Hothouse flowers

John Rogers, of Kung Fu Monkey, has some shrewd fun with the logic of the self-proclaimed "defenders of marriage."

For the sake of argument -- or at least, as the set-up for a good joke -- he accepts the logic of their "sociological approach." This is the argument that the institution of marriage must not be weakened or tinkered with, lest society collapse. Accepting this premise, Rogers points out that same-sex couples do not seem to pose a serious threat to the institution of marriage -- certainly not when compared to another, far more serious threat, which he proposes a constitutional amendment to protect us from:

If we want marriage to continue as a viable societal tradition, then we have to teach our young 'uns that marriage has value -- but how are we to do this when their role models treat marriage so shabbily? Move past the prevalence of divorce in modern society and look at the glamorization of it by those most craven of cultural beasts -- celebrities. ...

What makes a stronger impact on the perceived value of marriage as an institution: skads of people lining up desperate to join in it despite great opposition; or people not only discarding their marriages, but discarding multiple marriages as if they were Dunkin' Donut cups? ...

When prioritizing our threats against marriage, widespread rejection of the sanctity of marriage by our cultural icons propogated relentlessly through 24/7 media saturation is unarguably a greater threat against marriage's status as a societal value than the efforts of a few thousand malcontent high-school drama teachers standing in lines outside City Hall in two states of the Union.

So how do we stop this cultural plague? Well, we'll never win the fight to just out-and-out outlaw divorce: far too many powerful politicians and pundits depend on it as a way to mark their rise in power and income through progressive wife trade-ins. No, the roundabout solution here is to ban the marriage of celebrities in the first place, to keep them from spreading their disgusting guerrilla free-love meme when they eventually, inevitably dissolve these shams perpetrated in the Kabbalah ceremony of their choice. We at Kung Fu Monkey are proud to make the Defense Against Celebrity Marriage Amendment our first political cause.

There's a good deal more to Rogers' post, and you should read the whole thing because the excerpt above leaves out some of the funniest lines.

The interesting thing here, though, is that Rogers actually takes the logic of the marriage-defenders' "sociological approach" more seriously than they do themselves. He disagrees with it, and he ridicules it, but he also -- despite the joking -- seriously attempts to engage it:

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Two gay people getting married in my general vicinity do not change my legal rights. They do not affect my earning potential, they do not raise my taxes, they do not infringe on either my rights to certain freedoms or opportunities to practice such freedoms. They do not, in a negative way, affect the legal status of other marriages. Divorce case law and evolving property law defines my legal relationship with my wife far more than any other factor. The "slippery slope" argument will always be there, but again -- case law, people. Legal Armageddon has been predicted from pretty much every sociological and technical advance in the last two centuries. We've limped along. If you can skate past the idea that it's legal in Georgia for a 60 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl but not cool for two 30 year old men to share a life insurance policy -- good for you.

One may oppose gay marriage from a religious standpoint, but one's religious rights are not abridged. If one belongs to a religion which opposes gay marriage, then odds are there will not be any gay marriage in your church. Gay people will not paratroop in and occupy your vestry. You will not have to worship with them, change the personal nature of your relationship to God, or even like them.

Rogers' paraphrase of Jefferson, I think, gets at the crux of the disagreement. The MDs believe that same-sex marriage does, in fact, pick their pocket and break their leg because they believe that refusing to deny the human right of marriage to same-sex couples would -- somehow -- erode and weaken the institution itself.

That "somehow" is rarely articulated clearly. It is, rather, just implied as something intuitively, viscerally self-evident. When pressed on this point, some of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage begin rambling about box turtles and hot man-on-dog action. This makes it rather difficult for those of us who disagree with them to engage their argument. It's easy to lampoon their argument (Adam Felber's version is a classic), but not so easy to engage it.

I think the main reason that the MDs disagree with Rogers' paraphrase is that they also disagree with Jefferson's original statement, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

In the terms of the First Amendment, the MDs seem to believe that their own free exercise of their religion requires a minimal establishment of that religion and its "family values." Without such a protective canopy, enforced by the state, they believe their own religion, their own way of life, is threatened. This protective canopy is eroded when other citizens with other religious perspectives -- those neighbors who may believe in "20 gods or no God" -- are allowed to freely exercise their religion.

We see a similar, if more extreme, dynamic playing out in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Certain devout, fundamentalist Muslims believe that their religion requires that women wear a head-to-toe burkha while in public. It does them little good if this practice is left as a matter of the free exercise of religion, because allowing pluralism would mean allowing those women who do not share their beliefs to appear in public without the burkha. This would be perceived by the fundamentalists as an assault on their own religious freedom -- which they believe requires a public square devoid of temptresses flashing their sultry ankles and wrists. They thus see their own right to the free exercise of religion as requiring the legal establishment of their own religious values.

This argument for the religious hegemony of Sharia law has a certain logic. It almost certainly would be easier for fundamentalist believers to practice their religion freely in a homogenous society in which everyone believed -- or was forced to act as though they believed -- the same thing. But this logic is anathema to the whole idea of religious freedom.

