UPDATE: I’ve decided to start including my contact information in posts that I make. I can be reached at apkkib@aol.com. Anyone who has any comments or queries that they’d like to direct toward me one-on-one can feel free to contact me there.
We’ve seen a few bullets fly back and forth here over the past few days over the seemingly benign issue of gay marriage, with comments ranging from the breathtakingly paranoid to unfalsifiable psychological accusations. Being the pragmatist that I am, though, I’m going to cast aside my more unsavory thoughts about those who oppose gay marriage and speak as a gay Republican, appealing to my party on its own terms to support it. This is a piece meant to persuade, and only conservative arguments will be offered here. You’ll not see any libertarian arguments about individual rights or liberal arguments about diversity and acceptance, here. This is why a conservative Republican should be supporting gay marriage.
Intrigued? Let’s begin:
I. Assumptions in Making This Argument
A few assumptions need to be mentioned at the outset. There are a lot of arguments that could be had separately concerning homosexuality, law, etc., that are not relevant to my particular argument, and some positions are virtually impossible to convert a person from. So I imagine that if you are to agree with my position, you will need to accept a few things. So here is where I start from:
(1) Homosexuality is not a choice. It’s time to put aside any ridiculous notions that homosexuality is a choice, that someone can be “converted” to homosexuality, or that adopted children of homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual. Really, it’s as ridiculous as claiming that the children of heterosexuals are more likely to end up heterosexual. I imagine that the children of homosexuals would be more likely to admit that they are homosexual, but how is that a negative?
(2) The 14th Amendment does not dictate gay marriage, and it is not the court’s job to ‘protect the weak.’ It’s silly to claim that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause implies a right to gay marriage. Whether one is speaking from a textualist or originalist perspective, it makes no sense: the former, because marriage law is not predicated on sexual orientation: legally, marriage is between a man and a woman, not a straight man and a straight woman. A gay man and a lesbian can marry and it will be legally valid. So any textualist argument in favor of gay marriage is fallacious. From an originalist perspective, it’s more obvious: the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment, regardless of how dubious some may claim it to be, certainly was not to include gay marriage in the meaning of the equal protection clause.
Some on this site have argued that the court is the last refuge for the weak and oppressed in society: if the courts won’t protect them from a tyrannical majority, who will? But that is simply not the role of the judiciary. We have a certain framework of law that’s set up, and it’s there for a reason. If a judge can take a wrecking ball to it at his arbitrary whims, our society degenerates into nothing more than robed oligarchy. So let’s discard any utopian notion of human infallibility in determining what’s right and what’s not.
The judiciary will therefore have no relevance in my argument (until the end, but for different reasons).
(3) It is inappropriate to mix religion and politics, which is not the same thing as mixing morality and politics. It’s time to stop making theocratic arguments against gay marriage: “Homosexuality is a sin; therefore, I cannot in good conscience do anything but vote against gay marriage,” “Christians can stop opposing gay marriage when pages can be properly torn from the Bible.” Well, this all may be true from a conservative Christian (conservative within the religion, not in political matters) perspective, but we are an officially secular nation. It is certainly proper to inject morality into politics, but any moral arguments against gay marriage should be independent from scripture. If one feels as if they cannot truly separate their convictions, then they, properly, should abstain from voting on the matter. Feel free to personally oppose gay marriage, but it is absolutely wrong to impose a particular brand of religion on the other types of believers and non-believers in this nation. This is all strongly in the conservative tradition as epitomized by thinkers such as Senator Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative himself.
(4) Government-sponsored marriage is not going away. The truly conservative solution to this is to get the government out of marriage and just have civil unions for all, keeping marriage a private, religious matter. This would be a fantastic solution if it were actually in the realm of possibility. So let’s keep it focused on what’s actually going to happen, rather than utopian solutions. It’s an absolutely liberal idea to judge things from a utopian standard and refuse to engage in pragmatic, real-world solutions. It’s the essence of conservatism, in fact, to speak of what works, rather than what we’d like to work. (And while we’re on the subject, let me note that if we’d never mixed religion and politics in the first place, government-sanctioned marriage wouldn’t exist. Just sayin’…)
II. Strengthening and Honoring the Family
Once we have accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, there are only a limited number of options available to gays: (A) Pretend to be heterosexual and enter into a sham marriage in which a person can’t possibly give their all, and, moreover, will feel miserable, (B) Be openly gay but be resigned to a life of celibacy, living a life in which one’s sexuality is unfulfilled and love will never be found, (C) Enter into the gay subculture, where a morally relative, anything-goes mentality is embraced, or (D) Live a mainstream life with a monogamous, loving partner, where one’s sexuality is merely incidental to one’s life, often starting a family via adoption.
Why would conservatives not want to promote the final option?
Conservatives should be welcoming gays into mainstream society and encouraging them to build families based upon the traditional model. Indeed, most gays admire the traditional family model — most of them grew up with one — and would like to have a life like that for themselves. By telling gays that their relationships are less legitimate or less beneficial to society than heterosexual relationships, it only creates a very justified feeling of being unwanted by society. The less rational end up mired in the subculture, which creates the sexual lunacy demonstrated in the highly-visible protests and parades. Conservatives can encourage the death of that subculture by inviting all gays to the mainstream of society.
Is it any wonder that gay teenagers have higher rates of depression, suicide, drug abuse, and skipping school for fear of bullying than their straight counterparts? It’s not due to some apocryphal “lifestyle.” As open as our society has become to gays, we still are in a stage where they have to fear that their parents and peers will reject them for something that’s beyond their control, where they have to fear that they cannot live the same sort of life as others their age. The teenage years are usually when one’s adult identity begins to form, and I see little good in imprinting in their minds that the best that they can hope for is to stay eternally celibate, as some on this site would encourage them to do. A society that honors the family should be encouraging the next generation of gay youth — and, indeed, today’s gay adults — to find loving, same-sex relationships, to adopt children if that’s what life leads them to, and to assimilate into mainstream society. Right now, society is slamming the door shut to the institution that epitomizes that. Is it any wonder that gay teenagers often feel that they need to flee into a subculture? Who wants to be rejected by society?
III. Creating a More Cohesive Society
Ideas have consequences, after all. Once we accept that homosexuality is not a choice and that conservatives should be encouraging gays to model their lives in the same way that the rest of society does — one that honors stability, tradition, country, community — then it makes little sense to deny them full access to the institutions that their heterosexual counterparts do. It is not “redefining” marriage to acknowledge something long overdue: that homosexuality is a natural, unchosen sexual orientation and that society can only be helped by allowing gays to express their sexual and romantic tendencies in a productive, meaningful, healthy manner. Like straight couples, some will choose to have children, some will not, but all will create richer lives for their own community and their own partnerships.
Altering the legal definition of marriage in this manner will not create a slippery slope to polygamy. Polygamy is a lifestyle choice, not an orientation. Allowing polygamy would be a radical overhaul of the definition of marriage. Acknowledging that homosexuality is normal and encouraging gays to live productive romantic, sexual, and family lives is not radical, but conservative.
Allowing gays equal marriage rights will help create a society in which sexual orientation is merely incidental, which is what most gays do want. The left-wing subculture’s complaints will look petty and foolish if the mainstream is perceived as accepting and willing to assimilate gays into it. Supporting gay marriage undermines liberal multiculturalism, factionalism, and counterculture. Hey, why rebel when you’ve got an invite to a seat at the table?
IV. Helping Children Prosper
Regardless of whether one believes that it’s better for children to have a mother and a father, feminine and masculine influences, it is certainly incontestable to assert, using the same logic, that a stable, two-father/two-mother household (or a single-parent household, for that matter) is preferable to an endless series of foster homes, is it not? Pro-family conservatives should be encouraging adoption by gay couples, leading to more happy families, rather than children living in foster homes. And indeed, in most states, adoption by gay couples is legal. And since gay couples all over are raising children, why are we denying them the same benefits that married heterosexual couples have when raising a child? Whatever the merits of the various tax credits and handouts, they are being denied to some families — and therefore some children — simply because they so happen to have a same-sex couple heading it. This is not just harming gay couples, but harming children.
Aside from this, these children are being told that their families are less legitimate, less worthy of being a part of mainstream society, and therefore inferior to traditional families. And why wouldn’t they get that feeling? Their parents have to fill out all government forms as ‘single,’ even if they’ve been together for twenty years. They do not on any level receive the same legal treatment as heterosexual couples. Whether inferiority is the intended message or not, it’s more than understandable that an adopted child of a gay couple would feel that way. It only breeds resentment toward mainstream society, tradition, and therefore toward conservatism, which is perceived by them as being what’s in the way of fully letting their families into mainstream society.
V. Fighting Judicial Activism
Judicial activism is a perhaps-incurable cancer upon our society. Gay marriage is going to be shoved through the judiciary whether society likes it or not. So let me pose a question: should we allow liberal Democrat activists to seize the moment, championing gay marriage’s dawn as a triumph over conservatism, the Republican Party, injustice, inequality, homophobia, and bigotry, writing that into the history books? Or should we seize the issue ourselves, define it on our own terms, and grant gay marriage via initiative and/or the legislature, championing it as a victory for families, children, and traditional society and a triumph over liberal factionalism, judicial activism, and identity politics?
Furthermore, the public would be far less tolerant of any judicial activism in favor of grievance-mongers. If gays are not perceived as a victim group — and they won’t be if they are given full access to the mainstream of society — then there will be no patience for any anti-religious, anti-freedom-of-association rulings in the court system. And I do believe that activist judges would be less inclined to support the self-styled victims. Gays themselves would drop it if their victory came through acceptance by the rest of the populace, rather than through judges who took pity on them.
And this is all to say nothing of the fact that gays would become more open to the Republican Party.
We as conservatives can empower gays rather than allowing liberals to cast them as merely another grievance lobby. And at the same time, we can strengthen the family, help children, help unite society, and fight judicial activism. Why would a conservative want anything else?
November 26th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I don’ t feel a desire to comment on your larger points.
A few statements you make seem illogical to me.
“Homosexuality is not a choice.”
That’s irrelevant. For one thing homosexuality obviously is a choice for many (a high fraction of lesbians). Besides that we’re talking about behavior not predisposition. No one is calling for homosexuals to be barred from marriage. We’re only talking about same-sex marriage not being recognized by government as is the norm for the last few thousand years.
“Conservatives should be encouraging adoption by gay couples”
Given that domestic abuse is much more prevalent in same-sex couples, I think that’s not in the child’s best interest. A disproportionate number of the recent same-sex marriages have ended with one partner killing the other.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:37 am
That’s irrelevant. For one thing homosexuality obviously is a choice for many (a high fraction of lesbians). Besides that we’re talking about behavior not predisposition. No one is calling for homosexuals to be barred from marriage. We’re only talking about same-sex marriage not being recognized by government as is the norm for the last few thousand years.
I think you missed Assumption #3: no theological argument, since we don’t live in a theocracy. Who cares about the behavior, from a non-conservative-Christian standpoint?
Given that domestic abuse is much more prevalent in same-sex couples, I think that’s not in the child’s best interest. A disproportionate number of the recent same-sex marriages have ended with one partner killing the other.
Where did you get these statistics from? This strikes me as rather dubious. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s a very major claim.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:38 am
I do not get it, how is this the conservative case?
November 26th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Given that domestic abuse is much more prevalent in same-sex couples, I think that’s not in the child’s best interest. A disproportionate number of the recent same-sex marriages have ended with one partner killing the other.
How many marriages even end in one partner killing the other? What if there was a .002% chance instead of a .001% chance or something? What a negligible argument.
The fact that that’s your best argument is almost conceding my point to me.
Also, more on No one is calling for homosexuals to be barred from marriage. We’re only talking about same-sex marriage not being recognized by government as is the norm for the last few thousand years.
I don’t think you even read my article. I think you looked for a couple of points to reply to, ignored the rest, and started commenting.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I do not get it, how is this the conservative case?
Because it’s from an anti-counterculture, anti-factionalism, anti-multiculturalism, pro-family, pro-tradition, pro-children, pro-Constitution perspective.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Alex,
I sincerely appreciate your desire to reconcile positions that are not naturally conclusive from Conservative principles in an effort to maximize the appeal of those principles (efforts I’ll always entertain). I also have been frustrated by the extent to which Conservatives, outside of think tanks and academic journals, seem to be very careless in articulating the reasoning behind opposing same sex marriage, gay adoption and other issues; the consequence of which is that the argument has become a caricature of itself, seeming illogical, totally based in religion, and motivated, at least in a small sense, by homophobia.
Regarding your argument, I’ll try and go step by step to address some of my concerns. A general question regarding your assumptions: are you trying to assert that these assumptions are true? Or are you simply saying that a Conservative needs to assume these conditions in order for your argument to be considered? If it is the latter then I do not believe it is necessarily true. A Conservative, like me, can have no problem allowing homosexuals to lead the lifestyle they wish while at the same time, keeping same-sex marriage, and same-sex adoption, illegal, without concluding whether homosexuality is or is not a choice. I can also respect the right of states to agree through the democratic process that same sex marriage should be legal without concluding whether homosexuality is a choice or not. But since I suspect you probably take the former position regarding your assumptions (that they are, in fact, true), I will have the rest of my argument based under that assumption.
First, regarding you assumptions. The notion that homosexuality is a choice is not “silly”. It is, just like the notion that homosexuality is not a choice, a possibility given that empirical evidence has yet to settle the question. Given the level of inconclusiveness, I don’t think this is something that can be so easily assumed.
Also, while I respect your wariness (and at some level, agree with it) with regards to the mixing of religion and politics, I think assuming that it is inherently inappropriate to mix religion and politics is simply unfounded. While you maybe able to easily divorce morality from religion, many would argue that morality as we know it would not exist without conventional religion. After all, the core of our national creed, inalienable rights, is not rooted in social utility as it was, in say, the French revolution whereby rights come from the state and not something supreme. Rather, the inalienable rights America acknowledges recognize the existence of a Creator, the endowment of inalienable rights from the Creator, and the need for the citizenry to ensure the government respects them. It is logical, then, for an individual to incorporate their religion to a degree in evaluating whether or not their government respects their rights given their understandings of the Creator. Such thinking has allowed for the abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the pro-life movement, the right of parents to trump the state in the educating of their own children, and has, in many cases, limited state power and influence. What America attempts to secure is not a secularism that is hostile to religion, but rather a secularism in order to accommodate various religions. This strategy allows for America to shun de jure religious tests while allowing for the freedom of belief to be absolute. To ask Americans to assume away a fact of American political life that has existed since well before its Founding is, at the very least, not something one can assume.
With regard to “Strengthening and Honoring the Family,” I think many Conservatives (myself included) have little problem with homosexuals “living a mainstream life with a monogamous, loving partner, where one’s sexuality is merely incidental to one’s life.” That is, in fact, a very Conservative position to take; it allows for liberty, and sees the individual as being defined by far more than one characteristic of their being. Accordingly, Conservatives should be more willing and open to make sure that bereavement leave in employment is not conditioned upon a spousal arrangement, and the same should be true regarding things like hospital visitation rights. Where one would part ways with Conservatism would be on the issue of adoption.
So often, the lack of empirical conclusions on this issue allows for this argument to become downgraded into hyperbolae’s over nature; where Conservatives end up stereotyping sex roles, and Liberals end up treating nature as a mere inconvenience. What I will attempt to briefly illustrate however, are the Constitutional consequences of allowing for gay adoption. Should gay adoption become legalized (and same sex marriage correspondingly so), we would see the beginning of a wholesale revision of the intent underlying the First Amendment, making the Free Exercise clause regulated by politically correct standards rather than by legal or historical precedent. Religiously-affiliated orphanages would be placed in the impossible position of having to risk the denial of public tax breaks, private funding, and perhaps even outright arrest if it decided not to compromise its religious beliefs regarding what it interprets as the correct definition of a “couple” or “union” upon the legalization of same-sex adoption and same-sex marriage. Without question, such a change in the law would call into question a whole slew of precedent regarding free exercise case law, most notably the long-standing holding of the U.S. Supreme Court that the freedom to believe, particularly in the carrying out of a ministerial function (such as running an orphanage), is absolute. Further, it would be an intrusion of state power over the discretion of religious institutions that has been a cornerstone of American civil society that pre-exists the Republic and serves as the impetus for why many Europeans first came to America. To allow for this wholesale, politically correct revision of constitutional law that will increase state power, and diminish free exercise is something not to be done on a whim, especially when so much empirical evidence about same-sex adoption is lacking.
Finally, regarding judicial activism, I would have to disagree with some of your characterizations. While issues regarding same-sex marriage maybe brought through the judicial process in an attempt to subvert the democratic process, it is hardly being “shoved down our throats” on a massive scale. In fact, at the writing of this article, only two states in the whole country (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow for same-sex marriage. Further, the notion of this time being the “dawn” of gay marriage seems to also be a bit overblown. Thirty states have had ballot referendums defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and all thirty have succeeded, in some cases garnering support from some of the largest growing demographics in America. Finally, judicial activism, I believe, is a self-defeating proposition as many Americans, who may not necessarily agree with keeping same-sex marriage illegal, may be inclined to vote for such propositions out of a belief that their rights are being usurped. The position you seem to take here, that not passing same sex marriage at the ballot box will lead to same sex marriage being imposed by the courts and, since we’re going to get it anyway, we might as well vote for it now, does not yet have much fact behind it. And further, it is rooted in judging laws and rights solely on the basis of utility without any discussion of a principled question about what “should” be the law, a very democratic and very Conservative question.
I again sincerely appreciate this attempt Alex. And I hope my comments offer you the ability to strengthen your argument.
All the best,
Will
November 26th, 2008 at 8:50 am
…pretty much everything you’ve said, possibly excepting the children section, could likewise theoretically be applied to people having sex with goats…should we, as conservatives, welcome that as well…after all, if we proceed from the viewpoint that sexual liaisons are purely matters of bodily chemistry, why should a human-beast couple be excluded…
November 26th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Alex, I won’t have a chance to read deeply into your post until later tonight (or tomorrow). However, I want to say I appreciate the formatting of the argument. Too often it’s been “you’re a homophobe if you don’t agree” without any thought to a cohesive argument beyond a blatant pitch to emotions over reason. My glance through appears to be an actual intellectual discussion on the topic.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am
A Conservative, like me, can have no problem allowing homosexuals to lead the lifestyle they wish while at the same time, keeping same-sex marriage, and same-sex adoption, illegal, without concluding whether homosexuality is or is not a choice.
Can we drop this “lifestyle” jargon? There is no “gay lifestyle” anymore than there’s a “straight lifestyle.” Stop defining gays by their sexuality.
First, regarding you assumptions. The notion that homosexuality is a choice is not “silly”. It is, just like the notion that homosexuality is not a choice, a possibility given that empirical evidence has yet to settle the question. Given the level of inconclusiveness, I don’t think this is something that can be so easily assumed.
Well, then you’re calling me a liar and casting doubts upon my character, which I don’t much care for. It is not “inconclusive.” Are you telling me that I voluntarily chose to become attracted to the same sex, or are you telling me that I’m not really attracted to the same sex? Please.
