforcement of political correctness.
No one will be able to get away with saying that there are differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. No one will be able to say that there are positives to heterosexual unions that are not present in homosexual unions.
No one will be able to get away with saying the truth.
SSM proponents usually know this.
They know gays aren’t going to just act like straights.
Sharon Fergusonon 04 Dec 2008 at 7:51 am 84No, you didn’t. All YOU did was use the mechanism of law and mob rule to bully a group of fellow citizens for the crime of being different from you; for the sole and sufficient reasons that they WERE different, and that you COULD.
Gawd, MovieBob - thats exactly what the feminazis say we Christians and conservatives say about us wanting to save babies - I take it you agree with using the law to kill innocents because “they WERE different and [they] COULD”?
Bobon 04 Dec 2008 at 8:50 am 85Miles –
“After Five Margeritas, everyone is gay.”
“I don’t believe they will look for gay sex as an alternative to their marital bed, as if everyone is really and truly bi-sexual at heart.”
Not what I’m saying. Let me try to state it a different way.
Human beings’ natural orientation is heterosexuality; biologically, it’s what keeps the human race going. Men are not naturally ‘bi-sexual.’ Men will always pursue sex with women.
But, what I believe you’re missing is the “orientation” vs. “acts” dichotomy. You don’t need to be homosexual to engage in homosexual acts. What I believe you’re underestimating is man’s capacity to rationalize what feels GOOD. To permit it, to excuse bad behavior in the pursuit of it.
Have a society with no-fault divorce, divorce goes up. Have a society which permits multiple partners, you get more sex by more people. Have a society which permits adult-child sex, and you get more adult-child sex (Greece, Rome, certain Indian tribes).
Men will rationalize anything which “feels good” if they can get away with it. The best thing that ever happened to men was the sexual revolution, i.e. women saying “treat me like a man”. Um, ok. No phone call the next day? No commitment? One night stands aplenty? Um, ok. Friends with benefits? Perfect. Oral sex isn’t sex? More oral sex, please.
Have a society that elevates and celebrates homosexuality and homosexual behavior. What do you honestly think will happen? Nothing, except a lot of relieved homosexuals? C’mon. You don’t think there will be a “societal trend” towards greater experimentation sexually, towards pushing the boundaries even further, to the ‘next thing’?
I believe history is on my side vis-a-vis male sexual behavior and male behavior in general. Horrible atrocities are committed in wartime, or where there’s a general breakdown of social order because . . . human nature justifies ANYTHING it wants to justify . . . and ultimately what it wants to justify is its own satiation (absent social/familial influences and a God who values mastery of the human animal/punishes choosing out baser instincts).
Permitting gay marriage and elevating such relationships to the level of traditional marriage would not be a general breakdown of social order . . . or wartime . . . it’s just a wholesale destruction of the societal stigma against homosexual behavior. If gay marriage is allowed, what will follow is a PC excoriation of anyone who wishes to teach their children that homosexual behavior is wrong (I bet you winced at that last line), for the same reason that polygamy is wrong.
In the end, I believe you and I simply disagree about human nature. A-ok. We’ll hash it out and one side will win the day. But, I want to make certain I’m clear in getting my point across.
moviebobon 04 Dec 2008 at 10:17 am 86Bob
“But, what I believe you’re missing is the “orientation” vs. “acts” dichotomy. You don’t need to be homosexual to engage in homosexual acts. What I believe you’re underestimating is man’s capacity to rationalize what feels GOOD. To permit it, to excuse bad behavior in the pursuit of it.”
If I may, I find a historical fallacy in your argument here (which, unless I’m misreading, is that normalizing of homosexuality will lead to some societal collapse because large majorities of men will choose to be gay because it’s ‘easier.’)
What you’re missing, in my estimation, is that MEN - these “sexually mercenary” creatures you describe - have been with rare exception monolithically in charge of the direction of civilization pretty much as long as there has BEEN civilization. Men wrote the laws, staffed the armies, built the churches, invented the various gods, wrote down the moral laws, etc. Whatever they wanted to be, could be.
Thusly, at any time that large majorities of men had WANTED to normalize homosexuality, partner up with one another for easier sexual release and relegate those pesky, “civilizing” women to breeding stock, they could have. That they haven’t suggests that a majority-heterosexual minority-homosexual male population is something of a biological default for our species, and moreover that the “eeewww” factor on either side is the result of built-in biology informing society, not the other way around.