It also presumes that the faith of the fundamentalist hegemonists is extremely fragile. Worse than that, it nurtures and reinforces this fragility -- ensuring that their faith is a flimsy hothouse flower that cannot survive in the outdoor climate of a pluralist society.

This same logic is at work here in America. The more overtly religious "defenders of marriage" argue this explicitly, but it is also implicit in the supposedly secular "sociological" argument against same-sex marriage.

The real motive at work here, I suspect, has far less to do with any actual or perceived threat to the "institution of marriage" than it does with the terrifying suspicion that their own fundamentalist faith is too flimsy to survive in a pluralist public square. Their faith is so weak, so fragile, that the mere existence of other viewpoints -- and the public acknowledgment of them -- is as frightening as the idea of "gay people paratrooping in to occupy the vestry." Such timid faith can only be exercised freely under the canopy of legally established religion.

Comments

[Friend of the Predigtamt]

My faith tradition (Confessional Lutheranism) has shown me that homosexuality is sinful. That I agree. But my faith tradition has taught me to treat all with love, respect, and civility. My theology differs from Christian fundamentalism in various aspects, especially on matters of the secular and sacred realms.

What does it mean? I focus upon serving God and neighbor. I believe that morality comes from within, from the New Man in me. Apply the Law to my life and my family, and all else follow. Other people's peccadilloes are of little importance- unless they ask me for what I think or the sin is severe that it threatens life and property. (That's why I'm also a Libertarian.)

Fred...I may be theologically conservative, but I rather see a challenge than a hegemony. And BTW, your LB commentary rocks! :)

[Jeff]

Rodgers' critique of the sociological argument is pretty compelling, but isn't the Fundamentalist position against gay marriage also based on a formula where America becomes a sort of spiritual descendant of ancient Israel, and is therefore open to judgment from God for the entire nation's sin? Do you think the sociological "slippery slope" argument is kind of a cleaned up (or secularized-up?) version? Could both that and Intelligent Design come from the same impulse?--to somehow talk about (and pass legislation relating to) God, or in this case, sin, without having to mention either explicitly?

It's always seemed to me that what some *really* want to say is that the nation will be subject to the judgement of God (whatever that may turn out to be) if we continue to tolerate homosexuals (or insert other vice-du-jour here), but since they can't really say that, they must come up with some alternative arguments, which end up being rather lame. In any event, it seems the way to save ourselves from imminent destruction and prove to God we're serious about sin is to legislate against it.

There. I've had my ramble; just interested in other's thoughts.

[chimera]

I have a problem with a law which a) appears to have its basis in a religious belief and b) "...den[ies]... a right retained by [other] people." [my emphasis]

[Captain Slack]

The real motive at work here, I suspect, has far less to do with any actual or perceived threat to the "institution of marriage" than it does with the terrifying suspicion that their own fundamentalist faith is too flimsy to survive in a pluralist public square.

I've thought that for a while now. They think their "superior" ideas need the State to protect them from our "inferior" ideas because otherwise, their superiority cannot hope to prevail over our inferiority. Of course, they never say this part out loud, either because they've been trained not even to think about it, or because they trained their followers and know that stating it in those terms would reveal their whole "argument" for the noise (in the Korzybskian sense) it is.

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
— Long Tom, showing his wisdom again

[lbb]

It's always seemed to me that what some *really* want to say is that the nation will be subject to the judgement of God (whatever that may turn out to be) if we continue to tolerate homosexuals (or insert other vice-du-jour here), but since they can't really say that

Oh, but they do. See Fred Phelps, of godhatesfags.com and the Westboro Baptist Church, who contends that our current woes are God's vengeance on the US for "accepting the monstrously sinful fag/dyke lifestyle as merely an innocent alternate lifestyle". Such vengeance, according to Phelps, has taken the form of:

• The deaths of soldiers in Iraq (he and his nitwit congregation actually show up at soldiers' funerals to let their loved ones know the "truth" about why they died),
  
• Hurricane Katrina ("the Sovereign Horseman rides in New Orleans"),
  
• The recent tornadoes in Indiana ("Thank God for the Indiana Tornado that killed 22+, injured 230+, Nov. 6! We humbly pray for pray for many more such visitations of God's wrath on Indiana...We will connect the dots for you blind, Bible ignorant bats...")
  

...and a whole lot more besides.

I love living in Massachusetts, I really do.

[kim]

Every single Christmas season, I am constantly rolling my eyes at this fragile faith phenomenon. In a country where a Christian holiday is a federal holiday, where Christmas music floods the malls nonstop beginning right about now, and where even many Jews I've known have a Christmas tree, you always have people flying off the handle when a cashier wishes them "Happy Holidays." Christian culture is completely dominant throughout the holiday season and some Christians still manage to feel persecuted! It seems like a classic case of misdirection: the spirit of Christmas is undermined by many factors (say, commercialism to start with) so they blame secularists; so also with marriage. Marriage is crumbling in part because of the high divorce rate of both Christians and non-Christians, but marriage defenders have to blame it on someone else rather than pausing for even a moment of self-reflection.