Rather, the inalienable rights America acknowledges recognize the existence of a Creator, the endowment of inalienable rights from the Creator, and the need for the citizenry to ensure the government respects them. It is logical, then, for an individual to incorporate their religion to a degree in evaluating whether or not their government respects their rights given their understandings of the Creator. Such thinking has allowed for the abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the pro-life movement, the right of parents to trump the state in the educating of their own children, and has, in many cases, limited state power and influence. What America attempts to secure is not a secularism that is hostile to religion, but rather a secularism in order to accommodate various religions.
I don’t like this argument because it conflates legal marriage with religiously-sanctioned marriage. When people oppose gay marriage at the ballot box for religious arguments, they think of marriage as a religious institution sponsored by the state, when in fact the two are separate. In a pluralistic society, which was the Founders’ notion, as you stated yourself, the conflation of the two sets a dangerous precedent. Certainly religious arguments were involved in the abolition movement and the civil rights movement, but it seems to me rather insulting that you think the two inseparable; that the movements would have never come about were it not for the Bible. The Bible was also used by those that opposed abolition and civil rights, and when everyone cherry-picks, we reach an impasse, which is why it’s best to merely make secular arguments. Indeed, if we stuck with secular, philosophical arguments, it’s rather difficult to come to anything but a classically liberal conclusion.
More in a second…
November 26th, 2008 at 8:58 am
…pretty much everything you’ve said, possibly excepting the children section, could likewise theoretically be applied to people having sex with goats…should we, as conservatives, welcome that as well…after all, if we proceed from the viewpoint that sexual liaisons are purely matters of bodily chemistry, why should a human-beast couple be excluded…
I’ll try to address this argument seriously, because it’s used a lot, fallaciously: an animal cannot consent and has no capacity for reason. So that would amount to both rape and a devaluation of humankind’s progress.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Should gay adoption become legalized (and same sex marriage correspondingly so), we would see the beginning of a wholesale revision of the intent underlying the First Amendment, making the Free Exercise clause regulated by politically correct standards rather than by legal or historical precedent. Religiously-affiliated orphanages would be placed in the impossible position of having to risk the denial of public tax breaks, private funding, and perhaps even outright arrest if it decided not to compromise its religious beliefs regarding what it interprets as the correct definition of a “couple” or “union” upon the legalization of same-sex adoption and same-sex marriage. Without question, such a change in the law would call into question a whole slew of precedent regarding free exercise case law, most notably the long-standing holding of the U.S. Supreme Court that the freedom to believe, particularly in the carrying out of a ministerial function (such as running an orphanage), is absolute. Further, it would be an intrusion of state power over the discretion of religious institutions that has been a cornerstone of American civil society that pre-exists the Republic and serves as the impetus for why many Europeans first came to America. To allow for this wholesale, politically correct revision of constitutional law that will increase state power, and diminish free exercise is something not to be done on a whim, especially when so much empirical evidence about same-sex adoption is lacking.
Do people not realize that gay adoption is already legal?
All of these horror stories have not come to pass. Gay adoption has been made legal largely through the democratic process, legitimizing my fifth point.
Gay adoption is legal almost everywhere in the country, and religion has not come under attack. It has been estimated that there are children being raised by same-sex couples in nearly every county in the entire country.
So unless you can pull up an example of someone’s rights being under assault by the judiciary…
November 26th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Finally, regarding judicial activism, I would have to disagree with some of your characterizations. While issues regarding same-sex marriage maybe brought through the judicial process in an attempt to subvert the democratic process, it is hardly being “shoved down our throats” on a massive scale. In fact, at the writing of this article, only two states in the whole country (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow for same-sex marriage. Further, the notion of this time being the “dawn” of gay marriage seems to also be a bit overblown. Thirty states have had ballot referendums defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and all thirty have succeeded, in some cases garnering support from some of the largest growing demographics in America. Finally, judicial activism, I believe, is a self-defeating proposition as many Americans, who may not necessarily agree with keeping same-sex marriage illegal, may be inclined to vote for such propositions out of a belief that their rights are being usurped. The position you seem to take here, that not passing same sex marriage at the ballot box will lead to same sex marriage being imposed by the courts and, since we’re going to get it anyway, we might as well vote for it now, does not yet have much fact behind it. And further, it is rooted in judging laws and rights solely on the basis of utility without any discussion of a principled question about what “should” be the law, a very democratic and very Conservative question.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I neither wrote that this was the dawn of gay marriage or that it was currently being shoved down our throats. I wrote that when the dawn comes, we should want its history written to our favor, and that we have to nip this judicial activism in the bud before it gets shoved down our throats.
The position you seem to take here, that not passing same sex marriage at the ballot box will lead to same sex marriage being imposed by the courts and, since we’re going to get it anyway, we might as well vote for it now, does not yet have much fact behind it. And further, it is rooted in judging laws and rights solely on the basis of utility without any discussion of a principled question about what “should” be the law, a very democratic and very Conservative question.
Again, you misunderstood the argument, which was, I suppose, a rather subtle one: the entire rest of the article was about why conservatives should support gay marriage. The final argument was that we should support it not only for those reasons, but for a practical reason, too: it combats judicial activism. It doesn’t let gay marriage get to the point where it’s shoved through the courts, and we get something that should exist (for the reasons I listed), and we deny liberal activists a “moment.” We embrace gays on our terms, rather than surrendering history to the Democrats and contributing to societal decline.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:46 am
For anybody is favor of gay marraige, i ask if you are also in favor of letting family members marry each other, brother-sister, brother-brother, etc and state your explanation.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I too am a gay Republican. I am pro-life, pro-military, attend weekly Church services, still (for the most part) support President Bush, donated to John McCain, and love Sarah Palin. As an economic major, I believe that the most conservative reason to applaud gay marriage is one of economics. Domestic partner benefits are a cost to both business and government. The reason behind these benefits was to give committed “partners” some of the same benefits that married couples receive. My understanding is that in Mass, the government and many businesses discontinued these benefits once gays and lesbians could lawfully marry since the argument surrounding the granting of such benefits — the fact that gays and lesbians couldn’t marry — no longer existed. I would love to see a study showing the cost to the state following the institution of gay marriage and the dissolution of domestic partner benefits. I am certain that both the government and private businesses would save a lot of money should they be able politically to discontinue domestic partner benefits.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
For anybody is favor of gay marraige, i ask if you are also in favor of letting family members marry each other, brother-sister, brother-brother, etc and state your explanation.
This lies outside of the conservative reasoning behind gay marriage, actually. My support for gay marriage lies in not redefining what marriage means, but in recognizing that homosexuality is another natural, normal sexual orientation that shouldn’t be condemned, but rather be encouraged to be merely coincidental to one’s existence. The reasons to not let family members marry are rather obvious; it’s wholly different than to recognize that gays should be encouraged to lead productive, healthy, monogamous lives akin to the ones that everyone else is encouraged to.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:00 am
A lot of people are conflating sexual orientation with lifestyle choice. Choosing incest or polygamy has nothing to do with which sex one is attracted to.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Great article, Alex. It was a smart choice of tone, and very well presented. I agree with your conclusions. That’s coming from a Mormon (*GASP!*)
November 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Nice piece Alex. I haven’t seen many better cases for gay marriage. I have a few qualms. I’m still hung up on your use of the “its not a choice” language. Here’s my argument, in point by point form.
(1) If homosexuality is biological (and I believe it is), it’s only biological in the sense that homosexuals are naturally attracted to members of their own sex. It isn’t more sweepingly biological (like race is, for instance). (2) Conservatives ordinarily don’t place much stock in that lesser type of biology. We take a few viewpoints on the issue. First, we often reject the assumptions flowing from that type of biological argument. For instance, we don’t accept that certain people are biologically more likely to succeed, though it’s undoubtedly true. On these grounds, we tend to reject liberal economics. We believe those who aren’t succeeding can, in fact, help themselves and they aren’t pawns of an immovable fate. In the lesser biological sense this is almost certainly untrue. The components of success are biological components. Intelligence, organization, extroverted qualities- these all have well-established biological roots. Conservatives accept this, but they don’t accept that it is the final story. (3) Therefore, your argument is premised not on “homosexuality isn’t a choice”, which is really a meaningless canard from a conservative perspective, but on the idea that homosexuality is a desirable biological impulse in a way that, say, sloppiness isn’t.
Whenever an argument even remotely resembling this pops up, you seem to break down and resort to personal invective like “are you calling me a liar? Why would I CHOOSE this?” I’m simply arguing that it’s possible for homosexuality to be a biological impulse, which you ought to nonetheless reject, just as you ought to reject a biological impulse to cave to a bully or live a shuttered life. I’m not saying I accept this view of homosexuality. To be totally honest, I genuinely don’t know and I frankly don’t care, because my opinion of gay marriage doesn’t turn on the answer. But, this is what your traditional opponents are getting at; that homosexuality may be biological, but that it isn’t beneficial- that it doesn’t further a productive, meaningful life in some way- and therefore ought to be resisted. If you want to beat them, you’re going to need to address that issue. It’s not my fight on the point- I simply don’t care about the issue. But, I just don’t think this part of your argument works.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Matthew, I was actually looking forward to you bringing that up, because it is a genuinely fallacious argument: homosexuality is not something that can be rejected, like a predisposition to alcoholism. If you want to avoid a predisposition to alcoholism, you can stay away from alcohol. You can avoid a predisposition to bullying by staying away from the person you’d like to bully. But although you can avoid gay sex, homosexuality cannot be eradicated any more than one’s race or eye color can. We can allow gays to be homosexual in a healthy, productive manner, or we can tell them, fruitlessly, to resist it. I think what you often bring up (predispositions and whatnot) comes from a genuine misunderstanding on your part about what the experience of homosexuality is.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Alex, i agree upon the vast majority of what you are saying. The best argument is that government should not sponsor marriage at all. Why don’t we leave it to the churches or an NGO.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I’m going to say something not PC but such is life. To me saying sexual orientation is not a choice is not one bit different than saying pedophilia is not a choice. Both are sexual orientations and both are choices not coded in the DNA strand. One is criminal and one is not for sure, but both are choices.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Alex, i agree upon the vast majority of what you are saying. The best argument is that government should not sponsor marriage at all. Why don’t we leave it to the churches or an NGO.
I think most conservatives agree upon that, but it’s a pipe dream. It’s about as likely to happen as the Federal Reserve being abolished, as the Ron Paul cult would like.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I’m going to say something not PC but such is life. To me saying sexual orientation is not a choice is not one bit different than saying pedophilia is not a choice. Both are sexual orientations and both are choices not coded in the DNA strand. One is criminal and one is not for sure, but both are choices.
But children cannot consent and do not have the capacity to reason. Pedophilia is not a choice, but it also doesn’t involve consent. It’s literally rape, and the repercussions of that are obvious. Gay marriage would only be involving two consenting adults.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I just don’t understand why the institution of marriage has to be dragged into a discussion of equal rights for gay couples.
We can’t redefine what a legal citizen is to include those hard working patriotic illegal aliens can we? I don’t see why Gays
can’t enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without a desired label. There are plenty of minority groups who would
love to be embraced by greater society based on their own definitions, and not society’s. Mormons would love to be recognized as
Christians, Liberals would love to be considered patriotic, and I would guess that many teenagers would like to be considered
adults at 15. My gays friends have a civil union, have an adopted daughter and take in other foster children. They live a very
full life with the laws as is. Their civil union has provided them with all the protection they need from the government. They don’t need to redefine my marriage to accomodate theirs.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Both are sexual orientations and both are choices not coded in the DNA strand.
Wait, what? Are you saying that gay men are actually sexually attracted to women, but choose to be with men, anyway?
November 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I just don’t understand why the institution of marriage has to be dragged into a discussion of equal rights for gay couples. We can’t redefine what a legal citizen is to include those hard working patriotic illegal aliens can we? I don’t see why Gays can’t enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without a desired label. There are plenty of minority groups who would love to be embraced by greater society based on their own definitions, and not society’s. Mormons would love to be recognized as Christians, Liberals would love to be considered patriotic, and I would guess that many teenagers would like to be considered adults at 15. My gays friends have a civil union, have an adopted daughter and take in other foster children. They live a very full life with the laws as is. Their civil union has provided them with all the protection they need from the government. They don’t need to redefine my marriage to accomodate theirs.
You didn’t read the article.
Please read it and then leave a comment.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Alex,
I think you’re missing something here. You’re making the wrong connections and comparisons. Perhaps alcoholism is a bad example, but bullying isn’t. People who are pre-disposed to bully, guys with XXY chromosomes for instance, feel “anger”, “aggression”, etc whether or not there is someone to bully. Their ability to avoid “wanting” to bully is as limited as a homosexual’s ability to avoid “wanting” a member of the opposite sex. But, they can nonetheless avoid actually bullying, and would be well-advised to do so. As a logical matter, you simply can’t compare “acting” on homosexual attraction to “wanting” to bully, biologically.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
The “conservative choice for gay marriage” ??
Oh please, no more gay-baiting. This is getting old.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I think you’re missing something here. You’re making the wrong connections and comparisons. Perhaps alcoholism is a bad example, but bullying isn’t. People who are pre-disposed to bully, guys with XXY chromosomes for instance, feel “anger”, “aggression”, etc whether or not there is someone to bully. Their ability to avoid “wanting” to bully is as limited as a homosexual’s ability to avoid “wanting” a member of the opposite sex. But, they can nonetheless avoid actually bullying, and would be well-advised to do so. As a logical matter, you simply can’t compare “acting” on homosexual attraction to “wanting” to bully, biologically.
Well, they feel anger, aggression, etc., but they have to control those impulses and not take them out on other people. Otherwise, you’d be violating someone else’s rights. It’s not analogous to gay marriage, because a loving, committed gay couple harms no one in the process. Bullies should avoid bullying, even if they want to bully. Absolutely. Because if they bullied, it would harm someone else. What should homosexuals avoid, in your line of argument? Having gay sex? Why? What should they do instead? Have heterosexual sex? Be celibate? What on Earth would the point be? We only have so many options to work with, here.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Oh please, no more gay-baiting. This is getting old.
Read the article, cwpete. Don’t read the title, assume that you know what I wrote, and then make a snarky remark. Read it first.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
cwpete: conservative CASE for gay marriage. After Lorelli’s nonsense this is welcome.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Pretty basic to me, man + women = children….man + man/women + women = no children. Therefore, the traditional marriage of man + women should be given added benefits in society…sorta like giving home owners benefits over renters, ie society wants to promote home ownership, ditto a union that can produce children…clearly society doesn’t want incestuous offspring, so that kind of relationship would not fit into the man + women concept of marriage.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Pretty basic to me, man + women = children….man + man/women + women = no children. Therefore, the traditional marriage of man + women should be given added benefits in society…sorta like giving home owners benefits over renters, ie society wants to promote home ownership, ditto a union that can produce children…clearly society doesn’t want incestuous offspring, so that kind of relationship would not fit into the man + women concept of marriage.
You didn’t read the article. I know this because the point was addressed in the article.
Points, mentioned and not:
1) Not all straight couples have children
2) Not all straight couples can have children
3) Gays can and do adopt
November 26th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Alex,
Well first, I’d point out that I didn’t use bullying in my original response, and just took it up because that was your interpretation. I said “just as you ought to reject a biological impulse to cave to a bully”. I used the phrase “cave to a bully” purposely, because caving to a bully doesn’t actually hurt anyone, but most conservatives would admit that cowardice is a disagreeable impulse, biological though it may be. On what grounds do we reject cowardice, if it isn’t immediately harmful or even immoral? Why do we view it as distasteful? Because we believe, for various reasons, that it doesn’t lead to meaningful, productive life- that it weakens a person’s moral foundations, their dignity, etc. This is the problem I have with Randians, Objectivists, etc. They claim to base their morality on whether something harms someone else, but their entire system implicitly accepts this sort of morality. They reject altruism, not because it actually immediately harms someone, but because they believe it somehow dehumanizes people. So you should, at any rate, understand this type of reasoning. It’s understandable that you’d reject it when applied to homosexuality, and you may even have the better arguments. But, you should understand what type of argument your opponents are making.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am
#25
In short yes. For example I have a cousin who I am very close to. We went to the same college together in the same major. He was always interested in girls. But something changed. He got addicted to porn and felt guilty for it. He then associated his guilt with women. He’s now gay. I saw the whole thing happen before my eyes. I know his DNA, and it has been overcome by phsychological means.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Alex,
The people have spoken in CA with prop 8. You have to accept that just like we both have to accept the fact that Obama beat McCain. You are attempting to use a conservative causes to debunk conservatism here. That only works if conservatism is a total farce and contradiction. Conservatism with respect to this issue, is not that weak. All gay issues were handily defeated in an election cycle where liberals had one of their strongest showings. Although liberals disagree, there are not that many holes in conservative philosophy to implode itself on this issue. The people have spoken.
“Conservatives should be welcoming gays into mainstream society and encouraging them to build families based upon the traditional model.”
I had a good laugh at that one.. Look, it is so pointless for me into this. Let’s just agree to disagree on this issue. I did read your article, I still say let’s just stop with all the gay / homosexual posts please – everyone. They are getting old. This is getting so tiresome talking about these same issues.
Why not talk fiscal policies or some more useful and productive?
November 26th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Alex, I didn’t know you are a self declared homosexual… you make your arguments from a very biased point of you. No wonder you oppose Romney so much as he wouldn’t represent your interests. The way you disregard points against sames sex marriage in such a blatant manner makes me wonder if there is any point in debating the case or the cause at all. If we are to make a point at all is the case that choice is at the core of who we are. We may have predispositions, but ultimately we choose what we want to be.
Like any addiction, sexual addicitions are among the strongest if not the strongest one to overcome, but I would place homosexuality under addiction category, with natural predispositions. Second point, the constitution is to out there to protect the innocent and the weak, children is amongst that category, if Judges don’t do that… then I don’t see the point in having Judges and a constitution at all.
Sorry Alex, most of times I like your points of view, but this time my views are totally contrary to yours, and I don’t feel they make any case at all in legalizing same sex marriages.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Well first, I’d point out that I didn’t use bullying in my original response, and just took it up because that was your interpretation. I said “just as you ought to reject a biological impulse to cave to a bully”. I used the phrase “cave to a bully” purposely, because caving to a bully doesn’t actually hurt anyone, but most conservatives would admit that cowardice is a disagreeable impulse, biological though it may be. On what grounds do we reject cowardice, if it isn’t immediately harmful or even immoral? Why do we view it as distasteful? Because we believe, for various reasons, that it doesn’t lead to meaningful, productive life- that it weakens a person’s moral foundations, their dignity, etc. This is the problem I have with Randians, Objectivists, etc. They claim to base their morality on whether something harms someone else, but their entire system implicitly accepts this sort of morality. They reject altruism, not because it actually immediately harms someone, but because they believe it somehow dehumanizes people. So you should, at any rate, understand this type of reasoning. It’s understandable that you’d reject it when applied to homosexuality, and you may even have the better arguments. But, you should understand what type of argument your opponents are making.