In other words, there’s nothing in history to suggest that society holding homosexuality and heterosexuality as essentially equal will do anything to dramatically increase or decrease the natural occurance of one or the other. You’ll get fewer gay people pretending to be straight there whole lives, and a lot more people “trying it on for size,” but at the end of the day you either like something or you don’t.
Bobon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:19 am 87MovieBob –
Dynamite point and a great challenge.
I’m going to chew on that one for awhile. Clearly, men of those societies viewed homosexuality as an aberration, most often punishable by death. Few exceptions. For thousands of years. In certain circumstances — e.g., Alexander’s army, bedouin travellers — at best, a blind eye was turned to homosexuality (and plunder/rape was encouraged, too), given the weeks, months without female contact.
Why then was homosexuality and homosexual acts such a dire threat to these men, over the ages. Did they believe that the normalization of such behavior would have destructive consequences — would they agree with me or with you? Was it simple fear of the other?
You’re positing something very interesting — that whatever it is in men which created the historical, and undeniable, excoriation of homosexuals, that ‘instinct’ (once civilized) will maintain monogomous heterosexual marriage even when gay marriage is legal. Hmmm. Experience has tought me not to trust Man’s “instinct” — it is amoral in the absence of deep and persistant moral teachings and social pressures.
“Men wrote the laws, staffed the armies, built the churches, invented the various gods, wrote down the moral laws, etc. Whatever they wanted to be, could be.”
Two distinctions:
First, there’s some cognitive dissonance for me here and it centers around your use of the term “Men”. I must think about this some more, but it seems a crucial distinction must be made between men as an institution over the ages, i.e., the big “M” men you’re talking about, versus any given man, or group of men in a particular generation. Not sure what this means, but I’m thinking . . .
Also, you and I disagree about men writing (i.e., coming up with) the laws and “inventing gods.” I believe in God and that God is the source of morality. But, that’s fine. I’m willing to fight on your turf. “God said so” isn’t good enough for me as an adult - could be my Jewish heritage (Israel, after all, means “struggle with God”). But, at the end of the day, this may be the key thing that creates our differing perspectives.
Thanks for the food to chew on.
Bobon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:23 am 88MovieBob –
And one more thing — the “trying it on for size” on a social scale worries me. And, I’d say, at the end of the day you either like something, you don’t, or it’ll do in a pinch. It’s a less satisfying option, but still an option nonetheless. Sort of like those 100 calorie Oreos packets versus the original. It doesn’t have to be perfect, or even better, for it to become routine.
Stephanieon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:31 am 89So I ask: Why do gays require marriage in order to leave a lifestyle of promiscuity behind?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Buck you said a mouthful. And to answer Archer….I ask the question and made the statement to put MILK and company in context of the more importance issues of the day. Lets see that issue is a 10 and that one means NADA. Just sayin…Milk irrelevant and so is Gay Marriage. OK?
Bobon 04 Dec 2008 at 11:49 am 90Stephanie –
Saying it’s so doesn’t mean it’s so.
Not at the top, but gay marriage is hardly “irrelevant” to voters.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/312372/most_important_voting_issues_for_2008.html
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=339
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage
MovieBobon 04 Dec 2008 at 1:42 pm 91Bob
“Why then was homosexuality and homosexual acts such a dire threat to these men, over the ages. Did they believe that the normalization of such behavior would have destructive consequences — would they agree with me or with you? Was it simple fear of the other?”
Innability to read minds much less fully understand the social mores of ancient cultures aside, my best postulation would be that it was a psychological manifestation of a long-term practical policy. If you look at (what is known of, I stress) the sexual laws of many ancient cultures, you’ll find them informed by a certain rudimentary understanding of “natural” genetic engineering over a long-term scale - hence similar long-held laws about incest, etc. (If you break it down, for example, the various post-Exodus pre-Israel laws of the Old Testament covering everything from when to each which food to the degrees of seperation permitting incest may be odd and even barbaric by modern standards, but it’s a PERFECT system by which to maintain a strong, close-knit population in a nomadic desert environment.)
“Experience has tought me not to trust Man’s “instinct” — it is amoral in the absence of deep and persistant moral teachings and social pressures.”