[Chuck Dupree]

I think Jeff makes an excellent point about the tendency of some fundamentalists to see the US as the modern Israel. In An Angel Directs the Storm, Michael Northcott argues that this viewpoint was built into the American way of thinking from the beginning. He quotes Jonathan Edwards and Cotton Mather, both of whom he classifies as postmillennialists, to back up his contention. Here’s Edwards, apparently convinced that he’s living in the end times:

Tis not unlikely that this work of God’s Spirit, that is so extraordinary and wonderful, is the dawning, or at least a prelude, of that glorious work of God, so often foretold in Scripture … And there are many things that make it probable that this work will begin in America.

Everyone’s familiar, I expect, with the famous Edwards sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, one of the original fire and brimstones. It appears that those who are convinced of the imminence of the eschaton believe it’s their duty to save as many as possible, and they’re willing to lie and cheat to do so. Hello?

But the really scary folks are the premillennial dispensationalists, who appear to believe that they’ll avoid death through being raptured, after which they’ll be afforded the pleasure of watching the Left Behind suffer. That’s Christianity? “Love your enemy” has always seemed to me to be the central revolutinary tenet of the religion.

[Jay Denari]

Like lbb, I'm also proud of living in Mass. I just hope our voters have the sense to maintain the right to gay marriage and reject the idiotic anti-marriage amendment petition that's now circulating. Anything else would be a mockery of civil liberties; nobody has yet taken away legal rights they've already granted and I don't want my state to be the first. (I'm not counting Reconstruction-era voting rights b/c those were imposed by Northern force and were immediately undermined as soon as the troops came home.)

Personally, I'm inclined to believe sexuality isn't a gay/straight dichotomy, but a spectrum from 100% gay to 100% straight with all shades. Most of us never act on homosexual attractions simply because they're not strong enough, but that doesn't mean they're nonexistent. If we're honest with ourselves and watch how we act, we'll see them in some form.

I think same sex marriage ultimately will help revitalize the institution of marriage, or at least help promote the principle of responsible, committed, loving, consensual relationships. In an era where society has too many influences acting to drive people apart, any legal avenue that promotes such relationships is helpful as long as the government doesn't force the relationships to exist or to take some predetermined form.

[Jason]

In all fairness, the MDs do put forth a reason why marriage needs defending, it’s just that their reason is counter-intuitive, and honestly, kind of stupid. You have to start by realizing that in conservative christianity “Marriage” and “Family” -- or at least the ideals of marriage and family that were considered the norm for a brief time in the immediate post-WWII period -- have become sacred above all other things, despite the fact that the New Testament is somewhat ambivalent to marriage as an institution. From there, you must remember that in conservative christianity there are no homosexuals, just people “living a homosexual lifestyle,” i.e., straight men and women having same-gender sex.

Now, here’s the part that requires the herculean suspension of disbelief: Because nobody is “gay,” everybody has the potential to lapse into a sinful “homosexual lifestyle.” Men are especially in danger because, more so than women, they are “naturally” predisposed to decadent sex. Therefore, if society accepts men offering each other no-strings-attached sex, men will naturally, obviously chose that over the constraints imposed marriage and their boring wives, thereby destroying the institution of marriage, which is above all things sacred.

Of course, in assuming that men left to their own devices really just want San Franciscan bathhouses, this argument doesn’t explain why same sex couples want to get married. And it ignores that the vast majority of the population has no same-sex attraction. But logical consistency has never been the lodestone of Dobson, et al.

[bowlesy]

Jonathan Edwards suffers greatly by only being remembered by the title of one of his sermons. He was actually one of the most brilliant Christian theologians of the last five hundred years, and a great preacher of God's grace. His book 'The Religious Affections' is a classic indictment of crazy Christianity, still relevant today. Anyway, just defending one of my (misunderstood) heroes.

[Scott]

...the MDs seem to believe that their own free exercise of their religion requires a minimal establishment of that religion and its [values]. Without such a protective canopy, enforced by the state, they believe their own religion, their own way of life, is threatened. ...

It also presumes that the faith of the fundamentalist hegemonists is extremely fragile. Worse than that, it nurtures and reinforces this fragility -- ensuring that their faith is a flimsy hothouse flower that cannot survive in the outdoor climate of a pluralist society.

This same logic is at work here in America...

Yea, there's nothing I hate more than having people run to the govt to have it create a society based on their moral and religious values, differing opinions of others and differing relative weights of competing values be damned.

It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

Damn good standard, BTW.

[Merlin Missy]

Now, here’s the part that requires the herculean suspension of disbelief: Because nobody is “gay,” everybody has the potential to lapse into a sinful “homosexual lifestyle.” Men are especially in danger because, more so than women, they are “naturally” predisposed to decadent sex. Therefore, if society accepts men offering each other no-strings-attached sex, men will naturally, obviously chose that over the constraints imposed marriage and their boring wives, thereby destroying the institution of marriage, which is above all things sacred.