We reject cowardice because it is harmful and allows bullies to get their way. In what way does a loving gay relationship harm anyone? (From a non-conservative-Christian [conservative within the religion, I mean, not Religious Right] perspective, obviously; they would say it’s sinful and wrong to God, but those people are impossible to convince)
(Also, I am not an Objectivist, although I admire Ayn Rand’s writings and derive a lot of influence from them.)
November 26th, 2008 at 10:49 am
“There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair.” -jfk
sure there are some examples where the man+women union doesn’t produce offspring, which is the lifeblood to society but there is no chance a man+man or women+women relationship can produce offspring…thus society should throw some bones to promote the man+women union.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The people have spoken in CA with prop 8. You have to accept that just like we both have to accept the fact that Obama beat McCain. You are attempting to use a conservative causes to debunk conservatism here. That only works if conservatism is a total farce and contradiction. Conservatism with respect to this issue, is not that weak. All gay issues were handily defeated in an election cycle where liberals had one of their strongest showings. Although liberals disagree, there are not that many holes in conservative philosophy to implode itself on this issue. The people have spoken.
This article was not about Proposition 8. Did you even read Part 2 of Section I? You’re clearly not interested in replying to my article, so I’m just going to ignore you.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Alex, I didn’t know you are a self declared homosexual… you make your arguments from a very biased point of you. No wonder you oppose Romney so much as he wouldn’t represent your interests.
“My” interests? See, this is offensive, but I’m not angry at you because I don’t think you realize what you’re saying. Do you assume that I only think of myself as a gay man, not as a man who just so happens to be gay? I am a Republican, supported John McCain, and currently support Mark Sanford — all people and things that would seemingly be contrary to “my interests” — because I am not a single-issue voter. I oppose Romney because he’s a charlatan, not because he’s opposed to gay marriage (though I’m not sure if he really is; I think that deep down he might support it, based on his early campaigns).
The way you disregard points against sames sex marriage in such a blatant manner makes me wonder if there is any point in debating the case or the cause at all. If we are to make a point at all is the case that choice is at the core of who we are. We may have predispositions, but ultimately we choose what we want to be.
Well, like what? What do you think I overlooked?
Like any addiction, sexual addicitions are among the strongest if not the strongest one to overcome, but I would place homosexuality under addiction category, with natural predispositions. Second point, the constitution is to out there to protect the innocent and the weak, children is amongst that category, if Judges don’t do that… then I don’t see the point in having Judges and a constitution at all.
Then you are a judicial activist and I am not. Assumption 2 in Point I was there because I wanted to point out from the outset that I believe that there is no legitimate judicial case to be made for legalizing gay marriage.
I already discussed this “predisposition” nonsense with Matthew E. Miller; you may see our exchanges for more detail. If you can’t be bothered to, please take my word for it that being gay is not a disposition, but as ingrained as one’s skin color. You can’t just reject it. If I would be straight, I’d choose to — it would make for an easier life. But I can’t.
Sorry Alex, most of times I like your points of view, but this time my views are totally contrary to yours, and I don’t feel they make any case at all in legalizing same sex marriages.
I don’t really think you read more than a third of the article.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Ignore me if you wish Alex, there is no conservative case against conservatism on this issue. If I thought conservatism were to be such a walking contradiction, then I would not be a conservative myself..
I will give you this, you are getting creative with your viewpoints..
November 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Ignore me if you wish Alex, there is no conservative case against conservatism on this issue. If I thought conservatism were to be such a walking contradiction, then I would not be a conservative myself.. I will give you this, you are getting creative with your viewpoints..
Yeah, but you didn’t read the article. I’m not going to bother having a discussion with you about something you didn’t read.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Of course premise number one has to be “homosexuality is not a choice” because that is really what this whole dust-up is about. I don’t believe a majority a gays really care about gay marriage, but rather what it would mean to have the courts create gay marriage in this country … and that is that homosexuality will be treated exactly the same was as race is treated.
This is why prop 8 failed. Not because people were necessarily against gay marriage, but people figured out that the way the laws are changing will have a huge effect on the rest of the country.
I don’t believe that homosexuality and race are EXACTLY the same thing. They law shouldn’t treat them the same. I don’t care how many gay activist bullies yell at me, you can’t tell me that you’re completely powerless in the choices you make in life.
Go watch the South Park where Stan’s dad gets forced to go to AA for his drunk driving. It’s a brilliant commentary on this kind of ‘it’s not my fault, i was just born this way’ thinking. Stan’s dad completely collapses once he learns that he ‘is powerless to stop his addiction’.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Thanks for writing up your argument with greater cogency and coherence than Kris’s unfortunate example yesterday.
I still find many of your arguments to be rather weak, though.
For starters, you claim in I. 1) that homosexuality is not a choice, which may or may not be true, but is instead an assumption. You make this assumption into a premise in arguing further in 3) that religion should not enter into the discussion, whereby this argument for the US being inherently “secular” has not been established.
I would argue that human sexuality is based on “primal,” hormonal, and/or psychological urges that responsible adults have to make judgments about in deciding whether or not to act upon them. As a society, we rely on adult responsibility. Even after our sexual liberation from older mores, which ultimately made it acceptable for gays to acknowledge their orientation, which removed the taboos homosexuality, we still require adults to control their more primal urges as a matter of course. We require individuals to make choices all the time, and we recognize rationally that choices have consequences. Religious belief is unnecessary for recognizing this.
The same problem arises in III., where you argue that polygamy is a lifestyle choice. Well, ever since the work of Alfred Kinsey at the very latest, more researchers investigating the field of human sexuality and observing biology have concluded that life-long monogamy is the exception rather than the rule. In other words, life-long monogamy would appear to be the lifestyle choice.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I don’t believe that homosexuality and race are EXACTLY the same thing. They law shouldn’t treat them the same. I don’t care how many gay activist bullies yell at me, you can’t tell me that you’re completely powerless in the choices you make in life.
Obviously they’re not exactly the same thing, inasmuch as one is visible and one is not. I do think that the people who say that the jury’s still out on whether homosexuality is a choice are genuinely curious, for the most part, about the nature of the experience of being gay: they don’t know what it’s like, and they wish they did so that they could form a more cogent opinion on the matter. All I can do is offer my word: it is not a tendency or an inclination, but something inherent that I cannot eradicate or control. All I can do is show you my reputation and tell you what my experiences are you. You can choose to accept or reject what I say; I’m powerless to do anything more. I can’t force you to accept it. But I’m not going to lie and say that it isn’t a fact that homosexuality isn’t a choice. It is a fact, and I know that based upon my own life.
For starters, you claim in I. 1) that homosexuality is not a choice, which may or may not be true, but is instead an assumption.
I said at the outset that you’d need to agree with that assumption — which is indeed a fact; refer to my above paragraph — in order to agree with my argument.
In other words, life-long monogamy would appear to be the lifestyle choice.
Right, but in our society, life-long monogamy is the norm. Hence, the conservative case for gay marriage.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
#23 You say pedophilia is not a choice. Wow. Total disregard for personal responsibility is what I say. You forefit your greatest asset, freedom, to a lie. You are free if you know it or not, to choose your orientation. You surrender to the myth of DNA programming, you surrender freedom.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:12 am
By the way, I think Stephen makes a very strong case in #14 on the basis of government finance, although I think the ultimate distinction is as to whether the pecuniary aspects are mandated and covered at the state or federal level.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:12 am
#23 You say pedophilia is not a choice. Wow. Total disregard for personal responsibility is what I say. You forefit your greatest asset, freedom, to a lie. You are free if you know it or not, to choose your orientation. You surrender to the myth of DNA programming, you surrender freedom.
You misunderstood.
It’s been thoroughly documented that pedophilia — that is: sexual attraction to children — is not a choice.
But we ban that because it’s rape!
November 26th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Well nate #47:
No freedom means no agency which means no accountability.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Alex, care to address nate’s application of freedom with respect to homosexuality?
I think he makes a good point there excluding pedophilia.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Alex, you say
“My support for gay marriage lies in not redefining what marriage means, but in recognizing that homosexuality is another
natural, normal sexual orientation that shouldn’t be condemned, but rather be encouraged to be merely coincidental to one’s
existence.”
And the truth shall set you free! Why can’t more gays just admit this? It’s not about marriage, it’s about demanding acceptance
of their sexual practices. But it begs the question. Why? Why does it have to be accepted?
November 26th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I read this article, and admire the attempt to articulate a pro-family position, grounded in traditional values, that INCLUDES the gay and lesbian community, Sadly, I think it’s doomed to fail. Incidentally, although the article advises us not to consider libertarian “individual rights” arguments, I think those are slightly preferable–but that’s my politics talking.
I’m 22 years old and gay. When I first registered to vote, I registered as a Republican, and remained a Republican until Election Day, when I finally got angry and re-registered without declaring a party. The more of these comments that I read, the more I was reminded of why I did what I did.
I believe there may be a feeling among gay conservatives that the case for gay marriage isn’t resonating with straight conservatives because of a failure of messaging. “We’re not communicating effectively; if we were, they’d agree with us,” or something like that. One year ago, two years ago, four years ago, I might have agreed with that.
If I have come to understand one thing since becoming involved myself in political life, it is this: the choice/non-choice debate is not the be-all/end-all question in a discussion of gay rights. The real obstacle to the inclusion of gays and lesbians on the “right” is the belief that gay is different, and, furthermore, that to be different is also to be DEVIANT.
The conservative/traditional/family values/etc hang-up over gay marriage has a lot to do (I argue) with the idea that to be gay is not only unusual, but undesirable. From their perspective, the very existence of homosexuality as an identifiable trait is discomforting at least and a moral outrage at most.
I’m still a fiscal conservative, but on the social issues in general, I can trace my own progression from right to left, and it tracks almost exactly with my frustration at the conservative “ick” reaction to my sexual orientation. Maybe I HAVE fallen irretrievably into the counter-culture, but I now argue that we really DO need to challenge the reigning morality, at least so that we can redefine it to include US. That doesn’t mean I want it to include polygamists, incestuous lovers, or advocates of bestiality, but in the eyes of the “right” wing, I’ve already crossed the Rubicon, so to speak–and we’re now talking about a matter of degrees with respect to moral change, not the more general question of whether the change is desirable at all.
All said, I like what you’re trying to do, and your arguments are fair, and they’re good, and they’re right. But until gays and lesbians (and supportive heterosexuals) defeat this idea that WHO WE ARE is itself an affront to the desirable MORAL order of things, these arguments won’t take root.
And that, I say, is tragic.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Alex, care to address nate’s application of freedom with respect to homosexuality? I think he makes a good point there excluding pedophilia.
I did address it: several times in this comments thread. He’s just saying that homosexuality is a choice, when I have addressed that myth in all of its forms in this thread.
So now I know that you have neither read the article nor the comments thread.
Aye.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:22 am
“Homosexuality is not a choice. It’s time to put aside any silly notions that homosexuality is a choice, that someone can be “converted” to homosexuality”
If homosexuality was genetic, and if Darwinism is true, homosexuality would have rooted itself out of the gene pool eons ago.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:27 am
And the truth shall set you free! Why can’t more gays just admit this? It’s not about marriage, it’s about demanding acceptance of their sexual practices. But it begs the question. Why? Why does it have to be accepted?
Because no one likes to be excluded from society?
How about us begging the question: what do you care who I have sex with, so long as that person is a consenting adult?
I read this article, and admire the attempt to articulate a pro-family position, grounded in traditional values, that INCLUDES the gay and lesbian community, Sadly, I think it’s doomed to fail. Incidentally, although the article advises us not to consider libertarian “individual rights” arguments, I think those are slightly preferable–but that’s my politics talking.
I didn’t advise you not to consider individual rights arguments; those are stronger, in my opinion. This piece is specifically addressed to “three-legged stool” conservatives.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Alex,
I respect your opinions. I just disagree, I’ll leave it at that. That’s all. I admire your creativity here.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am
If homosexuality was genetic, and if Darwinism is true, homosexuality would have rooted itself out of the gene pool eons ago.
I’m sorry, but only someone totally ignorant of the theory of evolution could say something like this. One assumes that homosexuality started at the beginning of time. Homosexuality could have come about merely a million years ago. Who knows, really? All that matters is that it isn’t a choice.
—
Joseph — Don’t let others define your political views for you, and don’t let others force you into a subculture. Live your life on your own terms, as I do. It can sometimes be frustrating, but it’s the only way to become happy.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I respect your opinions. I just disagree, I’ll leave it at that. That’s all. I admire your creativity here.
As is said: you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The sky is blue, grass is green, and being gay is not a choice.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“But until gays and lesbians (and supportive heterosexuals) defeat this idea that WHO WE ARE is itself an affront to the desirable MORAL order of things, these arguments won’t take root.”
I agree with that comment. Bu I’d like to say that it is not who you “ARE” but it is the action, the deed, the act. A true ‘Christian” would love still love any sinner as Christ taught. Acceptance is not the same thing is love. There are many heterosexuals who are unable to marry for one reason or another, they are sill expected to abstain.
Social conservatism / religious conservatism would have to redefine a 5000 year old moral code. If they do that, then they might as well just not exist. Do you really think that could happen?
November 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
You didn’t answer my question. Why does your sexual preference have to be accepted and as you say, even encouraged?
I find it silly that you’d write several posts advocating for gay marriage and acceptabce of homosexuality and then ask me why
I care who you sleep with?
November 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Very well done. Mr. Knepper — here’s a few random points – National Geographic shows homosexuality amongst animals
Comptroller of NYC study showing the economic benefits of same-sex marriage in New York State and City.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Nice job, Alex.
Gay marriage is inexorable. 20 years ago nobody thought it would happen, ever. 15 years ago few thought civil unions would happen in more than 2-3 states.
Now most conservatives are ready to grant civil unions to stop gay marraige — and many Republicans support full-fledged gay marriage. Amazing in an historical perspective the lightening speed at which this has changed with one generation. Half a generation, time-wise.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
The problem here is that socons think “conservative” means “Christian theocratic”, while to some of us “conservative” means “this is not the government’s job”.
All a legal marriage can ever be is a contract between two parties that is enforced by the government. They literally are nothing more than civil unions. That is as far as the government should take it. But because they use the name of a religious ceremony to define it, the defensive Christians take it to mean that the government is trading in religious sacrament. Which it isn’t. A marriage is simply a social contract. And by that definition, I don’t see how you can make a legal argument to prevent gay people from participating.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The main purpose of Marriage is for pro-creation. The idea is for couples to have children raised in a stable relationship. Since that requires a man and woman, all other arguments fall down. True you have adoptions, but that is not the real purpose of marriage.
And while this nation does not support one particular religion, it is based on Religious believe. Read any of the founder documents including the declaration of independence and you will find this is true.
Finally, the purpose of Gay marriage is to force individuals who are opposed to association with the gay life style, to associate with them. It is an end run around the constitution that allows for free association.
The day that any party platform supports gay marriage is the day I leave the party.
Finally, you present a straw man argument. And Your arguments are based on assumptions that can not be agreed upon.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:47 am
cwpete–
“it is the action, the deed, the act.”
sometimes, my points just prove themselves. once again, the fundamentalist “ick” factor stands in the way of gays’ and lesbians’ integration into the greater american family. let me echo a point made in the article: you’re entitled to hold the values taught by your faith tradition, but you are not entitled to enforce those values on others using the power of the state. any attempt to do so begs the question, “who died and made you the arbiter of orthodoxy?”
Let me counter your observation with a question. WHY is it the action, the deed, or the act? Why does it offend you (or if not you, some people) soo much? Why must it be policed with such diligence? Why must we indoctrinate the next generation (who I argue are not inherently hostile to same-sex relations, but rather neutral) with this idea that gays and lesbians are not only icky, but evil?
Alex–
I don’t think that I’ve let others define my politics for me, I just reacted to what I perceived to be a bias against me in the party that I love, and i chose not to associate myself formally with the party, in response to that bias.
cwpete, again–
on a humorous note: abstinence? HA. I am strongly, strongly opposed to pre-sexual marriage. Do you buy a car before test-driving it?
November 26th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Thunder-
I’m sorry, but whether or not my wife and I procreate is none of the government’s god damn business. We asked them to legally accept our contract to share property and to have say over each others affairs. Nothing more, and nothing less. That is all they can legally do. They can’t enforce our decision to have our own children, adopt, or not have kids. The fact that you think that a government contract between my wife and I should have results that the government prefers and legislates is a very liberal argument. Which is why the case for gay marriage should actually be a conservative’s argument. And it is. Many of those that oppose are actually simply God-Gays-Guns liberals.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Closed your brackets for you.
– Alex
Ok, I was able to get to it sooner than I thought. Point-by-point:
I.1.: Not relevant to the discussion (for me). Homosexual acts, in and of themselves, do not infringe anyone’s rights, nor do they make you more likely to do so. I have no interest in doing them, but your doing them doesn’t hurt me or society (I know many disagree with this stance, but I promise you that the outlandish gay pride parades are not “normal gays,” but a group of people interested in shocking people).
2, 3, & 4: Agreed.
II.: Option D doesn’t require gov’t recognized same sex marriage (or civil unions, for that matter). Living a committed life to another can, and is, done without it. If adultery was illegal, I’d find this more compelling.
III.: “It is not “redefining” marriage to acknowledge something long overdue: that homosexuality is a natural, unchosen sexual orientation and that society can only be helped by allowing gays to express their sexual and romantic tendencies in a productive, meaningful, healthy manner.”
But it is. Marriage has been defined as one man and one woman for millenea. Does this mean we shouldn’t ever reconsider the definition? No, and in fact we should evaluate ideas that have been accepted for a long time (need I provide the numerous examples throughout history?). As for the crap arguments that people make about this leading to incest, pedophilia, polygamy, beastiality, and so on, we agree they are just that: crap. The issue we’re discussing is same sex marriage, and we agree the other issues are unrelated different issues.
IV.: I have no problem with gay couples adopting. Children need homes, and a committed couple is certainly preferable to a single individual. This can be done through civil unions, and almost all of your objections would be satisfied if the rights gov’t gave were the same, but with a different name. The only argument I see left is one concerning the perception of society as a whole, and I don’t believe it’s the gov’ts job to make people think and feel good or bad towards other people.
V.: I actually like this argument, but I’d do it a little differently. I’d support civil unions, with an explanation of the benefits to society (such as the injustice I mentioned on another thread of a family preventing a gay man/woman from seeing a significant other if they’re hospitalized). I remember you’ve expressed displeasure with the idea of having to justify such unions, but if you’re going to “rock the boat,” you need to convince people why it’s a good idea first, or you get a mess.
Should anyone be inclined to use the inane “Separate but Equal” case law argument, there’s a pretty big distinction between segregation and same sex marriage. Namely, “equal” wasn’t equal in segregation, while granting the same rights and benefits to gay couples would, in fact, be equal in all but the name (unless the legislature writes the laws differently, which would be another issue).
November 26th, 2008 at 11:53 am
#63 eric,
Because there are many, many people who believe marriage is not “simply a social contract.” A marriage, and the fruits thereof, are the very fabric of society–any society.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The problem here is that socons think “conservative” means “Christian theocratic”, while to some of us “conservative” means “this is not the government’s job”.