Amoral yes, but anti-practical not necessarily. At the end of the day, for all our spiritual and psychological justifications, we’re animals in the evolutionary system just like all the quadrapeds, insects and bacteria “below” us. And our instincts are all largely governed by a hard-wired biological imperative to survive and continue the species. Quirks exist - homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species besides our own, and thats just counting the ones with set-in-stone genders to begin with, for example - but it would make little sense for nature (or nature’s God, if you like) to allow for the entire population to reject the practice by which new generations are created. (Y’know what I’d like to see? A mathematical/historical study to see if the human homosexual population expands during periods of human overpopulation. Wouldn’t that be something?)
“Also, you and I disagree about men writing (i.e., coming up with) the laws and “inventing gods.” I believe in God and that God is the source of morality. But, that’s fine. I’m willing to fight on your turf.”
No need, and I appologize for the implied though unintended disrespect to your beliefs (I am, for the record, Catholic - on paper, anyway.) May I offer as a linguistic compromise that, even if one disagrees that all or any gods were invented by man, it’s at least largely true that men were generally the ones communicating with the gods and passing their laws down? (Moses spoke to God one-on-one and brought The Law to his people afterwards.) If so, the effect is largely the same - particularly since the God in question is generally presented as a masculine figure.
“And one more thing — the “trying it on for size” on a social scale worries me.”
Good cure-all for that: Date a ‘bisexual’ woman. You’d be amazed how much easier “where to go”/”what to do” becomes when you can BOTH enjoy, say, “Hooters” beyond the overrated wings…
“And, I’d say, at the end of the day you either like something, you don’t, or it’ll do in a pinch. It’s a less satisfying option, but still an option nonetheless. Sort of like those 100 calorie Oreos packets versus the original. It doesn’t have to be perfect, or even better, for it to become routine.”
Not to get too vulgar about it, but… well, we’re talking about something rather more substantial in terms of experience than the taste of a cookie. Carlos Mencia (HUGELY overrated comic, yes, but y’know what they say about broken clocks) has a saying that I think sums the point up nicely and with surprising cleanliness: “If you think you might be gay, YOU’RE GAY.”
Bobon 04 Dec 2008 at 2:31 pm 92Alas, the dating a bi-sexual woman is out — married, kids. But, I’ll jealously take your word for it.
“Amoral yes, but anti-practical not necessarily.” Yes, but anti-practical for whom? Ultimately, an animal does not act for the species, the animal acts for its own interests (whether singly, or in a group) and we hope that perpetuates the species. Add in the capacity to reason and rationalize that is unique to humans and you can literally justify anything at any time to anyone. If it’s all relative, anti-practical to me is another man’s freedom fighter, if you catch my drift.
“But it would make little sense for nature (or nature’s God, if you like) to allow for the entire population to reject the practice by which new generations are created.”
Not reject — heterosexual sex is not going away. Let me ask you a series of questions. Do you think society is too promiscuous and/or sexually objectifying? Do you think that’s a good or a bad thing? Do you think that the effect of gay marriage will have any effect on promiscuousness and/or objectification (i.e., will men tend to engage in homosexual acts, regardless of orientation, more, less or the same; will men view women any differently)?
“Quirks exist.” Yeah, but isn’t it destructive to claim quirks = non-quirks necessary for maintenance of the species. Especially when your dealing with a human’s ability to rationalize.
You believe normalizing the quirks will create no ill effects which offset any gain of such normalizing. I don’t.
“We’re talking about something rather more substantial in terms of experience than the taste of a cookie.” Sadly, I think the difference in eroding considerably. I mean, it’s just sex, right?
MovieBobon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:48 pm 93Bob
“Yes, but anti-practical for whom? Ultimately, an animal does not act for the species, the animal acts for its own interests (whether singly, or in a group) and we hope that perpetuates the species.”
An animal does not CONSCIOUSLY act for the species. But the instincts that are hard-wired into them at the deep-down mechanical/biological level compell them to nontheless. This is why Socialism and all other forms of “greater good” societal group-improvement are ultimately doomed to fail: It’s trying to impose a human sense of organization into an arena where the FAR superior (at organization) engines of nature and biology already have things well in hand.
Evolutionary biology is a wonderful thing… it’s LIKE a god, but with consistency.