I have heard this argument, with its accompanying codicil (which says more about the speaker than than anything else) that homosexual sex is actually more pleasurable than heterosexual sex, since it's between two people who know exactly how to please each other (this is a discussion point often brought up in slash fanfiction as well). Obviously, when a man or woman has gay sex, even once, it will be so much better than straight sex that he or she will never go back to a "normal" lifestyle. Fortunately, it's very easy to puncture as a "Why the Gay?" theory, with the comment that, were humans only ever to seek out the most pleasurable sexual interactions possible, the species would have died out thousands of years ago from Hairy Palm Disease.

It's always fascinating to watch the US-centrism in these discussions. If any state in the US allows same-sex couples to marry, it will destroy the institution of marriage. 'Cause, you know, we're the only ones who get married properly. Also, marriage has never included (and does not include today in this country) marriages with more than two people, arranged marriages do not exist, the societies of all the other countries which have allowed same-sex marriage have collapsed (Rome, which was a bastion of arranged heterosexual marriages, is often invoked here), etc. In the MD world, the sky is chartreuse with pink polka dots.

[Scott]

homosexual sex is actually more pleasurable than heterosexual sex, since it's between two people who know exactly how to please each other

Knowledge w/o proper biological equipment is useless, if you know what I mean. :-)

It's always fascinating to watch the US-centrism in these discussions. If any state in the US allows same-sex couples to marry, it will destroy the institution of marriage. 'Cause, you know, we're the only ones who get married properly.

Not to agree w/ them, but their fear is that allowing it in the US would destroy marriage in the US, not worldwide.

[Scott]

homosexual sex is actually more pleasurable than heterosexual sex, since it's between two people who know exactly how to please each other

Knowledge w/o proper biological equipment is useless, if you know what I mean. :-)

It's always fascinating to watch the US-centrism in these discussions. If any state in the US allows same-sex couples to marry, it will destroy the institution of marriage. 'Cause, you know, we're the only ones who get married properly.

Not to agree w/ them, but their fear is that allowing it in the US would destroy marriage in the US, not worldwide.

[J]

It's always seemed to me that what some *really* want to say is that the nation will be subject to the judgement of God (whatever that may turn out to be) if we continue to tolerate homosexuals (or insert other vice-du-jour here), but since they can't really say that, they must come up with some alternative arguments, which end up being rather lame. In any event, it seems the way to save ourselves from imminent destruction and prove to God we're serious about sin is to legislate against it.

The "alternative arguments" do indeed sound "rather lame", but only to we wretched seculars. Remember that, just like jihadis, fundamentalist Christians are mostly concerned with God as their audience, followed closely by other fundamentalists. The idea, in their mind, is not to convince people through the force of their arguments. No, doing that would require a level of rationalism and respect for others that simply isn't in the genetics of these people.

Instead, the idea is to try and activate enough either A.) fundamentalist but not yet politically active Christians or B.) not necessarily Christian but easily scared people. To such end, they deploy "dog whistle politics". It involves deploying seemingly stupid, "rather lame" reasoning that, unbeknownst to the opposition, secretly activates precisely such fears as "our nation will be subject to the punishment of God" in certain key audiences mind.

And this works. It works really, really well.

[Scott]

dog whistle politics

Funny, I've heard the term "dog whistle" used to describe someone uptight (i.e. their butts are clenched so tight that when they break wind, only dogs can hear it).

[Beth]

Perhaps we should emphasize the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. (That won't make a difference to the theocrats, but might help persuade the rest.) An Orthodox Rabbi I heard about put it something like this: "My religious beliefs compel me to only perform marriages between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. I would refuse to officiate a marriage between two men or two women. I would also refuse to officiate a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. But if someone tried to pass a law forbidding marriages between Jews and non-Jews, I would be outraged and fight it with all my might." As Americans, we must fight legal discrimination even where our religion requires us to discriminate. Thanks to the separation of church and state, there is no contradiction here. The separation clause prevents us from imposing our religion on state law, but it also prevents the state from imposing its laws on our religion. There are limits, of course (human sacrifice is still illegal), but the first amendment gives religion a lot of latitude. They can legally discriminate on the basis of gender or religion in their hiring practices and the same holds true for their marriage ceremonies as well.

Jason,
If the problem is men being seduced by the decadent gay lifestyle, wouldn't the solution be to reduce the number of available playmates by encouraging gay marriage?

[Michael "Vendor X" Heaney]

While I appreciate the depths with which these topics are discussed, I think sometimes through the use of reason, many tend to apply too much capacity for reason to those they are trying to fathom.

In rational thought, your premises are the foundation for your conclusions. You reach your belief through your arguments. If you genuinely believe that two people of the same sex cannot raise a child properly, this is the premise by which you reach your conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry. If you discover that your premise can be challenged, such as by someone pointing out that no evidence at all exists to demonstrate your premise, then logically, your conclusion is likewise challenged. Your notion that gays should not marry suddenly carries no weight, since no evidence relates to your supposedly rational argument at all.

If, on the other hand, you behave like the vast majority who oppose gay marriage, then you don’t reconsider your conclusion when a premise is challenged or defeated. You simply abandon it and search for another premise to prop up the belief again. If someone points out that marriage, historically and religiously, was far more often a tool of classicism than some bond of love sanctioned by god, they don’t debate the point, they abandon it and start in with the “gays can’t raise children,” line. When you reduce that premise, they drop it instantly and bring up some other point, like the notion that god will punish us all.