Yes! Exactly. I am a conservative in the Goldwater tradition. Nowadays I call myself a classical liberal just because so-cons have hijacked the term ‘conservative.’
November 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
All joking aside, I’m failing to see what Alex actually brings to this site in terms of a conservative view point. Strengthening the family via supporting homosexual couples’ right to marry? Encouraging homosexuals to adopt? This article was a pathetic attempt to reconcile log-cabin Republicans and a conservative base. Alex, read studies about children raised in homosexual families. They’re MORE likely to show deviant behavior. They have no moral compass whatsoever. I think Alex’s position as a writer on this blog should be put into question.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:59 am
66
I think any good government should recognize that encouraging people to have children is part of a healthy society.
Italy is facing huge financial and social problems because for years it has had a birth rate below even what would keep the population level.
Now, there are more intrusive or less intrusive policies that could encourage children, but i see nothing wrong with government being the business of encouraging childbirth to the general population.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Alex,
You’ve presented a powerful, beautifully sentimental argument. I don’t comment much and when I have, I’ve avoided engaging you for a variety of reasons: among them, you’re smarter and more knowledgeable than me, plus you’re always looking for a fight, so this is a bit like a water boy calling out a linebacker. However, my confidence is in God, my authority the Bible, His living Word.
Sex is God’s gift to mankind designed to be enjoyed in the context of marriage between one man and one woman resulting in a marital bond/intimacy thereby resulting in both children and a nurturing environment in which to raise them. All sex, all, that is outside of this context is sin. Human anatomy testifies, screams out, to this reality. What you call natural is, in fact, natural and may have genetic elements. It is natural because all have sinned; we are all born into sin, sin comes naturally to us. If we are born sinners, then it’s not surprising that there is a genetic element to our sin; sin has become woven into our DNA.
Because we live in a fallen world, fallen due to our decision to reject God, there’s much about this life that is unfair. A man or woman who enters marriage only to have their spouse become unable to perform due to illness or injury is nonetheless called on to remain faithful to their spouse, that is, celibate.
Alex, Jesus Christ loves you and died for your sins. You can be forever saved at this very moment through prayer by confessing your sin and trusting Christ alone as your Savior. If you’d like, I think I can put you in touch with an acquaintance whose orientation is similar to yours, but today is in a loving marriage relationship, has a loving family, is surrounded by friends who love him and, most of all, is grateful for his decision to trust Jesus Christ as his Lord. Also, here’s a great link:
http://www.biblelineministries.org/amigoing.html
November 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“Let me counter your observation with a question. WHY is it the action, the deed, or the act? Why does it offend you (or if not you, some people) soo much?”
I am not the ‘arbiter of orthodoxy’ as you put it. I’m nothing more than a guy who is trying to live his life the best way that he can. I don’t have to accept your lifestyle anymore than you have to accept mine. I don’t have to impose my beliefs or traditions to you anymore than you have to with mine. I did not make or create these rules, I’m just exercising my agency by choosing to subscribe to them. The Bible forbids this practice, not me, I choose to follow, you don’t (or can’t as you put it). Furthermore, I see no benefits to my kids for them to dabble in homosexuality. Why should I encourage such behavior to anyone?
“I am strongly, strongly opposed to pre-sexual marriage. Do you buy a car before test-driving it? ”
I got a good laugh out of that one. We have common ground by both being strongly opposed to pre-sexual marriage. In fact, I bought my Jag XJ8 before test driving it, and that is the truth.
There is no way I would ever be the 2nd, 5th, or 12th owner!
November 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
68-
But Adam, it doesn’t matter what people “believe”. That is irrelevant to the law. All a legal marriage is is a contract. Maybe your marriage is special to you because it was performed in your church by a man of god, and that is wonderful. But it is legally irrelevant. By the books, it may borrow the term “marriage” from religion, but the government certainly did not perform a religious ceremony for you. It just filled out a piece of paper that tells you that your property is now shared with another person. It doesn’t say “you must procreate”, and it doesn’t even legally prohibit you from having lots of sexual intercourse or even babies with complete strangers!
November 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I haven’t yet had the time to read through all the comments here more closely. But following your point in #46, Alex, I conclude from my own personal observation that homosexuality is not a choice. If I ask myself whether my heterosexuality is a choice, I would say that it isn’t. So it stands to reason that other individuals would experience their homosexual orientation in a similar fashion.
It also stands to reason that homosexuality would be unlikely to survive natural selection, although it might be some sort of rare recessive trait. It might also be that homosexuality is “epigenomic.” Whatever. I don’t pretend to know…
November 26th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
All joking aside, I’m failing to see what Alex actually brings to this site in terms of a conservative view point.
Perhaps you have missed my last Issue Article, which was a strident defense of the Iraq War? Either way, this is a Big Tent site, where you get views from all over the spectrum. From the so-con right (Doug Forrester), to the mainstream conservative (Matthew E. Miller) to the classical liberal (me) to the pragmatic moderate (DaveG) to the movement conservative (Gamecock) to the …well, I don’t know what I’d call him Republican (Kristofer).
Strengthening the family via supporting homosexual couples’ right to marry? Encouraging homosexuals to adopt? This article was a pathetic attempt to reconcile log-cabin Republicans and a conservative base. Alex, read studies about children raised in homosexual families. They’re MORE likely to show deviant behavior. They have no moral compass whatsoever. I think Alex’s position as a writer on this blog should be put into question.
I imagine that you didn’t read the article. What is “deviant behavior”? What is a “moral compass” to you? I imagine that you define that in Christian literalist terms, which is fine, but this country isn’t a theocracy.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Nice try Alex, but I’m pretty dog gone sure that Goldwater would have vehemently been against gay marriage.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
G-”I think any good government should recognize that encouraging people to have children is part of a healthy society.
Italy is facing huge financial and social problems because for years it has had a birth rate below even what would keep the population level.”
This is outrageous. Legislating social engineering is a liberal philosophy at complete odds with conservative thought.
People-no matter what pastor Huckabee told you -Christian Theocracy is not conservatism!! Get it through your non-evolved heads!
November 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Nice try Alex, but I’m pretty dog gone sure that Goldwater would have vehemently been against gay marriage.
Goldwater was one of the first Republicans to come out against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It was Goldwater himself that coined the phrase “To be in the military, you don’t have to be straight. You just have to shoot straight.” Whether Goldwater would support gay marriage or not, I have no idea. But I do know that he was pro-choice but anti-Roe (like me) and anti-DADT.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Alex,
I don’t have a big desire to argue back and forth (like Doug) but a few points:
Doug’s point on on Homoseuality being a choice is true. It’s certainly a choice for some people. It was for my close relative (I mean immediate) who was sexually abused heavily by a neighbor, went lesbian at 18, no one in our family complained, resolved her issues in a few years with a counselor (regarding her abuse) and one day woke up in the morning and decided she was straight and has been ever since.
I don’t see why gay marriage is needed for a cohesive society, or for gays to live a happy monogamous lifestyle. If you are implying that one can’t live that happy lifestyle without society approving them so we need gay marriage, that’s where I doubt you will ever find common ground. That’s the point, I will never approve of people acting out homosexual inclinations no matter where they come from, and frankly it’s far fetched to think society will beyond a certain percentage.
Paranoia: you should just be upfront on that indictment. We only need 5% of angry gays to think it’s OK to sue religious people for speaking there mind and a only a few judges to agree with them for our Democracy to be undermined. It’s not paranoia when it’s really happening. And esp. when you and Metro seem to present argument after argument in other threads of why Religion is evil and should be outed from our society.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
#76 – Kristofer = skirtchaser?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Alex, I don’t think most conservatives would have a problem with gay marriage, if they could be absolutely sure that legalizing it wouldn’t take away rights currently enjoyed by others. Unfortunately, there are already a lot of examples where rights have been taken away. Some examples include the Massachusetts Catholic services being forced to stop adoption because they refused to let gay couples adopt, universities being forced to house gay couples in private student housing, doctors being forced to artificially inseminate lesbians (whose lifestyle they disagreed with), Churches being threatened with revocation of tax exemption because of not allowing gays to marry, etc. etc.
I personally believe homosexuality is wrong. But as a conservative, why would I deny someone the right to practice what they want in their own home? I wouldn’t. I just have a problem if my private, civic, and religious organizations are forced into accepting homosexuality, which is already happening in California and elsewhere. If you guarantee that won’t happen, then I might be inclined to support gay marriage.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Gosh, I just realized that Barry Goldwater would probably be kicked out of the party by today’s base. Remember the uproar when the pro-life McCain was thinking of picking a pro-choicer as his running mate? Geez.
This is outrageous. Legislating social engineering is a liberal philosophy at complete odds with conservative thought.
Funny how they think that government fails at everything it does in the economy, but that it’s absolutely excellent at constructing social life.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Closed your brackets for you. – Alex”
I appreciate the assist! Any thoughts on my response? I know you’re already up to your eyeballs in “It’s not a choice!” and “It’s a sin!” chants (irrelevant to the debate, anyway).
November 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
HA!
November 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Another example in the making, eHarmony being forced to match gays against their will (they are a private organization)
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/news2008/eharmonyclassacrtionlawsuit.html
November 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Doug’s point on on Homoseuality being a choice is true. It’s certainly a choice for some people. It was for my close relative (I mean immediate) who was sexually abused heavily by a neighbor, went lesbian at 18, no one in our family complained, resolved her issues in a few years with a counselor (regarding her abuse) and one day woke up in the morning and decided she was straight and has been ever since.
That close relative was never a homosexual, then. There actually are many, many documented cases of straight women who choose to be with other women for non-sexual reasons (fear of men, for instance). You’re falling prey to the classic “All mumbles are wumbles, therefore all wumbles are mumbles” fallacy.
I don’t see why gay marriage is needed for a cohesive society, or for gays to live a happy monogamous lifestyle. If you are implying that one can’t live that happy lifestyle without society approving them so we need gay marriage, that’s where I doubt you will ever find common ground. That’s the point, I will never approve of people acting out homosexual inclinations no matter where they come from, and frankly it’s far fetched to think society will beyond a certain percentage.
It isn’t needed for a cohesive society or for gays to live a monogamous lifestyle. That wasn’t the point of what I wrote, though. Excluding gays from marriage makes little sense when you consider all of the negative repercussions that it leads to, which is what points II, IV, and V were about, especially. Because it’s not just gay couples that are affected by gay marriage. I don’t think heterosexuals, who grow up always knowing that they’re one day going to marry when they find someone that they love, really know what it feels like to start dating and realize — my gosh, society thinks that we’re not worthy of the same status as our peers. Why can’t they just accept me for who I am? What have I done to deserve to be looked at like this?
Paranoia: you should just be upfront on that indictment. We only need 5% of angry gays to think it’s OK to sue religious people for speaking there mind and a only a few judges to agree with them for our Democracy to be undermined. It’s not paranoia when it’s really happening. And esp. when you and Metro seem to present argument after argument in other threads of why Religion is evil and should be outed from our society.
Well, that will happen, gay marriage or no gay marriage, which is what my last point was about. Better to salvage what we can from the issue, as strict constructionists.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“How about us begging the question: what do you care who I have sex with, so long as that person is a consenting adult?”
Please let me know if the government should care at all about the any of the following things:
Incest.
What if two siblings love each other. They want to get married. You have to treat them equally! Let them get married. The 14th ammendment says so. Even better would be gay siblings. Why will society accept gay marriage, but not gay marriage between siblings! It’s not fair. Stop the hate and discrimination!
Prostitution.
If the only standard this country is going to have is consent and adults … why not. It works for the Dutch. Why not here!
There is a legal history in this country encouraging marriage and childbirth through the law. It’s not fair, but lot’s of things in our country aren’t fair. Rich people pay huge taxes, people under 18 can’t vote.
Just because you want to do something doesn’t mean the government has to legally encourage you to do it.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
You argue that the moral issues should be removed from the religious issues. How exactly is this possible? What foundation would it be built on?
The only option would be through moral relativism which really has no foundation and would lead to chaos. Since each person’s morality would be true based on his personal views, there would be no universal standard to measure it or a basis to reconcile any differences.
Even if you take out the moral relativism issue, the universal standard can not be arbitrarily set. Can it be done by committee? Can it be mandated by the people or on to the people?
Does culture dictate it? It plays a role, but culture always breaks down after a few generations.
Religion is the only standard that has offered a moral foundation that has stood the test of time.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Alex, care to address my #82?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I personally believe homosexuality is wrong. But as a conservative, why would I deny someone the right to practice what they want in their own home? I wouldn’t. I just have a problem if my private, civic, and religious organizations are forced into accepting homosexuality, which is already happening in California and elsewhere. If you guarantee that won’t happen, then I might be inclined to support gay marriage.
This is why we have to seize the issue and define it on our own terms instead of allowing do-gooders to do it themselves. If we legalize gay marriage via referendum and let it be known that it was done in order to allow gays access to the mainstream of society, then we undermine the judicial activists by nipping their mission in the bud. The way it’s going right now, it’s being defined as a bigotry vs. backwardness/diversity vs. rigidity mission. We can call that out for the false dichotomy that it is and allow gays a seat at the table in mainstream society.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“Funny how they think that government fails at everything it does in the economy, but that it’s absolutely excellent at constructing social life.”
You know Alex, most of the real hard line socons aren’t even really with us on financial issues anyway. They go to the GOP only because they need to go somewhere.
Don’t worry my friend, in a generation these silly social arguments will be long settled and we can actually debate issues that are actually a part of day-to-day policy. Won’t that be refreshing?
And the only people in a generation who still care about gay marriage will be a percentage of these people’s children who drank the kool-aid. And do you know what, they will be considered a creepy Amish-like minority.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
The only argument I see left is one concerning the perception of society as a whole, and I don’t believe it’s the gov’ts job to make people think and feel good or bad towards other people.
I think we’re mostly on the same page, Richard M. Your point about redefining marriage is a good one (why shouldn’t we change definitions when they’re worth changing?), although I still am more inclined to think that it’s not so much a redefinition as a logical expansion. It’s like adding a song to your iPod, rather than throwing out the iPod and buying a big computer to store your songs on.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
G – I absolutely believe in legalizing prostitution. The culture should discourage it, but government should stay out of it. It’s a property rights issue: do you own your own body or not? I find it weird that adultery is legal, but prostitution is illegal. Is it just the money that’s the problem or what?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
“That close relative was never a homosexual, then.”
All my hypotheses hold up perfectly, too … as long as I get to reject all the data that doesn’t support it.
For a society who can’t even really define what homosexuality is, we sure do want to assign a lot of rights to it.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
What foundation would it be built on? The only option would be through moral relativism which really has no foundation and would lead to chaos. Since each person’s morality would be true based on his personal views, there would be no universal standard to measure it or a basis to reconcile any differences.
Philosophy. We should seek to build a society in which pluralism reigns. Our Constitution was built in the way it was for that very reason. In fact, it was criticized at the time by religious leaders (the Huckabees of the time) for being too irreligious! Not a single mention of God or Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned in our Constitution. And it’s like that for a reason: we are an officially secular society.
Besides some Huckabees out there, who openly admit that they want to alter the Constitution to put scripture into it, everyone agrees that the Constitution is a brilliant document. Funny how things change like that.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
To accuse gays that they choose to be gays is horrible. How can you make that accusation?
There are serious scientific researches that give explanation to why people are born with genome that “makes them gay”. One of the problems of some of you is that you don’t accept scientific facts as evident by challenging them with theological or empirical arguments.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Alex, FYI, adultery is still illegal in some states.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
All my hypotheses hold up perfectly, too … as long as I get to reject all the data that doesn’t support it. For a society who can’t even really define what homosexuality is, we sure do want to assign a lot of rights to it.
A homosexual is a person with sexual and romantic attractions to the same sex. If you’re a woman who’s naturally sexually attracted to men but chooses to date women because she’s afraid of men, then she has a psychological problem, not an ingrained sexual orientation.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
87. You’re falling prey to the classic “All mumbles are wumbles, therefore all wumbles are mumbles” fallacy.
Well then I guess I can summarize your argument to this “all gays are born that way accept the ones who aren’t.”
society thinks that we’re not worthy of the same status as our peers. Why can’t they just accept me for who I am? What have I done to deserve to be looked at like this?
Fair argument to a point. It’s not that I don’t think your worthy (I do), it’s that I don’t think homosexual relations themselves are worthy for me to personally say “go at it”. This is in harmony with you line: “the former, because marriage law is not predicated on sexual orientation: legally, marriage is between a man and a woman, not a straight man and a straight woman. A gay man and a lesbian can marry and it will be legally valid.”
And w/r/t mixing religion in your vote. That’s absurd. People are bound by their conscience. My conscience has bound me to my religion. There is an argument for a general disconnect, but it’s not all or none. It’s not black and white. You argue no religion because you’re atheist. I am guessing if you were brought up Southern Baptist in Georgia you would be arguing something else.
I argue it’s a fine line led by one’s conscience and we all arrive a different places for that line. I won’t fault you for voting with no religion (it’s your right and perogative), but I don’t fault a die hard for voting with all religion. Voting is about conscience not appeasing the secularist and atheist or the religionist and moralists.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
As long as they are blonde, I am a skirtchaser.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Alex, FYI, adultery is still illegal in some states.
Well, it’s not enforced. It’s like that weird law in DC that three unrelated women can’t live in the same house together or else it’s considered a brothel.
To accuse gays that they choose to be gays is horrible. How can you make that accusation?
There are serious scientific researches that give explanation to why people are born with genome that “makes them gay”. One of the problems of some of you is that you don’t accept scientific facts as evident by challenging them with theological or empirical arguments.
I’m not really sure that they’re considering the implications of what they’re saying. Are they saying that these people are actually attracted to the opposite sex, but choose to date and have sex with the same sex, anyway? Or that they consciously chose to reverse their sexual desires? Are they saying that they, themselves, could change their sexual desires if they put their minds to it? They’re also saying that all gay people are liars, since all gay people (obviously) assert that their sexuality is not a choice. I take it as a personal affront to my character every time someone tells me that being gay is a choice.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
#98, really? Wow!
November 26th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
A homosexual is a person with sexual and romantic attractions to the same sex.
Alex you arguments don’t line up.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Well Palin has most of the attributes that have been assigned to blondes via stereotype. So that explains a lot
November 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
104,
Huh?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
(Not that I buy into those negative steretypes assigned to said blondes…)
November 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
As someone who is personally opposed to homosexuality but who believes in allowing gays equal rights society, I pose the following thoughts:
a)if you believe homosexual tendencies can be overcome, would you ever be willing to consider dating a person who had “overcome” such tendencies in the past?
b)if you don’t believe homosexuality can be “overcome” yet persist in denying gays equal rights, what sort of lifestyle would you have them live?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
102. Your problem is that people who choose to be gay aren’t really gay. It’s a game of semantics to avoid the hole in your argument.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
If gay marriage does prevail, which I believe it will several years down the road, don’t you think it will be a sad day given that
it’s passage wil really just be a result of a breakdown of existing marriage as it is now constituted? Think about it, gay
marriage will be ushered in a time when divorce, adultery, abuse, single parents & cohabitation are at an all time high. When
Heterosexuals no longer value the institution of marriage, it won’t be long before Alex’s arguments presented in his article will
start to sound reasonable, and ultimately persuasive. Hang in there Alex, society will give up on the ideals of marriage and family
eventually. I just don’t think it will be a day to celebrate when it will take the breakdown of the family to accomplish this
end goal.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Well then I guess I can summarize your argument to this “all gays are born that way accept the ones who aren’t.”