“Let me ask you a series of questions.”
Works for me.
“Do you think society is too promiscuous and/or sexually objectifying?”
Two different things. Too objectifying? In some respects, yes. I do not regard, for example, the “ironic” marketing of faux-slutty clothing to pre-teen girls as a good thing. In fact, it bothers me quite a bit. But overall? I don’t think we’re anywhere NEAR as “bad” as we think we are, and I don’t think it’s a huge issue. “Too” promiscuous in this context implies that one assume that promiscuity is in and of itself an inherently negative thing. I do not.
“Do you think that’s a good or a bad thing?”
See above.
“Do you think that the effect of gay marriage will have any effect on promiscuousness and/or objectification (i.e., will men tend to engage in homosexual acts, regardless of orientation, more, less or the same; will men view women any differently)?”
I calculate that the effects of THIS sexual revolution will be about the same as the effects of the LAST one, positive and negative. On the “negative” (at least in theory) side you will likely see a decrease in the all-powerfulness of the “traditional family” and similar institutions, a shift in “decency standards,” increase single-hood for longer durations, etc. On the “positive” side you will see many people previously held back from achieving their true potential for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness now able to do so. You will see people previously facing unhappy, dishonest lives now able to live happy, honest ones. Self-denial may be a virtue, but denial-of-self is a slow and agonizing poison.
And THIS, in the end, is where you and I will likely arrive at an impasse. As intellectually honest individuals, we can (I think) agree that each of the two available paths here comes with it’s own set of theoretical benefits and losses. You’re view, it would seem to me (and please correct me if I misread you) would hold that the broad societal institutions of traditional marriage, the nuclear family etc. are important enough that maintaining them is worth the inconveniencing, marginalizing and even the suffering (to whatever extent) of a minority of individual homosexuals. I further understand, and respect, that you apparently hold religious views in regard to homosexuality that may also inform your opinion in these regards.
I hold the directly opposite view: That The Individual is more vital and important than The Institutions… that we are pack animals, NOT herd animals, and as such the only way our species ever truly succeeds and thrives is when we hold that no “greater good” is worth preserving that deprives The Individual of his life, libert and pursuit of happiness.
And thats probably the foundational question of just about every issue like this: “Is a certain increased level of societal chaos an acceptable trade for a certain increased level of individual freedom?” I say yes, you (I believe based on the evidence presented) say no.
MovieBobon 04 Dec 2008 at 9:49 pm 94Incidentally, I would have it understood that my slightly-cheeky definition of evolutionary biology is not intended as a sleight against any specific religious belief - you’ll note that “god” appears with a lowercase “g.”
Buck Turgidsonon 05 Dec 2008 at 5:17 am 95MovieBob, your protests notwithstanding, everything you do and say is a slight against religious belief, both specific and general.
As for dating a bisexual woman, or any woman for that matter — dream on, unless she looks like the centerfold from the 2009 Chunky Chicks calendar.
Bobon 05 Dec 2008 at 9:09 am 96MovieBob –
Well put. And I think you’ve expressed where we disagree quite clearly.
“That The Individual is more vital and important than The Institutions… that we are pack animals, NOT herd animals, and as such the only way our species ever truly succeeds and thrives is when we hold that no “greater good” is worth preserving that deprives The Individual of his life, libert and pursuit of happiness.”
I think the institutions are WAY more important than the individual. We’re not talking of top-down socialist institutions. We’re talking about evolved, refined institutions carved out of human experience over a myriad of generations.
“And thats probably the foundational question of just about every issue like this: “Is a certain increased level of societal chaos an acceptable trade for a certain increased level of individual freedom?” I say yes, you (I believe based on the evidence presented) say no.”
I agree as to this (and many other) issues. Certainly not as a categorical statement. I am Burkean in this respect. Happened upon this post, which doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage, but which sums it up nicely:
http://volokh.com/posts/1210017448.shtml
moviebobon 05 Dec 2008 at 10:08 am 97Buck
“MovieBob, your protests notwithstanding, everything you do and say is a slight against religious belief, both specific and general.
As for dating a bisexual woman, or any woman for that matter — dream on, unless she looks like the centerfold from the 2009 Chunky Chicks calendar.”
Y’see, THIS is why I don’t bother being nice so much of the time…