This isn’t rational thought or debate. Instead, what this clearly demonstrates is that such people merely have a belief, that gay marriage is bad, for which they neither have nor need any evidence. All of their argument is something derived subsequent to embracing the belief, in order to deal with rational thinking peoples. Their train of thought works in the opposite direction of reason. They have a belief, that gay marriage is bad, and now they’re struggling to find some faux premise they can tack onto the belief to make it seem logical. So, no, those opposing gay marriage don’t actually believe that god will punish society if we allow gays to marry, nor do they believe gay marriage will ‘pick their pockets’. Their style of ‘reason’ shows that all they believe is that gay marriage is bad. All ‘reasoning’ to support this is purely token, as can be demonstrated by how easily they will abandon a premise, something which logically can’t just be abandoned at all.

[straight]

I keep seeing people arguing that the "real" reason conservatives oppose gay marraige is X. In every case I've seen, I think that's oversimplifying it. There's a whole bunch of overlapping reasons people oppose it: the "ick!" factor, believing their religion prohibits it, believing it will hurt society or the institution of marriage. Here's a couple non-straw-man versions of the belief gay marraige would break my leg:

1. If the government (which in America is, supposedly, all of us) recognizes gay marriage, then conservative Christians would feel that they are participating in the alleged sin of homsexual acts. It's one thing to tolerate homosexuals living together in sin, it's another thing to actively put our stamp of approval on it.

Try to imagine some vice you dislike yet is still legal. (Driving SUV's? Gambling?) Maybe you think, on principle, it should be legal. But how would you feel about the governmnent officially proclaiming it A Good Thing and passing laws that encourage people to do it? (I know how much I hate tax breaks for SUVs and state-sponsored lotteries.)

2. Some Christians would say a completely non-ironic "AMEN" to Kung Fu Monkey's article. For those who believe that marriage is a committment to live together for the sake of others (principly for children, but also to serve God, the church, and the world as a family rather than simply as individuals), any tendency in society to judge the value of a marriage solely on the satisfaction of the couple threatens to undermine that vision of marriage. If we recognize the rightness of gay marriage based primarily on our sympathies with the couple's desires and feelings, we encourage people to judge their own marriage, and whether they should stick with it, based solely on their desires and feelings, without regard for any larger obligations.

While I have some sympathy with #2, it seems we (both society and the church) are so far away from that ideal, that there's not much left for gay marriage to damage.

[Merlin Missy]

Straight ---

The response to 1 is very simple. It's the difference between offering tax breaks for owning SUVs and simply choosing not to pass laws outlawing vehicles that don't get a certain minimum mpg. Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't mean the government is standing on the streetcorner with a trenchcoat, luring people in to marry gay.

The same arguments used against gay marriage are the arguments used since time immemorial against mixed-race marriages and mixed-religion marriages. It's just as silly in every case. Marriage is marriage. Two people (or for that matter, three or four) in a committed relationship, living together, raising a family, making a household and a life together? They're already married, whether or not the state decides to offer its imprimatur. Getting the nod from the government just makes it a little easier to make that family. Funny how family values don't count when the family doesn't look right, huh?

/rant

[lbb]

1. If the government (which in America is, supposedly, all of us) recognizes gay marriage, then conservative Christians would feel that they are participating in the alleged sin of homsexual acts.

Not even a vicious, bloody-minded, fundamentalist God would charge you for the ticket and not let you take the ride.

[straight]

Merlin,

My point (I guess I wasn't clear) is that those who oppose gay marriage would see not-outlawing-SUV = ignoring/repealing anti-sodomy laws but gay marriage = tax breaks for SUVs.

Which is why some Christians think the solution is to have the government switch to only recognizing civil unions (hetero or same-sex) and leave the issue of what counts as marriage up to individual churches and communities. Or, conversely, for churches to make a distinction between secular marriages and "Christian" marriages.

And Ibb, I think the concern would be more like someone who, because they pay taxes and enjoy the privliges of citizenship, feel moral responsibility for things the government does.

the idea of "gay people paratrooping in to occupy the vestry."

There's an image that's going to stay with me for a long, long time... sort of "A Bridge Too Fabulous", you mean?

[j swift]

IMO some groups in the fundie right are rapidly approaching the point in their rhetoric and agenda where they feel that religious freedom equates to non-resistance to proselytization. Since they can not drag us heathens and apostates into the street and put a sword to necks screaming "convert or perish!" they will attempt the more circumspect and civilized equivalent by implementing their agenda in the political and legal arena.

To my mind the term American Taliban is not entirely a joke, some of these people would have no qualms about theocratic depotism in this country, personal freedoms be damned.

[Beth]

No, straight, I think you're misunderstanding.

1. Those SUV buyers get special tax breaks unavailable to any other car buyers. Gay marriage confers no special benefits unavailable to straight married couples. Gay marriage != tax breaks for SUVs.