No. Homosexuals are people who are sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex. Hell, it’s what you’ve been saying all along: you can choose who you have sex with. If a woman who is a heterosexual is frightened of men and chooses to have sex with women because of that, she’s not a lesbian, but a heterosexual woman having sex with other women. I highly recommend the book “The Sexual Spectrum” by Olive Skene Johnson, which discusses women like your relative in some detail.
Fair argument to a point. It’s not that I don’t think your worthy (I do), it’s that I don’t think homosexual relations themselves are worthy for me to personally say “go at it”. This is in harmony with you line: “the former, because marriage law is not predicated on sexual orientation: legally, marriage is between a man and a woman, not a straight man and a straight woman. A gay man and a lesbian can marry and it will be legally valid.”
I used that only as a Constitutional argument, so I could get it out of the way early that I did not believe in any of the gay activists’ nonsense. It has no bearing on whether I believe that marriage rights should be extended to same-sex couples, because marriage as a practical, rather than a legal matter is indeed about romance and sexuality.
And w/r/t mixing religion in your vote. That’s absurd. People are bound by their conscience. My conscience has bound me to my religion. There is an argument for a general disconnect, but it’s not all or none. It’s not black and white. You argue no religion because you’re atheist. I am guessing if you were brought up Southern Baptist in Georgia you would be arguing something else.
I suggested that people who cannot separate them should abstain from voting on such issues.
I argue it’s a fine line led by one’s conscience and we all arrive a different places for that line. I won’t fault you for voting with no religion (it’s your right and perogative), but I don’t fault a die hard for voting with all religion. Voting is about conscience not appeasing the secularist and atheist or the religionist and moralists.
I fault a die hard for voting with all religion, because it tacitly creates a theocratic society. If 51% of the country were diehard Huck-a-style-religionists, would it be proper for you to be governed by their morality? Absolutely not. You should be free to live by your LDS morality, me by my personal philosophy, and Huckabee by his rantings. But none should be allowed to impose theirs on the other. Which is why marriage shouldn’t be a government issue. But since it is, we ought not to discriminate against any sexual orientations. Marriage as a legal matter isn’t a religious ceremony, but is about property rights, inheritance rights, tax credits, etc. It also harms the children of gay couples in that way.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
105. I meant…
The problem is that you’re just arguing people who choose to be gay aren’t really gay…
November 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
94
“The culture should discourage it”
How should the culture discourage it? Should a majority of citizens vote to make it illegal? Certainly not, i’m sure you’d say … it’s a property rights issue.
Law is part of the culture. The culture will certainly discourage something much less when it given an endorsement of legality from the government.
I just don’t believe that more prostitution is going to offer any long-term benefit to society.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
102. Your problem is that people who choose to be gay aren’t really gay. It’s a game of semantics to avoid the hole in your argument.
It’s not a semantic game. Again, I recommend the book “The Sexual Spectrum” by Olive Skene Johnson, which compiles all of the latest sexual research on matters such as what your relative went through. There is actually an extensive body of research about heterosexual women who choose practical lesbianism.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I just don’t believe that more prostitution is going to offer any long-term benefit to society.
I don’t think that legalizing it will make it so there’s more of it. It’s legal to masturbate to pictures of underage girls, but no one encourages that or thinks it’s okay to talk about in civil society.
And if it’s not legal, prostitution is driven underground. When a pimp abuses a prostitute, under my set of rules, there is one criminal; under yours, there are two.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
112 Jason and others who pretend that they have a “gotcha” with homosexuality as a choice,
Can you imagine a world where there are a large number of homosexuals, and also in the same world there are completely different people who are sexually confused for any number of reasons?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I appreciate seeing a well-thought-out article on this, though many of the comments rather perturb me. People’s dogmatic acceptance of ideology that doesn’t make sense is, well, non-sensical. I did want to talk a bit about contract law, though.
Whether or not we accept this as a fourteenth amendment challenge, consider: A man can only marry a woman, and a woman can only marry a man. We have restricted a person’s ability to engage in contract with another person based solely on gender. We cannot legally restrict the right of a man to enter into a business contract with a man, or a man to enter into a business contract with a woman simply because they are of the same or opposite gender–it’s clear that this would not pass constitutional muster on its face, so I’m unclear on why this suddenly gets by when the contract is a marriage contract. Would you mind addressing that? You seem to be on more solid ground here than I am.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
a)if you believe homosexual tendencies can be overcome, would you ever be willing to consider dating a person who had “overcome” such tendencies in the past?
b)if you don’t believe homosexuality can be “overcome” yet persist in denying gays equal rights, what sort of lifestyle would you have them live?
Heh. I like both of these questions.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
And comment 117 pretty much lays out why gay marriage will win in the long run.
Because the only possible argument is on religious grounds, which of course is no reason at all.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
edit 119-
Religious reason is no LEGAL reason at all. Which is what we are talking about. What should or shouldn’t be legally allowed.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
So, could a heterosexual women take advantage of a gay marriage law? Or would she not be aloud to?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
If 51% of the country were diehard Huck-a-style-religionists, would it be proper for you to be governed by their morality? Absolutely not.
As long as it doesn’t infringe on constitutional rights. We are a collectivist society with individualistic tendencies.
No. Homosexuals are people who are sexually and romantically attracted to the same sex. Hell, it’s what you’ve been saying all along: you can choose who you have sex with. If a woman who is a heterosexual is frightened of men and chooses to have sex with women because of that, she’s not a lesbian, but a heterosexual woman having sex with other women. I highly recommend the book “The Sexual Spectrum” by Olive Skene Johnson, which discusses women like your relative in some detail.
Your missing our point. Everyone who presents themselves as gay or lesbian was not born that way. That’s the point. Beyond that it’s semantics. We seem to agree.
I used that only as a Constitutional argument, so I could get it out of the way early that I did not believe in any of the gay activists’ nonsense. It has no bearing on whether I believe that marriage rights should be extended to same-sex couples, because marriage as a practical, rather than a legal matter is indeed about romance and sexuality.
I don’t care why you presented it, it’s how you presented it. You presented it as a principle in application, and I was demonstrating how it is applicable in this situation as well.
I suggested that people who cannot separate them should abstain from voting on such issues.
Fair enough. I just think it’s fair and logical to reject that notion.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving Alex and I hope you are excited for the thing you emailed me about.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Whether or not we accept this as a fourteenth amendment challenge, consider: A man can only marry a woman, and a woman can only marry a man. We have restricted a person’s ability to engage in contract with another person based solely on gender. We cannot legally restrict the right of a man to enter into a business contract with a man, or a man to enter into a business contract with a woman simply because they are of the same or opposite gender–it’s clear that this would not pass constitutional muster on its face, so I’m unclear on why this suddenly gets by when the contract is a marriage contract. Would you mind addressing that? You seem to be on more solid ground here than I am.
Sure, no problem. Marriage law — which exists in a vacuum, unrelated to other contracts — is, as it stands, predicated on opposite-sex relations. It has nothing to do, under the law, which is different from its repercussions in practical terms, with sexual orientation. A gay man can marry a lesbian, a straight woman can marry a gay man — it doesn’t matter. If you’re a man and a woman, you’re good to go. That’s different from other laws, because other laws are gender-neutral and anti-discrimination laws apply. Think of marriage law as being in the same category, as, say, the draft. (I oppose anti-discrimination laws, myself, on principles of property rights, but that’s neither here nor there.)
November 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Because the only possible argument is on religious grounds, which of course is no reason at all.
Nope. Gotta disagree, as I addressed in 123. We need to start making convincing non-legal arguments, because strict constructionism matters.
122 – Fair enough. But regardless of whether some self-defined lesbians really are biological lesbians or not, it’s not fair to lump them all together, saying that since they’re not really lesbians, then I must not really be gay (back to that All-Xs-Are-Ys-Therefore-All-Ys-Are-Xs thing). Besides that, we’re at an agree-to-disagree point.
But I’d still suggest that you read the book. It’s good.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I appreciate the response, but I wasn’t talking about sexual orientation, I was actually talking about gender discrimination. That is, forget about gay or straight for a second. I can’t pass a law that says: “Men can only enter into contracts with women” without it getting struck down–it is illegitimate to restrict who can contract with each other based on their gender–not sexual orientation, but gender.. But apparently, if I pass a law that says “men can only enter into marriage contracts with women”, why is this now okay?
Anti-discrimination laws don’t really come up here because we’re talking about legislation, rather than property rights.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
One last point….
If a woman who is a heterosexual is frightened of men and chooses to have sex with women because of that, she’s not a lesbian, but a heterosexual woman having sex with other women.
Since approx. 95% of claimed “Lesbians” and 40% of Claimed “gays” were victims of sexual abuse can we agree that those people shouldn’t be allowed to same-sex marry? Only the ones who can actually show they are attracted to same gender for reasons other than a psychological disorder? You know, a compromise.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
123
Marriage is not only predicated on opposite-sex relations.
There are requirements about number (not more than 1).
There are requirements about relationship (more distant than 1st cousin).
Why is it that the only regulations in the current marriage law that are violating ‘basic civil rights’ are the ones about opposite gender?
November 26th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Since approx. 95% of claimed “Lesbians” and 40% of Claimed “gays” were victims of sexual abuse can we agree that those people shouldn’t be allowed to same-sex marry? Only the ones who can actually show they are attracted to same gender for reasons other than a psychological disorder? You know, a compromise.
Whoa. Back those statistics up with citations soldier, those are impressive figures and you might want to substantiate them.
Also, being the victim of sexual abuse doesn’t imply that you suffer from a psychological disorder–everybody reacts to trauma differently. Some people get over it quickly, other commit suicide. Generalizing is a dangerous game.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“Indeed, if we stuck with secular, philosophical arguments, it’s rather difficult to come to anything but a classically liberal conclusion.”
This comment may have already been commented on, but I couldn’t resist. Clearly bad conclusions are reached by secular philosophical arguments – just look at communism and the French Revolution.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
#102 – Yes, it reminds me of the ‘once saved, always saved argument’. When one of them falls all the way away and even leaves their church, they argue, “well they were just never really saved’, even though that person once had claimed just as vehemently that they were.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
oops, not 102, I was referring to the argument that once they go straight, they argue, well, he or she was never really gay.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
91
“If we legalize gay marriage via referendum and let it be known that it was done in order to allow gays access to the mainstream of society, then we undermine the judicial activists by nipping their mission in the bud.”
Exactly. Rather than allowing gays to force their gay marriage agenda on us, the majority should just adopt it and save them the trouble! Brilliant!
Except that time and again gay marriage has been put to a vote and struck down, which is why it’s ends up it the courts … After it doesn’t win in the voting booth.
But that’s ok. The judges will tell us how to think … unless we nip it in the bud and start thinking that way before they tell us to.
Sarcasm aside, I would much rather gay marriage be down through legislation. It would prevent this far reaching ‘the constitution defines race and gender preference identically’ garbage. But the gay lobby who have decided the courts are the best battle ground for this fight.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
#128, Bonham is not that far off with his stats. He is essentially correct.
http://www.narth.com/docs/canadian.html
November 26th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I was referring to the argument that once they go straight, they argue, well, he or she was never really gay.
I think you are unclear on how sexuality works. The idea that sexuality is a mutable trait has been debunked, more than once. The data has undergone rigorous scrutiny, and it is reproducible.
Only anecdotal evidence exists that sexual orientation can be changed, entirely from groups seeking to effect such a change, or from members of their community that stand to be ostracized if they do not comply. Ted Haggard, for example.
However, it is verifiable on the other hand that gay people have married, had sex with and even reproduced with the opposite sex in an attempt to convince people, perhaps even themselves, that they were not, in fact, gay. Ted Haggard? Anyone?
Also, the comment threads here in discussions of behavior patterns have more or less implicitly denied the existence of bisexuality. Even though “they can pass”, they may choose not to–dating same-sex sometimes, and opposite-sex the other. Their sexuality isn’t changing–they’re not strictly straight or strictly gay. Or if you prefer hetero- and homosexual as non-exclusive terms, they’re both.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Alex, I don’t think your arguments are off-base, but I feel like you are missing the big picture. You kind of touch on this but I don’t think your argument dispels it properly. If two gay men or two lesbian women should be allowed to marry, then why shouldn’t we bend the lines of traditional marriage further to accommodate other groups? For example, if we change the meaning of marriage from one man and woman to two consenting adults, then why can’t we change it to 3 consenting adults? Or what about 5? Would polygamists not then have a legitimate case to legalize their practice? What if a 25 year old man and a 15 year old girl loved each other, or vice versa and wanted to get married. It was obviously a legal practice in the past but I think for good reason we outlawed it.
Every time I bring this argument up and ask why these other groups should not marry, the person I’m arguing with basically proves my point and says they shouldn’t because it’s wrong, and that the Constitution should only be modified to accommodate homosexuals. It’s total hypocrisy in my opinion. You argue that there is a fundamental difference in that homosexuality is a genetic difference, not a life choice. There is no scientific evidence proving this. The South Korean scientist who broke ground 10 years ago and proved it, was found several years ago to have falsified his data to advance his social agenda. Obviously you have your personal perspective that tells you it is genetic, but you can’t prove it in a court of law. Any argument ruled in your favor would be a case of judicial activism, and the ruling would surely open the door to more bending of the definition of marriage.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
interesting to see that this debate beats the Huck debate
November 26th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
#128, Bonham is not that far off with his stats. He is essentially correct.
A sample size of 192 people is not enough to establish a society-wide trend, generally such samples are in the thousands. It is also not clear in the article how the sample was selected. Also, according to this: “The authors sampled 192 gay and bisexual men to find out if they considered their sexual experiences to be abusive, positive, or neutral. Of the 192 interviewed, 50 (26%) reported a sexual experience before age 17 with someone at least five years or older.”
26% is a long way off from 40%.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
J.B. I have had heard those numbers from like 3 or so psychologists, and I read them once somewhere. So do what you want with them. I have to do other stuff today now, but I an research it a bit more.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Also, if you go further down pro-gay marriage constitutionality road of logic, it seems you would think it is unconstitutional for me as a male to be barred from entering a female bathroom for its use? uni-sex bathrooms for everybody!
November 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Alex, I don’t think your arguments are off-base, but I feel like you are missing the big picture. You kind of touch on this but I don’t think your argument dispels it properly. If two gay men or two lesbian women should be allowed to marry, then why shouldn’t we bend the lines of traditional marriage further to accommodate other groups? For example, if we change the meaning of marriage from one man and woman to two consenting adults, then why can’t we change it to 3 consenting adults? Or what about 5? Would polygamists not then have a legitimate case to legalize their practice? What if a 25 year old man and a 15 year old girl loved each other, or vice versa and wanted to get married. It was obviously a legal practice in the past but I think for good reason we outlawed it.
And
Also, if you go further down pro-gay marriage constitutionality road of logic, it seems you would think it is unconstitutional for me as a male to be barred from entering a female bathroom for its use? uni-sex bathrooms for everybody!
What do these commenters have in common?
Neither of them read the article.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsabuse1.htm
November 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Of the 192 interviewed, 50 (26%) reported a sexual experience before age 17 with someone at least five years or older.”
This isn’t necessarily evidence of being molested, unless you think that by definition such a relationship is molestation. A lot of times, young gay men seek out older gay men because they feel like they have no one else to turn to to relate to on those matters, especially if their parents are anti-gay. It’s a shame — that’s what these super-religious parents like Deborah Lee and Doug Forrester do to their gay kids: drive them away.
If they were accepting, on the other hand…
November 26th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth may be at greater risk because they tend to be socially isolated and are easier targets.14,15 In one study, male sexual abuse survivors self-described as homosexual almost seven times, and as bisexual almost six times, more often than nonabused peers.15
Yeah. It’s really tragic, and it’s for the reasons I discussed in 143. They feel like they have no one else to turn to, a lot of the time, and sometimes end up being taken advantage of.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I think you are unclear on how sexuality works. The idea that sexuality is a mutable trait has been debunked, more than once. The data has undergone rigorous scrutiny, and it is reproducible. Only anecdotal evidence exists that sexual orientation can be changed, entirely from groups seeking to effect such a change, or from members of their community that stand to be ostracized if they do not comply. Ted Haggard, for example.
I honestly think that a lot of opponents of same-sex marriage just aren’t educated on the matter of sexuality. It’s a malignant innocence, really; they don’t know any better, but they’re messing things up for those of us who do understand how sexuality works or are sexual minorities.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Since approx. 95% of claimed “Lesbians” and 40% of Claimed “gays” were victims of sexual abuse can we agree that those people shouldn’t be allowed to same-sex marry? Only the ones who can actually show they are attracted to same gender for reasons other than a psychological disorder? You know, a compromise.”
Why? We allow gay men to marry women right now, why would we prevent “straight” men from marrying men?
The fact is that marriage in a legal sense is nothing more than a contract between two people enforced by the state. And the state has no legal grounds for prohibiting any citizens from engaging in a contract with one another.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Again, I put this forth to Kavon and others who run this site, what good is Alex doing here besides stirring up controversy and defending his views which very very few here seem to agree on. Freedom of speech is great and all, really it is, but when someone like Alex just seems to be trying to stir the pot for the pot’s sake, what good is he doing here?
November 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Again, I put this forth to Kavon and others who run this site, what good is Alex doing here besides stirring up controversy and defending his views which very very few here seem to agree on. Freedom of speech is great and all, really it is, but when someone like Alex just seems to be trying to stir the pot for the pot’s sake, what good is he doing here?
Actually, quite a few people here appreciated the fact that I put this forth, others agree completely, and others are having a respectful back and forth with me. You just want to silence everyone who doesn’t agree with you. Of course, we could do it your way — purge the party of non-believers on social matters — because it’s been working for us so well lately.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
147-
Wouldn’t it be better if we all just had one big echo chamber to loiter in?
The truth is that gay marriage splits the party divide. Many democrat voters are against allowing gay marriage, and many republican voters don’t give a shit and are frankly a little creeped out and sometimes even embarrassed by you diehard socons.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
149 – There’s some evidence that the non-so-con elements of the party see the theocons as useful idiots.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
148, 149, missed my points entirely. I think the dialogues we have here is great, but almost all of Alex’s posts seem to be just to generate massive amounts of comments. Referring specifically to his chapter by chapter reviews of Huckabee’s book, his crap-a-post about Romney’s non-existent flip-flop, and now this.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Two points–one slightly serious, the other slightly facetious.