Further, government-recognized gay marriage isn't just about tax breaks. I don't like SUV's, but if there was a law saying anyone injured while driving an SUV wouldn't be covered by their spouse's insurance and that their spouse might not be permitted to visit them in the hospital or discuss their treatment with their doctor, I'd oppose it. If I'd oppose such penalties against SUV drivers who pollute my air and contribute to my nation's energy crisis, I'm certainly not going to support them against gays, just because I'm offended by their style of lovemaking.

2. Gay sex and gay marriage are not something the government does. They're something the government permits others to do, just like drinking, gambling, divorcing, engaging in sex outside marriage, wearing cotton-poly blends, etc. My government licenses Red Lobster, but that doesn't make me morally culpable for the shellfish eaten there.

If my government legalized murder, I'd have a big problem with that, because it would endanger all members of society, but I don't see how people engaging in private, consensual sex could possibly be hurting anyone other than themselves. If I think their form of sex is bad for them or against God, I can lecture them, write articles condemning their practices, or rail against them from my pulpit. But I don't have the moral responsibility, or even the moral right, to prevent my government from granting them the same recognition as everyone else.

[Puck]

The fallacy in your POV is encapulated in the simplicity of your refutation - "...neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The fallacy is that you make the issue about you. I suppose that in a muti-cultural society the retreat of the individual from society is inevitable but...

If all you care about is you - then you are on the right track. Be aware of course that there are a lot of things in this world that do not affect you - that some of us think you should care about - but you obviously don't.

BTW - the opinion expressed herein - neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

[Beth]

The fallacy in your POV is encapulated in the simplicity of your refutation - "...neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The fallacy is that you make the issue about you.

I think you're taking that much too literally. It doesn't mean "me" as in myself alone, but "me" as a representative member of my society. I can't imagine that if Jefferson saw someone robbing his neighbor he would have said, "Not my pocket, not my problem."

I suppose that in a muti-cultural society the retreat of the individual from society is inevitable

I don't think Jefferson's society was really "multi-cultural," though it's true that a belief in individualism was the basis of his -- and the other founders' -- commitment to human rights and a free society. That belief led not to a retreat from society, but to greater engagement in it.

BTW - the opinion expressed herein - neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

Yes, and so no matter how much I may disagree with it, I will defend to the death your right to express it. I will also defend the right of others to express their opinions of you, no matter how condemnatory they may be.

[Puck]

> I can't imagine that if Jefferson saw someone robbing his neighbor he would have said, "Not my pocket, not my problem."

I'm not sure why. It's consistent with "..neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

In any case - you seem to be (obliquely) backing into my position that people do have a right to an opinion regarding law, culture, behaviour in the society in which they live even if it doesn't impact them personally - and if that includes the orthodox rabbi you agree with then it certainly includes the Evangelical Christians you disagree with.

PS: The Rabbi would likely have had an entirely different opinion if the society in question were Israel.

[Beth]

Puck, I'm not "(obliquely) backing into" any anything. I'm clearly stating that government has the right to step in when someone harms, or attempts to harm, an innocent citizen.

The Rabbi would likely have had an entirely different opinion if the society in question were Israel.

I seriously doubt that. Here's a rundown of gay rights in Israel:

ISRAEL LAWS:
1. Homosexual activity is legal....
2. Allows homosexuals in its military.
3. Has a national gay rights law that bans some anti-gay discrimination, including employment.
4. Allows foreign partners of its homosexual citizenry to receive residency permits.
5. The Civil Service Commission extends spousal benefits and pensions to the partners of homosexual employees.
6. The city of Tel Aviv recognizes unmarried couples, including gays and lesbians, as family units and grants them discounts for municipal services. Under the bylaw, unmarried couples qualify for the same discounts on day care and the use of swimming pools, sports facilities, and other city-sponsored activities that married couples enjoy.
7. The Israeli State Attorney's Office has extended the spousal exemption from property-transfer taxes to same-sex couples.
8. Israel's attorney general has granted legal recognition to same-sex couples in financial and other business matters....

Israel's record on gay rights isn't perfect, but they're doing a lot better than our secular nation.

[Ray]

If the 'my' in Jefferson's phrase was a way of rhetorically strengthening the idea "doesn't pick anyone's pocket or break anyone's leg", then Beth's interpretation would be valid. I think its quite likely, since Jefferson was not, as far as I know, generally concerned only with his own advancement and security.
The question is, who is negatively affected if Adam and Steve are allowed get married? Whose pocket is picked, and whose leg broken?

[Scott]

The question is, who is negatively affected if Adam and Steve are allowed get married? Whose pocket is picked, and whose leg broken?

Sarcasm mode on.

We live in an interconnected, complex, mutually dependent society where some need to have their options curtailed for their own good because, due to media propoganda and their own moral limitations(1), they cannot be trusted to make the right choices. Compassion requires that they be protected from themselves.

Their 'right' to get married is a construct of the society they live in (w/o society, there is clearly no marriage, just two people living together, so society created marriage and thus the 'right' to marry), hence society has the absolute right to restrict them, or even eliminate that right.

Spare me your extremist individualism and accept that you, Adam, and Steve are all part of an organic whole larger than yourselves.