I’m a Reform Jew. Reform Judaism is generally supportive of marriage equality. Ditto if I were an Episcopalian, or a Unitarian-Universalist, or any number of mainline Protestant denominations.
Point one: if a person is going to argue that marriage equality should be denied on the basis of a religious proscription of homosexual activity, what basis is there for this when the denominations themselves don’t agree on whether the proscription even exists?
It seems to me that there is a small and very vocal minority that has arrogated to itself not only the power to claim that I’m “not really gay, just confused,” but that pro-equality Republicans aren’t really Republicans, and that the aforementioned denominations aren’t really Christians. Why don’t we just take this power back?
Point two: maybe we’re going about this the wrong way. Instead of legalizing gay marriage, we should legalize gay divorce first. What good “Christian” could possibly argue with the destruction of gay relationships?! Then, once gay divorce is legal, it’s pretty easy to get a court to rule that the legalization of gay marriage is implied in the law!!
November 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
151
I’m too young to understand what they gave and gained by using the idiots, but it has done nothing less than convincing these folks that conservationism has anything to do with enforcing religious values and nothing to do with government interference in the real world. Talk about unintended consequences.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
153-I meant that these people think that conservatism has nothing to do with LIMITING government interference. Sorry.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
152-
I think a better way around this is to ban hetro marriage by the sterile or impotent. Obviously the point of marriage is procreation.
We should also make pre-marital sex illegal, and obviously adultery as well.
Some people will honestly try to pretend that these abuses against liberty are “conservative”. More evidence that they have hijacked the word conservative and inserted their own definition; christian theocracy.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I’m too young to understand what they gave and gained by using the idiots, but it has done nothing less than convincing these folks that conservationism has anything to do with enforcing religious values and nothing to do with government interference in the real world. Talk about unintended consequences.
How old are you? I’m 18.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I think Doug would make a great father, and he would not reject his gay kids, he would probably still love them and even show up at their wedding(s), even though they disagreed on the issue.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Eric. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with doing everything possible to remove morality from legislation. The voice of the people has spoken, and they want to legislate on morality. They want to keep marriage for a man and woman. Should repubicans stop fighting for In God We Trust? God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Those are also inherently American things. America was founded as a religious country with religious roots. We represent Christiandom to the world. If the people want to define marriage, they have every right to do so.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“I think the dialogues we have here is great, but almost all of Alex’s posts seem to be just to generate massive amounts of comments.”
Um, isn’t the entire point of a blog to generate a healthy debate on issues? You seem to be indicating that’s exactly what he’s doing, and yet want him removed because he’s accomplishing the goal of generating debate?
November 26th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I think Doug would make a great father, and he would not reject his gay kids, he would probably still love them and even show up at their wedding(s), even though they disagreed on the issue.
That’s not what I meant. I didn’t mean that he’d literally cause them to leave him. But the kind of attitude people like him foster is what creates the tragic circumstances for gay teens that too often exist today.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
141
Alex I don’t buy your argument that polygamy is different from homosexuality because one is a lifestyle choice and the other is, well, certainly not a choice whatever it is (except for some people who just experiment a little bit and weren’t really gay … for them it was a lifestyle, but for everyone else it’s genetic, or something).
The fact is that marriage currently has several regulations tied to it. All of the ‘unfair’ to someone who might truly love, but not be able to marry someone.
I’d love to hear any logical reason why the marriage restrictions regarding gender should be changed that would not also apply to the marriage restrictions regarding the relationship between the people who to get married, or the number of people who want to get married.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
148, 149, missed my points entirely. I think the dialogues we have here is great, but almost all of Alex’s posts seem to be just to generate massive amounts of comments. Referring specifically to his chapter by chapter reviews of Huckabee’s book, his crap-a-post about Romney’s non-existent flip-flop, and now this.
LOL. I am not the one writing the chapter-by-chapter review of Huckabee’s book!
November 26th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’d love to hear any logical reason why the marriage restrictions regarding gender should be changed that would not also apply to the marriage restrictions regarding the relationship between the people who to get married, or the number of people who want to get married.
I look at it as similar to race in the same way that it was like, you know, society woke up one day and collectively realized “Oh, crap! Being black isn’t a choice and doesn’t make the person less worthy of the same rights as whites have in any way!” Society needs to wake up and realize “Oh, crap! Being gay isn’t a choice and doesn’t make the person less worthy of the same rights as straights have in any way!” It’s just an issue of fundamental equality (which is separate from the case I was making in the article).
But the number of people? That’s, again, a totally separate argument from gay marriage, because the two are totally different issues.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Eric. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with doing everything possible to remove morality from legislation. The voice of the people has spoken, and they want to legislate on morality. They want to keep marriage for a man and woman. Should repubicans stop fighting for In God We Trust? God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Those are also inherently American things. America was founded as a religious country with religious roots. We represent Christiandom to the world. If the people want to define marriage, they have every right to do so.
No one said that you didn’t have the right to do so under the Constitution. I’m saying that you shouldn’t do so.
Just because The People have spoken doesn’t mean that they were right.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
163
Really? People used to argue being black was a choice?
As I’ve said many times before. Race is not the same thing as sexual preference and it drives me crazy that activists are using the courts to try to write this principle into our legal system.
And if they’re not the same thing, people shouldn’t wake up the same way the same way they did in the 60s. And gays should stop the endless comparisons to the civil rights movement.
Being black and being gay aren’t the same thing. Perhaps one reason why blacks so strongly rejected prop 8 was because no one understands this better than they.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
156-
I’m 28. I understand in principle what was/is gained (religious “values” voters) and what at what expense (metropolitan and suburban educated voters), but what I don’t understand is how to quantify the cost/benefit of alienating (in part) one set of potential voters to lock in (in part) the other, and I surely don’t understand how to quantify the cost/benefit of this decision that was made 35+ years ago.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
In the end, I have to say that I still disagree with or object to almost the entire case made here for gay marriage. Worst of all, it seems to come down to a call for mainstreaming sexual orientation just for its own sake.
Expanding the definition of traditional marriage to include same-sex betrothal seems unlikely to make future parents eager to facilitate the homosexual orientation of their offspring. Many parents will still try to pressure their kids to reconsider, I would imagine. The degree of disappointment and disapproval will differ, but these social pressures will most likely always be there.
Arguing that the courts will impose gay marriage from above, and voters should therefore embrace the idea the majority does not approve in advance: This merely ignores the reasons people oppose it while failing to address their worst fears of the future implications.
Children who grow up in two-parent households and with supportive extended families do better than kids who come from broken homes. So the problem that would seem in more urgent need of repair is the high rate of divorce rather than the lack of gay marriage.
I totally disagree with the idea of expanding government reach into the definition of marriage, as well as expanding the system of government entitlement.
The gratuitous religion bashing does nothing to support the argument. And the idea that religion should be kept from politics is immaterial to the case, unsupported by the nation’s founding documents, and contrary to the very human nature that has shaped and informed our society. We don’t have “Sun Kings” or a priestly class of rulers. Nor do we have the aggressive secularism of “laïcité” as practiced in France and Turkey.
In the end, rejection of gay marriage is a rejection of radical change to a traditional social institution. The need for such change appears neither to be necessary nor to improve anything much.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Isn’t it true that some would argue that they have no ‘choice’ but to commit adultery, cause they just can’t seem to control themselves. Couldn’t they argue how unhappy they would be if they have to stay with just one woman all their lives? Maybe for them, we should allow them to marry extra spouses, but not to anyone who is able to resist the temptation? It seems to me to be the same set of logic you are using Alex.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Let me add two things to my comments in 165
First that there are important civil rights gays are entitled to. By saying it shouldn’t be treated exactly the same way as race I in no way mean that the courts should ignore the issue. Just that I reject the blanked 14th ammendment appeals that they are EXACTLY the same thing in the courts eyes.
Second. Alex, you still have answered my question. Of course the number of people involved in a marriage and the gender, or the relationship of the people involved in a marriage are different issues … but they are all regulations on marriage under the current law.
Give me a reason to change one of them that could not be applied to the other two.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Bottom line, answer this ? are sexually segregated bathrooms legal or not? than use that logic regarding the constitutionally of gay marriage
November 26th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Really? People used to argue being black was a choice?
Eh, it was a poor way of phrasing it, but you know what I was getting at.
As I’ve said many times before. Race is not the same thing as sexual preference
It is in principle. Both are unchosen, both are unalterable. Actually, sexual orientation is literally impossible to change; one can actually change their race through the right cosmetic surgery.
One is visible and one is not, but who cares?
Being black and being gay aren’t the same thing. Perhaps one reason why blacks so strongly rejected prop 8 was because no one understands this better than they.
Or it might just be because blacks are more socially conservative on average than whites..? Occam’s Razor works well, here.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Bottom line, answer this ? are sexually segregated bathrooms legal or not? than use that logic regarding the constitutionally of gay marriage
Would you read the goddamn article? Or at least read Part 2 of Section I. I am not making the argument that gay marriage is dictated by the Constitution?
I cannot believe you have the nerve to ask me these asinine questions without even having the courtesy to read the f’ing article.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
And won’t there be a big fight amongst the families on which one is the bride (paying for the vast majority of wedding expenses)?
Can’t you just see a family teaching their kids, “We want you to be straight son, but just in case you go gay, make sure you are the feminine one.” 
November 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
#168, what is wrong with having “extra spouses”?
Is it not liberty to allow an individual to decide who and how many people they want to marry?
November 26th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
IllinoisGuy, I would refer you to the exchange I had with Matthew E. Miller in 18-38 about tendencies versus orientations. Adultery is a tendency; one can avoid adultery by staying away from people he’d be inclined to cheat with. A sexual orientation is internal. One can avoid gay sex, but not homosexuality. Avoiding gay sex won’t make you any less gay.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
171
“It is in principle. Both are unchosen*, both are unalterable**.”
* some restritions may apply
** girls who ‘experiment’ in college don’t count
Still waiting for a reason to change one area of our marriage laws that couldn’t be applied to the others.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Second. Alex, you still have answered my question. Of course the number of people involved in a marriage and the gender, or the relationship of the people involved in a marriage are different issues … but they are all regulations on marriage under the current law.
Give me a reason to change one of them that could not be applied to the other two.
Give me a reason other than “because it’s been that way for a really, really long time” that your same argument doesn’t apply to instituting marriage in the first place! Your argument is absurd. My argument stands: it’s an orientation vs. lifestyle issue.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Many parents will still try to pressure their kids to reconsider, I would imagine.
Good luck with that one.
gratuitous religion bashing
What religion-bashing was there in the article?
November 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Worst of all, it seems to come down to a call for mainstreaming sexual orientation just for its own sake.
I’m not sure if you read the article or not. The whole article was about why mainstreaming it would be so fantastic for traditional society.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“Adultery is a tendency; one can avoid adultery by staying away from people he’d be inclined to cheat with. A sexual orientation is internal.”
Sorry, Alex, I don’t see the difference. I think there are those who see it as much more than a tendency. Some would argue they literally just can’t help themselves. I would argue that they can, but would admit that it may be more difficult for them than for some other people. But they are just as convinced they just can’t do it, or sure as heck aren’t willing to, just the same as you. Btw, I’m not arguing for polygamy, far from it, but I can’t see a difference no matter how you tend to term each.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
141. Speak for yourself. So what if “very very few here seem to agree on” Alex’s viewpoint? Who made you the chief of the Thought Police?
November 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
180. Illinois Guy — you can’t argue the “P” word both ways. Just sayin.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sorry, Alex, I don’t see the difference. I think there are those who see it as much more than a tendency. Some would argue they literally just can’t help themselves. I would argue that they can, but would admit that it may be more difficult for them than for some other people. But they are just as convinced they just can’t do it, or sure as heck aren’t willing to, just the same as you. Btw, I’m not arguing for polygamy, far from it, but I can’t see a difference no matter how you tend to term each.
God, you sound like the morons that say that McDonald’s made them fat. You as a conservative should be the first to draw the difference between the obvious distinctions.
They are not just the same as me, and you have no idea how unimaginably insulting that is. I honestly am not sure whether you realize what it’s like to be gay. Being attracted to the same sex, for me, is just like how you’re attracted to women.
Imagine if I were saying that you simply have “tendencies” toward women that you needed to control and that you should try to be attracted to men, if you can be. You’d think me out of my mind. And yet that’s exactly what you’re proposing to me.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Alex #178: I said parents would still pressure their kids not to become homosexual. I made no claim as to the parents’ outlook for success. You yourself acknowledged in essence that adolescents might rebel against their parents by acting gay, for good or bad reasons. Or they might chose a gay lifestyle for numerous other reasons without being homosexual in your more limited definition of the term.
In other words, parents would have legitimate reasons to doubt that their kids are gay just because they attempt homosexual activity. The progression of your comments here would appear to legitimate this parental pressure, even if you find it ultimately cruel and unfair to kids who are “true” homosexuals, defined as those who have no choice in their sexual orientation.
Religion bashing starts in your article, when you declare religious beliefs as out of bounds for argumentation. You then make a lot of noise in the comments about violations of your arbitrary firewall.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
182What??? I’m not arguing for polygamy. But, on the other hand, I’m not about to tell God that Israel is only allowed one of his four wives in the eternities; or Abraham, or a multituded of other old testament people?
November 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Your insults change nothing Alex. Your logic just doesn’t hold strong.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#185, NO! I am arguing for the right of polygamists.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
You yourself acknowledged in essence that adolescents might rebel against their parents by acting gay, for good or bad reasons. Or they might chose a gay lifestyle for numerous other reasons without being homosexual in your more limited definition of the term. In other words, parents would have legitimate reasons to doubt that their kids are gay just because they attempt homosexual activity.
I think that you’re legitimately uneducated on this. If you’re not educated on sexuality issues, please don’t talk about them. It’s extremely uncommon — if indeed it happens at all — for kids to ‘rebel against the parents’ by acting gay. That’s just unheard of. If you’re suggesting that I suggested that, please direct me to where and I’ll clarify my comments for you, because you definitely misunderstood them.
Religion bashing starts in your article, when you declare religious beliefs as out of bounds for argumentation.
How is it bashing religion to say that in order to accept the argument that I’m putting forward, one must agree with my premise that religion and politics shouldn’t mix?
November 26th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Kristofer, I wasn’t talking to you, try looking to see who #182 referred to!
November 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Your insults change nothing Alex. Your logic just doesn’t hold strong.
Please reply to this:
They are not just the same as me, and you have no idea how unimaginably insulting that is. I honestly am not sure whether you realize what it’s like to be gay. Being attracted to the same sex, for me, is just like how you’re attracted to women.
Imagine if I were saying that you simply have “tendencies” toward women that you needed to control and that you should try to be attracted to men, if you can be. You’d think me out of my mind. And yet that’s exactly what you’re proposing to me.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
177
“Give me a reason other than “because it’s been that way for a really, really long time”
Usually the people asking to change the law have the burden of proving why it should be changed, but ok.
In order for a society to maintain itself over a long period of time, people need to have babies. Those babies need to grow up to be well-adjusted, contributing members of the future society. The majority of our society seems to think (and research has shown) that the most stable way for those kids to grow up as future contributing members of society is with a mom and a dad.
Because of these ideas (through court cases and legislation) society has decided it is a good idea to encourage marriage and child bearing (tax breaks, etc.). It is probably not inline with absolute conservative thinking, but it’s probably a good thing that not every law in our country was written by arch-conservatives.
Can kids grow up well-adjusted alone, or raised by a single parent, or any other way? Yes.
Are there crappy famlies where kids would have been better of not being in? Yes.
It doesn’t mean that society should not encourage the best way.
Is it fair to everyone? No. Is everything in our legal system fair? Of course not. We have a radically progressive tax system. We put tons of restrictions on youth. Just because it’s not ‘fair’ doesn’t mean it’s a bad way to govern.
Just because much looser divorce laws and other societal changes have radically altered what marriage is the last 50 years doesn’t mean we need to dump the last shreds of it down the drain and let anyone who wants to marry anyone else.
Finally, your orientation vs lifestyle argument is the one makes no sense. Gays, traditional families, polygamist families .. they’re all lifestyles. And they’re all choices.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
189 – sorry.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
You are the one who wrote:
“Gay marriage is going to be shoved through the judiciary whether we like it or not.”
why not just cut to the chase!
November 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Oh, and I’m still waiting for a reason to change one area of our marriage laws that couldn’t be applied to the others.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Alex,
Pedophilia is only rape in some societies. In some societies, sex with a 16 yr old is perfectly ok. But, enough with this nonsense. Marriage for gay couples devalues and completely changes the meaning of marriage for the other 99% of us. If you want to be together, name it something else!
Kavon,
Isn’t this supposed to be a conservative website? Please stop this stuff from happening.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Can kids grow up well-adjusted alone, or raised by a single parent, or any other way? Yes.
Are there crappy famlies where kids would have been better of not being in? Yes.
It doesn’t mean that society should not encourage the best way.
You’re failing to factor into your equation the fact that gays can already adopt. Since they can adopt and they do have kids, and mom-and-dad families are going to be out of the question for some of those kids in the first place (there are only so many people willing to adopt), why not give them all of the same rights, benefits, and statuses that we give all other non-traditional families? It’s nothing but pure anti-gay discrimination to not do so, and it harms the children.
Finally, your orientation vs lifestyle argument is the one makes no sense. Gays, traditional families, polygamist families .. they’re all lifestyles. And they’re all choices.
BEING GAY is not a choice. HAVING MULTIPLE PARTNERS is a choice. Capice?
November 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
#190 – I’m arguing that it is no different for you to argue that you should be allowed to ‘marry’ than for the adulter to argue that he should be allowed to ‘marry’ more than one.
If you can’t abstain from the sin, then, you’re free to do what you want. No ones stopping you, but don’t ask to redefine marriage to fit you in, and maybe the adulterer won’t cry for more than one wife, which surely will follow if its granted to the gays, along with a host of other things.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Marriage for gay couples devalues and completely changes the meaning of marriage for the other 99% of us.
I’m sorry that you’re so obsessed with what I do in bed, that your hatred for my relationships reaches so far that you feel like your own worth is diminished if I can find happiness, too. That if I’m allowed to have the same status as you, your own relationship is cheapened; that you can’t be happy unless I cannot be equal to you.
Isn’t this supposed to be a conservative website? Please stop this stuff from happening.
You’re right. From now on, you should only hear what confirms your own preconceived notions.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
If you can’t abstain from the sin, then, you’re free to do what you want. No ones stopping you, but don’t ask to redefine marriage to fit you in, and maybe the adulterer won’t cry for more than one wife, which surely will follow if its granted to the gays, along with a host of other things.
Bolded is your real hang-up.
Stop trying to mask your religion in secular language. Your real problem here is that the Mormon Church doesn’t approve.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
BEING GAY is not a choice*.
*except for the people who choose to sleep with members of the same sex.
Also, the fact the gays can adopt (or that single parents can adopt) like bad tradition families does not mean that a society should stop encouraging the best situation to raise it’s future members.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Oh, and I’m still waiting for a reason to change one area of our marriage laws that couldn’t be applied to the others.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“Stop trying to mask your religion in secular language. Your real problem here is that the Mormon Church doesn’t approve.”