Sarcasm mode off.

(1) Again, it's sarcasm - I don't intend to condemn Adam or Steve or how they live their lives, just to apply the usual left wing rhetoric (normally applied to finances or guns) here to show where it can lead.

[bulbul]

Scott: I get your sarcasm, don't worry :o) I just wonder about the "left wing rhetoric". More specifically, I'm wondering whether guns and gay married couples aren't two completely different issues with completely different implications.
Also, "w/o society" is a very curious concept. Some might even say there is no such thing as a human race "w/o society".

[straight]

Those SUV buyers get special tax breaks unavailable to any other car buyers. Gay marriage confers no special benefits unavailable to straight married couples. Gay marriage != tax breaks for SUVs

Yes, yes, I know. All I was trying to do was illustrate the difference between the government not actively outlawing something (not making it illegal for homosexuals to live together in marriage-like relationships) and passing laws that license and approve it, that say, "in the eyes of our society this counts as marriage."

My government licenses Red Lobster, but that doesn't make me morally culpable for the shellfish eaten there.

All I can say is that many people would disagree with that statement. Substitute "abortion clinic" for "Red Lobster" and maybe you'll find it easier to understand why.

[Scott]

Scott: I get your sarcasm, don't worry :o) I just wonder about the "left wing rhetoric". More specifically, I'm wondering whether guns and gay married couples aren't two completely different issues with completely different implications.
Also, "w/o society" is a very curious concept. Some might even say there is no such thing as a human race "w/o society".

The difference is what the speaker wants to ban based on the speaker's moral beliefs. The left wants a say in whether there is a gun in the nightstand next to the bed w/ more than 10 rounds in the mag (or too small, or too cheap, or without a childproof lock, etc), the right wants a say in who is in the bed w/ me. Neither breaks anyone else's leg or picks his or her pocket.

[pharoute]

"Sad news today: 10 year Timmy fatally shot his younger brother when he was playing w/ Adam and Steve, his dad and 'dad.'"

[pharoute]

2 things: sorry for any mental images that cause...
and
I don't necessarily buy into all gun control analogies but a lack of child proof locks does have great potential to break my leg at the minimum.

[pharoute]

ok, preview before posting...
I don't buy into all gun control arguments but that analogy doesn't work, a lack of child....
sorry, long day.

[cjmr]

If you want to get really ironic about it, the health department licenses Red Lobsters, but not abortion clinics...

[Scott]

"Sad news today: 10 year Timmy fatally shot his younger brother when he was playing w/ Adam and Steve, his dad and 'dad.'"

Then ban swimming pools, power tools, and household cleaners if absolute safety against accidents justifies mandates. Hell, if absolute safety justifies mandates, ban anal sex due to the risk of spreading diseases.

Oops, that last one steps on your values instead of James Dobson's, and so is right out.

What, a ban on anal sex won't work because it will just be disobeyed, and gay marriage restrictions just push people away from commitment? As if criminals obeyed gun laws.

I don't necessarily buy into all gun control analogies but a lack of child proof locks does have great potential to break my leg at the minimum.

Really? The gun in my house has a serious potential to harm you? You personally? Have I invited you over at some point? The word 'potential' covers alot of territory, and is as open to abuse by the right as by the left. We invaded Iraq based on what Saddam could have 'potentially' done. That's called preemptive war, and I don't want to be preemptively attacked by the BATF over my handgun(s).

It's all a matter of perspective - what some on the left consider to be just banning a mere object I consider curtailing my God-given right of self-defense.

I do think it's funny that the left around here jumps on "who does it hurt?" when it benefits them (usually involving sexual questions), but rejects it when it gets in their way (like when they want my bank account).

[Ray]

"Their 'right' to get married is a construct of the society they live in (w/o society, there is clearly no marriage, just two people living together, so society created marriage and thus the 'right' to marry), hence society has the absolute right to restrict them, or even eliminate that right."

Marriage really is a social institution, isn't it? At least the marriage that's being argued about here, the one that comes with tax breaks and legal rights. So obviously, yes, society does have the 'right' to determine who can get married, and under what conditions (when divorce should be allowed, what legal rights a spouse should have, etc, etc.) That's not really in question, is it? The question is, is society justified in restricting marriage to male/female couples? Is this an unfair restriction? Not whether any restrictions per se are allowed.

[Puck]

>who is negatively affected if Adam and Steve are allowed get married? Whose pocket is picked, and whose leg broken?

Those who believe that children matter - that a society with a low fertility rate is a dying society - and that having children involves a sacrifice which should be compensated for culturally and legally.

Those who wish to spend their lives having fun with their genitals then taking their genes to the grave should have every right to - but society should give advantage to those who contribute to the next generation.

Even the pagans celebrated fertility.

[Scott]

The question is, is society justified in restricting marriage to male/female couples?

Society doesn't have to justify itself to mere individuals. Getting 51% of the vote is all the justification necessary. Otherwise, small groups of malcontents could get in the way of Building A Compassionate Society, and we can't have that.

Is this an unfair restriction?