Wrongo Bongo! I’m first generation LDS but I can guarantee you that every generation before me and ALL my non-LDS relatives are very, very much against the granting of ‘gay marriage’.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
*except for the people who choose to sleep with members of the same sex.
BEING GAY is NOT the same thing as HAVING GAY SEX.
If I slept with a woman, that wouldn’t make me straight!
Oh, and I’m still waiting for a reason to change one area of our marriage laws that couldn’t be applied to the others.
I’ve addressed this many times. It’s an orientation vs. lifestyle issue, and just because you refuse to accept the answer doesn’t mean that I haven’t given it. We’re arguing it right now, in fact. ^
November 26th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Wrongo Bongo! I’m first generation LDS but I can guarantee you that every generation before me and ALL my non-LDS relatives are very, very much against the granting of ‘gay marriage’.
Well, then I hope that you won’t feel offended when I tell you that I hope that you can get over your Mormon tendencies. Maybe some people were born with a predisposition to be Mormon. But that doesn’t mean that I need to respect or legitimize it, or that society should honor it. It is a sin against reason to be a Mormon, and so no one should be encouraging Mormonism.
Aw, feels bad to be on the receiving end, eh? And Mormonism is even a choice!
November 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“I’m sorry that you’re so obsessed with what I do in bed, that your hatred for my relationships reaches so far that you feel like your own worth is diminished if I can find happiness, too. That if I’m allowed to have the same status as you, your own relationship is cheapened; that you can’t be happy unless I cannot be equal to you.”
Alex,
I am not obsessed with what you do in bed. You can do whatever you want. What I do care about in redefining what “marriage” is. I do not as you say have a hatred for your relationships. I don’t care about your relationships, as long as you do not do something ro redefine mine. I do not feel my own worth is diminished if you find happiness. I do not feel that my relationship is cheapened if you should get the same status. But, it does redefine what the relationship is. I will be just as happy with my own life regardless. You ARE equal to me already, without redefining marriage.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
185. If eternal polygamy is OK by your God, why would you object if eternal gay marriage is OK by my God?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“If you can’t abstain from the sin…”
Here we go again, with the bible-bangers openly admitting that what they really want is our government to legislate their religious beliefs. Adultery is a “sin” in many religions, and yet there is no uproar about legislating against it. Nor do we legislate against masturbation, oral sex, or sodomy. Which by some christian theologies is wasting god’s precious seed. Where is the uproar?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I’m asking for a reason that COULDN’T be applied to the others.
Polygamists or siblings can go to court and argue they’re ‘born that way’ as easily as gays can.
Also, you say about Mormonism that you don’t ‘need to respect or legitimize it.’
No one is saying to not respect gays. I have said the opposite in this thread.
The religion one chooses, like choosing being gay is a protected class in our society. Neither is the same thing as race, but they’re both protected.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I am not obsessed with what you do in bed. You can do whatever you want. What I do care about in redefining what “marriage” is. I do not as you say have a hatred for your relationships. I don’t care about your relationships, as long as you do not do something ro redefine mine. I do not feel my own worth is diminished if you find happiness. I do not feel that my relationship is cheapened if you should get the same status. But, it does redefine what the relationship is. I will be just as happy with my own life regardless. You ARE equal to me already, without redefining marriage.
I’m not redefining yours. Yours remains untouched. I just want included, too. If you will be just as happy with your life, regardless, then what do you care? Does it mean that much to you to exclude me? If I am equal, then what’s the problem?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I never really got an answer to my question. Why does homosexual behavior need to be accepted? And by your own words; even
embraced by heterosexuals? It’s like Liberals demanding to be considered patriotic or Mormons demanding to be considered Christians.
Why do you insist that your sexual behavior be considered normal? Shouldn’t gays, anti war leftists and Mormons just be grateful
that they can sleep with whomever they want, protest in the streets and worship as they may?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
206. Now we have competing Gods? Geez….
November 26th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Polygamists or siblings can go to court and argue they’re ‘born that way’ as easily as gays can.
Um, but they’d be incorrect. You are not born with an orientation only toward your siblings or only for multiple partners, but rather, toward males or females. You’re just being silly at this point.
The religion one chooses, like choosing being gay is a protected class in our society. Neither is the same thing as race, but they’re both protected.
So tell me, what was it like when you chose to be straight? Did you wake up one day and decide that you were going to be attracted to women? Do you feel that you have tendencies toward women? Could you overcome them?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Ah, the inevitable end game in any debate about gay marriage:
Insulting Mormons.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I made a presumption after noting that you accepted the anecdotal evidence given by Nate and Jason Bonham above. If I made the wrong inference, then I retract the point.
Nevertheless, you did acknowledge that a person may participate in homosexual behavior and still not be a homosexual — you were explicit in drawing a distinction here. As someone else above observed, there might be something of a continuum stretching from pure homosexuality through true bisexuality to pure heterosexuality.
So my point still stands: The expansion of marriage to include gay marriage will not likely cause parents not to apply pressures on their kids to be heterosexual. I make this claim intuitively, of course, but it’s what I would expect from biology.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I never really got an answer to my question. Why does homosexual behavior need to be accepted? And by your own words; even embraced by heterosexuals? It’s like Liberals demanding to be considered patriotic or Mormons demanding to be considered Christians. Why do you insist that your sexual behavior be considered normal? Shouldn’t gays, anti war leftists and Mormons just be grateful
that they can sleep with whomever they want, protest in the streets and worship as they may?
Um, well, that’s what the article was about, actually. Why gays should be accepted by mainstream society. Also, being Mormon or an anti-war leftist is a choice; being gay is not.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“Why does homosexual behavior need to be accepted?”
Because we live in a free country.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Alex, If someone is born a certain way, does that mean their predisposition is inherently good?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I made a presumption after noting that you accepted the anecdotal evidence given by Nate and Jason Bonham above. If I made the wrong inference, then I retract the point.
Jason’s comment was about a relative that was sexually abused by a neighbor, not a kid rebelling against a parent…
Nevertheless, you did acknowledge that a person may participate in homosexual behavior and still not be a homosexual — you were explicit in drawing a distinction here. As someone else above observed, there might be something of a continuum stretching from pure homosexuality through true bisexuality to pure heterosexuality.
Absolutely. I think most people would place themselves as a 1 or a 5 on the Kinsey scale: exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, but with “merely incidental” episodes of attraction to the other sex.
So my point still stands: The expansion of marriage to include gay marriage will not likely cause parents not to apply pressures on their kids to be heterosexual. I make this claim intuitively, of course, but it’s what I would expect from biology.
I don’t know about that. I think that it would help propel the acceptance of homosexuality as an uncontrollable trait into the mainstream of society. Either way, conservatives — indeed, Americans — should accept gays for the sake of the points I mentioned.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
#216 Your answer doesn’t make sense. You can’t force someone to accept something in a free country, duh!
November 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Alex, If someone is born a certain way, does that mean their predisposition is inherently good?
This has been addressed approximately ten billion times, but I’ll go over it again:
1) It is not a “predisposition” any more than your heterosexuality is.
2) Of course not. But what is wrong with loving, monogamous homosexual relationships? Where is the harm in it?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I meant to spell this out better in 214:
If there’s as much as one case in a million of a young person experimenting with homosexual activity out of rebellion but without actually being a homosexual, parents would still prefer to believe their own offspring is that one in a million. It’s not because parents hate gays or would love them less. But parents invest a lot of hopes in their kids: that they succeed in life and keep the family line going.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#216 Your answer doesn’t make sense. You can’t force someone to accept something in a free country, duh!
How is legalizing gay marriage forcing someone to accept it? You are free to personally oppose it if you wish.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“Um, but they’d be incorrect.”
Well, in this great country, that’s up to a judge. Not you or I.
And with the amount of sleeping around done in this country, you really think a reasonable argument couldn’t be made that some people just have an ‘an orientation toward multiple partners’?
People aren’t exactly hard-wired to only sleep with one person. At least not the people I know. But that’s probably a choice, not an orientation, right?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
204–
OMG I LOVE IT.
Everyone else–
This is fairly amusing. It makes me want to go out and have gay sex, just because I know how much it freaks out some of the people who have posted here today.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Well, in this great country, that’s up to a judge. Not you or I.
I’m glad to know that you trust in the infallibility of judges all of a sudden.
And with the amount of sleeping around done in this country, you really think a reasonable argument couldn’t be made that some people just have an ‘an orientation toward multiple partners’?
Or is your argument that you think that judges are going to do it because judges are so stupid?
Well, then I’d revert you back to my Section V. Liberals are going to shove it through the judiciary in one way or another; might as well claim the issue on our terms, since we should be accepting gays, anyway.
People aren’t exactly hard-wired to only sleep with one person. At least not the people I know. But that’s probably a choice, not an orientation, right?
The number of people that you choose to sleep with is a choice. Our society has decided upon monogamy as the ‘choice of choice.’ Since we’ve decided upon monogamy, there is no logical reason to exclude either orientation from that.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Alex, the real question that all the anti-gay-marriage advocates need to answer is this: If God never said anything disparaging against homosexuality, or even if he was specifically for marriage for everyone, including gays, would they still feel the same? If they can’t answer ‘yes,’ then they must admit that the religious component is the real reason for their position, even if they seek to hide it with with other reasons.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
If there’s as much as one case in a million of a young person experimenting with homosexual activity out of rebellion but without actually being a homosexual, parents would still prefer to believe their own offspring is that one in a million. It’s not because parents hate gays or would love them less. But parents invest a lot of hopes in their kids: that they succeed in life and keep the family line going.
Er. I suppose this is true, but what’s your point?
Also, plenty of people choose not to have kids.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Personally, I’d choose not to have kids even if I were straight. Kids are annoying.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
#224 said;
THAT, is a choice.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Alex, the real question that all the anti-gay-marriage advocates need to answer is this: If God never said anything disparaging against homosexuality, or even if he was specifically for marriage for everyone, including gays, would they still feel the same? If they can’t answer ‘yes,’ then they must admit that the religious component is the real reason for their position, even if they seek to hide it with with other reasons.
Well, it’s always religion with these people. What they don’t realize is that they’re cherry-picking from the Bible to confirm their intuitive notions.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Kristofer, he’s gay.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Although I suppose it’s still a choice to go out and have gay sex. Haha.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
#231 said;
THAT, is not a choice.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I am skipping ahead in the comments to get involved in the discussion, so sorry if someone already said this.
Homosexual attraction is almost certainly NOT GENETIC. There are studies that show this is likely the case and no evidence of a “gay gene”. However it is also likely NOT A CHOICE for most people, though there is strong evidence that sexuality exists on a spectrum, not in neat little boxes (this means that for some people it is a choice, but most homosexuals are far enough on the gay side of the spectrum that it is not a choice).
There is strong evidence that sexuality is a result of unknown changes in the intrauterine environment during pregnancy. In other words exposure or lack of exposure to certain normal biologic hormones and chemicals causes the brain to develop differently while in-utero. Thus, homosexual attraction is not a choice, but it is also not genetic or inherited.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“The number of people that you choose to sleep with is a choice.”
You totally don’t understand.
I’m not talking about polygamist sex. I’m talking about BEING a polygamist.
One is a choice: I sleep with a lot of people.
The other is not: I want to sleep with a lot of people.
It’s an orientation.
…
It’s the exact the same argument. My whole point is that I don’t trust judges. That’s why I think it’s ridiculous for a judge to declare sexual preference to be exactly the same thing as race. I agree with that it should be up to the electorate.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I’m not talking about polygamist sex. I’m talking about BEING a polygamist.
Um, correct. Which is a choice. We’re all hard-wired for polygamy, really, through evolution. But that’s a tendency, not a sexual orientation.
Orientation = which sex you’re attracted to.
It’s the exact the same argument. My whole point is that I don’t trust judges. That’s why I think it’s ridiculous for a judge to declare sexual preference to be exactly the same thing as race. I agree with that it should be up to the electorate.
Should the electorate get to decide whether the sky is blue?
November 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Here’s a pet peeve of mine: When you quote someone by copying the post and italicizing it, please include the number of the post that you’re quoting.
Maybe I want to scroll up and see if you quoted just a snippet of the post or the whole thing. Maybe as I read the quote, I want to know WHO it is so I can put the quote in context as I read it. But in long threads that are active, such as this one, it is a PITA to try and find the post that you’re quoting.
Thanks in advance.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Homosexual attraction is almost certainly NOT GENETIC. There are studies that show this is likely the case and no evidence of a “gay gene”. However it is also likely NOT A CHOICE for most people, though there is strong evidence that sexuality exists on a spectrum, not in neat little boxes (this means that for some people it is a choice, but most homosexuals are far enough on the gay side of the spectrum that it is not a choice). There is strong evidence that sexuality is a result of unknown changes in the intrauterine environment during pregnancy. In other words exposure or lack of exposure to certain normal biologic hormones and chemicals causes the brain to develop differently while in-utero. Thus, homosexual attraction is not a choice, but it is also not genetic or inherited.
Correct. I’m glad there’s someone on here who’s studied this to some degree.
Gay men also tend to be disproportionately short, enter puberty earlier, weigh less, have average finger length differences from straight men, be better at language skills, and have more aunts on their mother’s side, as well as other differences, than straight men.
(I personally am taller than average, weighed more, don’t have the finger length difference, had three aunts on my mother’s side (and no uncles), and am way, way, way better with language than most straight men my age.)
November 26th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
No problem;
November 26th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
HearMeRoar, press CTRL+F for a fun surprise.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Okay, I want take a few moments to go off on what might be a tangent. Bear with me.
One of the things that irks me beyond description is this debate over whether homosexuality is genetically determined at the moment of conception, biologically determined during gestation, or socially constructed during childhood.
I find that entire line of inquiry to be patently offensive. Why is it that we feel the need to explain what makes me gay? Why do we need to… justify ourselves, so to speak? Why do we persist in having this discussion, which by its very nature concedes the point that we are somehow an aberration that needs to be explained?
I don’t WANT to know what makes gay people gay. I don’t think we SHOULD know. Because the minute we arrive at a definitive conclusion to THAT discussion, a new discussion begins that is even more sinister: how to FIX us.
It’s out on the fringes, but articles are being published and blogs are being posted and forums are being held in which people are saying that if we can figure out what exactly is “broken” in gays and lesbians, we have a G-d given duty to fix it. Maybe that means genetic engineering, prenatal vitamins of some sort, or ripping “at-risk” children out of homes in which some authority determines too much of a risk that the child might grow up to be gay.
To that effect, I have a proclamation that I make to everyone who starts down this line of thought. I have no idea why I’m gay. I don’t know what happened to make me who I am. I don’t know if ANYTHING happened.
I didn’t wake one morning and choose to become a homosexual, but I am proud of being one, and if I were ever offered a choice, I’d choose to remain one.
Take that, people.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Yes. Because the sky being blue and being gay are the exact same thing.
I think you’re splitting hairs between a tendency and an orientation and i wish you could see how similar the arguments are.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I don’t WANT to know what makes gay people gay. I don’t think we SHOULD know. Because the minute we arrive at a definitive conclusion to THAT discussion, a new discussion begins that is even more sinister: how to FIX us.
I worry about that, too, but I always think that more knowledge is worth having. Ignorance is never bliss.
I didn’t wake one morning and choose to become a homosexual, but I am proud of being one, and if I were ever offered a choice, I’d choose to remain one.
That’s stupid. Don’t be proud of it. It’s not an accomplishment.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Yes. Because the sky being blue and being gay are the exact same thing.
The sky is blue and being gay is not a choice. Both are indisputable facts.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
243 (since we now quoting comment numbers)–
I don’t mean it in the sense that it is an accomplishment. Only in the sense that one shouldn’t feel shame for being who one is. I would be saying the same thing if we were having a discussion of whether Irish people should be allowed to marry, or left-handed people.
(For the record, that would make about as much logical sense as having a discussion of whether gay people should be allowed to marry).
I choose not to feel shame, and I think it’s important to let people know that if they start insisting that my life is somehow shameful.
I don’t have an “Congratulations! You’re Gay!” certificate that I framed and put up on the wall.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I don’t mean it in the sense that it is an accomplishment. Only in the sense that one shouldn’t feel shame for being who one is. I would be saying the same thing if we were having a discussion of whether Irish people should be allowed to marry, or left-handed people.
Well, no, don’t be ashamed. But don’t be ‘proud.’ It’s not an accomplishment, so why be proud? It’s just a neutral thing. I’m proud of being an individualist, and of living my life without being shackled by the whims or false moralities of others. Being gay and not worrying about whether anyone cares stems from that. But I’m proud of what it stems from, not a detail of it.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
240. But Alex, why should I have to copy and paste your quotes and use Control+F when it isn’t that hard for you to type in the post number? We’re all ducking in and out of here between spurts of work — anything that promotes faster thread reading is a good thing.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
244
“Both are indisputable facts.”
Well, there seems to be plenty of dispute in the 245 posts here. But keep saying that and i’m sure the courts will eventually tell us all how to think.
Even it it was, it’s also a indisputable fact that people are ‘predisposed, oriented, or have tenancies’, to sleep with a number of other people.
That doesn’t mean we should change the laws so they can get married.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I think we’re basically on the same page, disagreeing on semantics.
Pride doesn’t have to be showy and over-the-top (as in “gay pride”). It can be simply recognizing that you are part of a community of people with whom you share certain characteristics and then identifying with the group.
There’s racial pride, gender pride, ethnic pride, etc. Ninety-eight percent of the time, it’s perfectly benign. That’s the concept I was shooting for.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
G,
There are people who think that the earth is 6,000 years, but they are wrong. Just because there are yahoos out there who believe in falsehoods doesn’t mean that there is legitimate debate.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
While we are distracted with gay questions, the Iranians are building nuclear weapons. Everyone should move on to the next front page post.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
there are no gays in Iran.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Well, there seems to be plenty of dispute in the 245 posts here.
The sky is not blue.
Okay, there. Now I guess it’s disputed that the sky is blue.
Facts are facts, whether people choose to acknowledge them or not.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
For those who continue to debate the merits and/or flaws of homosexuality in general, please keep this in mind: Regardless of the ultimate outcome of whether same sex marriages are accepted or not, homosexuality will continue. Continuing to not recognize these unions will not result in a lessening, and eventual eradication, of homosexuality. Recognizing full same sex marriages as such will also not result in a sudden outpouring of new homosexuals (though many may decide to “out” themselves from their previous spot in the closet). Arguing over homosexuality itself means nothing to this debate. That said, continue on.
I will also reiterate a point that hasn’t come up, but I think is lying just below the surface for many people on this issue.
NEWS FLASH: The outlandish costumes and behavior of certain people at events such as a gay pride parade are not, in fact, an accurate sampling of how homosexuals act. Recognizing same sex marriages will not result in rainbow flags on every corner, or in a large number of people dancing in the streets in leather chaps.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
250
Solid argument Eric …
Except that that just because people think something doesn’t make it so argument works just as well for ‘gays are born that way.’
My point was that it isn’t a ‘indisputable fact’ more that it isn’t a fact.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
No, it’s a fact.
Recognizing same sex marriages will not result in rainbow flags on every corner, or in a large number of people dancing in the streets in leather chaps.
Aye. I think even I’d oppose it if I thought it would lead to that. Hahaha.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Alex, I wish you luck in your ‘because i say so’ crusade.
Ciao
November 26th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I’m not gay so I don’t know 100% if it is a choice or not. But how about this argument-Who the bleep cares?
I’ll again remind you all that legal marriage is nothing more than a contract between two citizens. It does not require them to procreate any more than it does not prohibit them from having sex with other people of any gender.
So legally speaking (although I believe that homosexuality is a choice) it should not make a damn bit of difference. The nature/nurture bullshit is simply a distraction from the fact-that some people want to legislate their religious views.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
258.
“some people want to legislate their religious views”
and some people want to legislate that those religious views are illegal
ok. now i’m done.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Well, Alex, I think a surprisingly large portion of those opposing same sex marriage think that will happen. Too many people associate homosexuality with various fetishes, and many likely fear that such fetishes will be forced down their throats should same sex marriages become a reality.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
The views aren’t illegal, but making them law goes against the liberty that nation was founded on. Nobody is going to throw you into jail for your views or even prevent you from expressing them. Heck, the KKK still gets to put on public demonstrations if they want.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
260
Gay marriage is a reality in our future. Read Metro’s post about how fast it has arrived. 20 years ago it seemed impossible, now we know it is inevitable.
The only people who don’t realize this are the same “usefull idiots” that think that “we are only one judge away from overturning Roe V Wade!”
November 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Ok, you’ve argued your points well everybody. Let everyone who has changed their minds on the issue of gay marriage say “Aye”.
Nay!!
November 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The ferocious back and forth on the issue of gay marriage tends to make me yawn. Once gay-married men begin to go through the divorce process (community property, alimony, etc., etc.) it may not look like such a neat deal, as opposed to some sort of civil union or legally recognized relationship. Of all the commentary I have read so far, I find #76 by MarkG to be most cogent: “I conclude from my own personal observation that homosexuality is not a choice. If I ask myself whether my heterosexuality is a choice, I would say that it isn’t. So it stands to reason that other individuals would experience their homosexual orientation in a similar fashion.” I agree. In most respects, this (the choice v not-a-choice proposition) is the real axis upon which the politics of sex, as it has been practiced in the GOP for the last 18 years, revolves. If you believe it to be a choice you’re probably onboard with Dobson/FoF/FRC, et.al.; if not, you (like me) probably believe there are more important issues and principles about which a political party should seek to define itself.
That being said, I find it amusing that this topic and other religious-SoCon hot button topics consume so much time and passion on this site as opposed to some of the topics of the day like the economic/financial mess and the best solutions thereto. Anyone check their retirement accounts lately?
November 26th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Alex, I am not defining gays by their sexuality. The comment that a homosexual can lead the lifestyle they wish is a general statement, it is not meant to try and characterize or stereotype a “gay lifestyle.”
Again Alex, I am not attempting to insult you or call you a liar. If we are going to have a conversation about what are serious legal, principle, and public policy issues, I think we need to be able to put aside the temptation to make this argument personal. The fact of the matter is there is a fair amount of credible evidence on both sides of this question when it comes to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice. But even then, like I said earlier, accepting your assumption that it’s not is not a necessary condition for allowing homosexuals to life their life while keeping same sex marriage and, correspondingly, same-sex adoption illegal.
I’m sorry you don’t like the argument Alex, but I don’t see how my statements about religion and politics conflate legal marriage with religiously sanctioned marriage. The point I made is addressing an assumption you made about the role of morality in politics. You had made the point, and please correct me if I am wrong, that involving one’s morality in their political decision making was permissible, but not their religious convictions. For many people, including myself, one’s moral code is informed by their religion, and the examples that I mentioned attempt to demonstrate that this can be a positive thing. Again, I think this speaks to a larger point of contention between our arguments, and in some ways within Conservatism. One view is that morality can be derived from a sense of utility, “the greatest good for the greatest number” so to speak. And another, that morality is informed by not only the evolving human experience, but also religion, and tradition that, without which, humans would be able to derive the “greatest good for the greatest number”. And if it is the latter, and I believe that it is, than it would be impossible to truly divorce morality from politics in the way you advocate. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Further, I would take issue with some of your reasoning in why religious arguments should be considered invalid. If you think that because different sides of an argument used a similar source then that source must be invalid, what say you to those whose who use the same philosopher to derive different conclusions (as is so often the case) in a debate? By your reasoning, it seems, those arguments should not be valid either. And further, the assumption underlying your argument regarding the use of secular, philosophical arguments seems to allude to the notion that, if we simply stuck with secular arguments, we would always be able to reason a conclusion. Which, I suppose if you subscribe to a purely utilitarian view, is logical. But it does not change the fact that such a view is hardly correct.
Regarding your comments on adoption, I think we have to specify what adoption is being discussed here. If you are referring to what is known as “single-parent adoption” then yes, that is legal in many states and used by many homosexuals as a way to adopt children. Other types of adoption that are typically used by same-sex couples (not individuals, but couples) such as second-parent adoption are not as widespread as you characterize. But more to the point, as you will notice in the portion of my comments you quoted, I was referring to legal gay adoption and the corresponding legality of same-sex marriage. My comments were referring to the scenario where the two were legal at once, religious groups and constitutional law itself would be put in the precarious position I describe. If you would like examples, I encourage you to look to what the Catholic Church is being pressured to do in Massachusetts and England (here are some good links: http://www.domusdei.org/2007/01/30/britain-gives-catholic-church-deadline-for-gay-adoption/ http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052606.html ). Sadly, for as much as you and I may not believe that same-sex marriage is an equal protection issue, many (if not all) of the GLBT groups fighting for it throughout the country and the world believe it is. And as a result, the inevitable collision course between the equal protection and the free exercise clause could very easily place religious liberty and freedom of speech at the mercy of political correctness.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
#143
Alex, that is an angry and baseless attack on me. Yes I am a Christian, but you have no way of knowing anything about me or my parenting-or even if I have kids. I assume it is based on the responses I made to comments on the Origins of Politicized Homophobia post showing that there was mention in the New Testament that of homosexuality being sin, but on par with all sexual sins. Sexual sins of which I am have been guilty of myself.
I tried to write with respect knowing people would not agree, but I don’t expect that everyone is going to believe me or accept the Bible as valid. It’s one thing to have differences of opinion, but don’t make it personal.
My whole point has been that Christians need to respond differently to gays. Not by giving up what we believe as true, but by loving despite the differences. You don’t have to accept a persons views to love them that’s why real love is unconditional and love is greater than tolerance. Would you rather be loved or tolerated?
November 26th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Would you rather be loved or tolerated?
I would rather be accepted, Deborah Lee, but I suppose that’s too much to ask.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Point no. 5 above says it all — being “conservative” means you’re reluctant to change. Accepting homosexual behavior is a change from criminalizing sodomy, and conservatives are only now getting used to this one; one change at a time. Being conservative is not the same as being libertarian. In other words, conservatives will accept gay marriage once it’s well-established that it will not be harmful. This is, of course, a reason to preserve federalism by not enacting a federal law or constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. If some states try it out and it works, conservatives’ reluctance will be reduced.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
268–
This may be true for the 5 or 6 Goldwater Republicans still left in the party.
Today, “conservative” has nothing to do with preserving the status quo, or federalism, or anything like that. Today’s conservatism is largely theocratic in nature; certain Christian denominations feel that their values are threatened, and so they vote/legislate/act accordingly.
Massachusetts and Connecticut ARE trying out gay marriage. California WAS. Conservative opposition didn’t lessen–not one iota.
I agree with an earlier comment that no minds will be changed by all that has been said today. I just find it tragic that one group of people has been given the power to determine what shall be orthodox in our society.
If you’re heterosexual, you aren’t any MORE married because I’m not. You wouldn’t be any LESS married because I am.
The marriage debate boils down to one thing: the word “marriage” connotes societal approval. Conservative Christians do not approve of being gay. Forget about gay sex–if we were celibate, it wouldn’t change anything. They do not approve of BEING gay. They think it’s “icky.” Consequently, they don’t want to do anything that might place a seal of approval on being gay.
From where they stand, it is not okay to be gay. Moreover, it will never be okay to be gay. And they’re damn well determined to make sure that the law reflects their belief.
Until we change this line of moral thinking, and establish it as a universal truth that to be gay is equally as good as to be straight, nothing will ever change (peacefully).
November 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
#269
“Today’s conservatism is largely theocratic in nature”
I don’t buy it. They’re just the most vocal. The economic conservatives are the silent majority, and certainly didn’t vote solidly Rep this time.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
#269, I’d have no problem with my priest/pastor being homosexual if he was celibate.
I think some of the most inspiring Christians may have been celibate homosexuals (Saint Paul seems a likely example).
For me there are two issues.
-government requiring me or my Church or my business to recognize something that I’m not morally able to do.
-providing government funds to promote socially harmful behavior.
The first issue is one where some moral liberals (including most libertarians) would agree with not forcing me to choose between my faith and obeying the law. The second issue is one where moral liberals lack the moral categories necessary to recognize that sort of harm.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
271–
1. Socially harmful behavior? Can you give me examples of this behavior? Specifically, can you give me examples of this behavior that are unique to the gay community?
2. I don’t think anybody is saying that a church should be required to change its theology. If gay marriage is legalized, and the Catholic church wants to say that they don’t recognize my marriage, more power to them. I have absolutely no problem with that. But the State of West Virginia, wherein I reside and which, incidentally, is NOT a church, damn well WILL recognize my marriage.
If gay marriage is legal, I promise that I will never ask you to choose between the law and your faith tradition. If you’re morally opposed to gay marriage, don’t get gay married, haha. It’s that simple.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
There have already been lawsuits filed against Churches, businesses and individuals who refuse to recognize same-sex unions.
The prevalence of harmful behavior (domestic abuse, “crimes of passion”) is much higher among homosexuals but obviously is present at a lesser prevalence among traditional couples.
I believe this radical innovation brings a lot of risk to our society. The entire risk is obviously opaque since I cannot (nor can you) predict the unintended negative consequences of continuing to transform marriage. Marriage is becoming primarily a romantic institution at the expense of its more important functions (among heterosexuals).
I think this redefinition sends the wrong social signal about the purpose for government recognition and involvement in marriage.
I’d certainly vote to abolish government recognition of marriage entirely, if marriage was redefined to include same-sex couples.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
it is noteworthy I think. Since this debate is on there are 272 entries. And Adam’s Huck book promotion is down to 22.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Alex,
I just joined this party and would like to make a couple of observations.
First, you state that homosexuality is normal. This is not true. From a purely statistical viewpoint, homosexuality is well outside the norm in terms of percentages and is therefore, by definition, abnormal or deviant. (Remember that natural does not mean normal–nature is replete with abnormalities.) As such, your argument that gay marriage does not redefine traditional marriage is also false. Throughout history, same-sex marriage is well outside the norm in terms of traditional definitions of marriage. Thus, to state that gay marriage does not redefine traditional marriage while other deviant options such as polygamy, incest, bestiality, do redefine tradional marriage is a non sequitar and hollow. Indeed, outside of Western cultures, polygamy certainly has more precendent (both historically and in terms of current practice) that it is much more tradional/normal than same-sex marriage.
Further, what about if two siblings, a brother and sister, state that they would like to “express their sexual and romantic tendencies” towards each other in a “productive, meaningful, healthy manner.” Would you also allow this? Certainly their marriage would better fit the tradional Western definition of marriage (one man and one woman). Why would you claim that this marriage requires a radical redefinition of marriage? If it doesn’t, why is it not legal? Remember, you can’t use the child-bearing argument since you don’t consider marriage to be defined in terms of child-bearing capabilities.
Second, you state that “If one feels as if they cannot truly separate their convictions, then they, properly, should abstain from voting on the matter.” This is a scary statement. Many people (if not all) live by their convictions of what is right and wrong. To say that someone shouldn’t vote on an issue because they can’t separate their moral convictions (religious or otherwise) from how they would vote is extremely dangerous. I truly hope that you would not try to discourage people from the freedom to vote their conscience.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
tradional == traditional
November 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
precendent == precedent :^) (My fingers are cold.)
November 26th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
yep, you can see how it evolves:
http://www.twoorthree.net/2006/05/the_coming_conf.html
November 26th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
If I could speak to Alex confidentially I think he’d admit he hoped that same-sex marriage is used to attack religious freedom.
Most of his liberal allies (on same-sex marriage) are much more open in hoping to silence and prosecute those who have religious objections to recognizing same-sex unions.
Among younger liberals, the desire to use government to go after religious individuals is usually open.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Oregon,
You’re response is one of the better ones I’ve seen on this thread. I generally don’t bring up the polygamy and incest comparisons, because on an intuitive level, they just FEEL less acceptable. I’ve had more exposure to homosexual ideas, characters, etc, and so it sorta of just seems more normal. But, you’re quite right that polygamy has a more “illustrious” lineage. Even within Western culture this is true. All three of major monotheistic religions mention polygamous relationships, and often in an arguably favorable light. They’re far harder, to the extent that they mention it at all, on homosexuality. I’d like to do some research at some point into the falling away of social acceptability of polygamy, as compared to the gradual increased acceptance of homosexuality. Because historically, it just seems fairly odd.
The most obvious explanation, off the top of my head, is that Alex is partially right. Society has come to accept monogamy as an ESSENTIAL element of a marriage. They haven’t, to the same degree at any rate, done the same in terms of the male/female pattern. Again, it’s hard to understand this development historically, but it’s clear that it’s taken place. Maybe it has something to do with the sense that homosexuality is uncontrollable while polygamy is, presumably, a choice.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
ANY sexuality is a choice. If it is not, you are a danger to society period. Having said that, I think traditional, faithful husband and wife couples should be a protected class since they are the greatest asset a child can start out with in life.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:54 am
I reject your premise, Alex, that a two men or two women household would be better for foster kids. That same-sex parenting is better than none. To place kids in such homes with the understanding that there were no traditional families to take them. I reject this argument.
I believe kids sent to such homes of last resort will get the message that they had to take it or none at all. That no traditional family would have them. That any desire of their hearts to have both a mother and father should be dashed forever.
If there are such kids that no one wants and are forever in foster care, then the moral thing to do is to recruit more traditional families. I further believe the faithful would respond to a shortage of adoptive families. I further believe some traditional foster parents are better parents than two men or two women could ever be.
This is not to say that same-sex couples cannot love a child. But children need more than that. They need to understand that their gender is purposeful and part of who they are and what they will be. They need not be confused by an example that thwarts that purpose. I cannot imagine my children being taught that their gender was a fluke and did not matter in life.
I cannot comprehend how a child who has no mother and cries to have the love of the parent who is absent could be comforted by the idea that a same-sex couple is better than nothing. How can we tell them that other children got a mom and dad but not them and hope that they don’t begin to wonder what they did wrong to deserve that.
I think children want a mom and dad. They need a mom and dad. A mom and dad are the optimal parents. Lets not put the most vulnerable of adoptees into homes that they can’t begin to understand.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Look, I am a big believer in not giving my opinion on something that I don’t know. If gay people say it is not a choice then I believe them. Why? Because I don’t know what it is like to be gay, and they do. If it is not a choice then forbidding them from getting married IS discrimination. I am a republican and I voted against prop 8 and i am proud of it. Social conservatives argued just as eloquently against inter-racial marriage once upon a time. I am trully sorry that some out there think that you are deviant. All I can say is give it 40 years. I apologize for the ignorance of my brothers and sisters.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Bottom line…
Children have the right to be born into a family with a mother and father if at all possible. The problem is when 2 mothers or 2 fathers raise a child it’s not just about 2 dudes being gay, it’s about a child.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Rather than argue, there are a few points I’d like to make.
Most Americans believe homosexuality is a choice.
Since homosexual behavior is an action, it is a choice by definition.
This posting is arguing that the only way for a person who was born a homosexual (debatable) to find happiness is to engage in homosexual behavior.
That argument is contrary to the beliefs of most religious people in America.
The idea that religious people can’t let their beliefs inform their voting choices is as absurd as saying that people who aren’t religious can’t let their beliefs inform their voting choices.
The vast majority of Americans do not support “gay marriage”.
“Gay marriage” is in fact a redefinition of what marriage means.
Gay couples are allowed to marry in every part of this country, their marriage just isn’t recognized by our federal government.
No police force will come after gay couples who have a marriage ceremony and call each other husband, or wife.
The federal government not recognizing a marriage is a weak argument as to why gay couples can’t marry on their own.
As far as I know, there is no area in the USA that prohibits gay people from adopting a child directly from another person.
Legislating “gay marriage” is not a conservative idea; it is in fact a big government idea.
Legislating “gay marriage” would require a series of laws and punishments to enforce “gay marriage” acceptance from people, and organizations that do not support “gay marriage”.
Supporting “gay marriage” would not undermine the Democrat party, or liberals, instead it would put a vastly unpopular stance on the Republican platform, thus undermining the Republican party.
The idea that “gay marriage” would solve a huge adoption problem is false.
Gay couples can adopt through private institutions or directly, plus there isn’t a huge need for families, there’s a need for babies.
From the encyclopedia of adoption:
“Waiting lists vary greatly from agency to agency and exist primarily as a function of the imbalance between the numbers of infants in need of families and the much larger numbers of couples and single persons who are interested in adopting children, especially infants.”
In the spirit of finding common ground though, I will agree that people of faith should argue against “gay marriage” on other grounds than what their faith says. That argument won’t carry any weight with somebody who doesn’t share their faith, besides there are so many other ways to argue against “gay marriage”.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
(1) Homosexuality is not a choice.
the behavior that was once illegal is a choice, just like a straight person having sex with his/her partener is a choice.
the inclination is irrelevant. Alchoholism may have genetic tendecies, but we don’t support alcholics.
(2) The 14th Amendment does not dictate gay marriage, and it is not the court’s job to ‘protect the weak.’
true
(3) It is inappropriate to mix religion and politics, which is not the same thing as mixing morality and politics. It’s time to stop making theocratic arguments against gay marriage: “Homosexuality is a sin; therefore, I cannot in good conscience do anything but vote against gay marriage,” “Christians can stop opposing gay marriage when pages can be properly torn from the Bible.” Well, this all may be true from a conservative Christian (conservative within the religion, not in political matters) perspective, but we are an officially secular nation.
But is it not moral to support that children have a mother and father? That, I beilive, is the closest thing to a natural right outside the constitution as we can get. Two sperm can’t combine, neither can two eggs. Yes one spouse can choose not two be present, but if we are created by God (which most people believe) He decided how to create children. Unless you believe science has replaced God, I think we should do everything to uphold the natural way. Pretending there is an unnatural way to do the same things is an argument without proof.
November 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Re:3
M. J. Sobran wrotel
The Framers of the Constitution . . . forbade the Congress to make any law “respecting” the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge “the free exercise” of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling [she continues] to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it.
[She continues:] What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And–I repeat–the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61]