Society decides what's fair at the ballot box, both in taxation and in the bedrooms of others. Gays agreed to this by continuing to live here, just like I've agreed to being taxed by continuing to live here, so gays have voluntarily decided not to get married in states where restrictions have been passed. Not voluntarily as mere individuals, but voluntarily as part of the glorious collective of voters, which is what really counts. As they've voluntarily agreed not to get married, how can this restriction be unfair?

I'm taxing myself via the elected govt, and they're deciding not to get married via the elected govt. What's unfair about that?

[Ray]

Scott, I've always argued that individuals get to decide for themselves what they think is fair and just, so if you want to pick a fight you'll have to start by getting closer to a position people have actually proposed.
Puck, what evidence is there that allowing gay marriage will harm children or cause the birth rate to decline, and why is gay marriage incompatible with social support for people who decide to have children?

[Roger]

Scott -- I don't think you can fairly assume that anyone living in a democratic country has passively agreed with all of its policies just because they don't leave. Part of the point of a democracy is that it tolerates dissent. Would you say that those Americans who didn't support the Iraq war have passively agreed to it because they didn't leave for Canada? Even if they marched, wrote to their congressmen, wrote letters to the editor, and campaigned?

The two caveats: first, in a democracy, *all* citizens have some responsibility for what their elected government does. (That doesn't mean they've agreed to it, though.) And second, yes, there are the rate times when political opposition becomes so severe or personally dangerous that exile is called for (I'm thinking of the Dalhai Lama, for example). But that's not something within the means of most people, and it's not something society should ever encourage for any significant percentage of their population (look what happened in Cuba).

Just my two cents -- Roger

[Garnet]

It's not like homosexuals are going to throw in the rainbow-coloured towel just because they can't get married, Puck; the lack of legal civil unions isn't going to increase the birthrate, though ironically, the presence of those same spousal and parental rights, in the form of marriage, might. If homosexuals felt more confident about their rights with regards to the state and each other, then they might be more likely to adopt (remember all those kids in group homes and state wards?) or make use of artificial insemination or surragate motherhood.

Way to go, Puck, you're helping to slow the birth rate!

[Ray]

Social support for people that have children is kind of unrelated to marriage anyway. Even in hetero marriages there are plenty of childless couples, and there are many, many people having kids without getting married. If you want to support kids - do it directly. Increase child benefit, lengthen maternity and paternity leave, support initiatives that allow parents to work part-time or term-time, increase funding for child-care and schools, pour money into child healthcare, teach nutrition to parents, ban junk food advertising before the watershed, put more money into children's sports... the list of things that would actually improve the lives of children and show support for parents is very long, and banning gay marriage is not on it.

[Puck]

> Puck, what evidence is there that allowing gay marriage will harm children or cause the birth rate to decline,

How can you ask that? Gays can't have children. How much "evidence" do you need? It's biology. Duhh.

Furthermore people without any interest in children who vote their self-interest in a democracy, intentionally burden those who do have children. Look at Philadelphia - there's a few rich people who send their children to private schools - and loads of poor people who let the state educate their children to be good wards of the state. Middle class families with children don't live there anymore - and wouldn't be welcmoe because they are not a part of the political constituency that rules Philadelphia - an important leg of which is the homosexual lobby.

[Ray]

Puck, do you think legalising gay marriage will turn people gay? Because otherwise, the married gay people who aren't having kids will be the currently cohabiting gay people who aren't having kids. Besides, as Garnet pointed out, you could always let gay couples adopt. I don't know of any evidence that says being brought up by a gay couple is worse than growing up in an orphanage. And if some gay couples have kids, that's weaken the Child-Hating Gay Rulers of Philadelphia, right?

[Scott]

I've always argued that individuals get to decide for themselves what they think is fair and just, so if you want to pick a fight you'll have to start by getting closer to a position people have actually proposed.

They may have the 'right' to complain, but it's fair to force them to submit because they were allowed to vote on it and have agreed to live under those laws, so it's really voluntary.

I don't think you can fairly assume that anyone living in a democratic country has passively agreed with all of its policies just because they don't leave.

That's the assertion I get when I object to something the govt does that the left likes, like the taxes Ray cheerleads for below:

If you want to support kids - do it directly. Increase child benefit, lengthen maternity and paternity leave, support initiatives that allow parents to work part-time or term-time, increase funding for child-care and schools, pour money into child healthcare, teach nutrition to parents, ban junk food advertising before the watershed, put more money into children's sports... the list of things that would actually improve the lives of children and show support for parents is very long, and banning gay marriage is not on it.

Taxes and govt, taxes and govt, taxes and govt, more and more taxes and govt - prove your Compassion(tm) by enlarging the govt......more govt, more govt, more govt.....bow down before the Holy and Sacred Govt....it's not the purpose of govt to impose James Dobson's morality, the purpose of govt is to impose the morality of Good Compassionate(tm) Leftists. Compassion(tm), Compassion(tm), Compassion(tm)....aint' it a wonderful weapon to use to gain power over others?

[Merlin Missy]

How can you ask that? Gays can't have children. How much "evidence" do you need? It's biology. Duhh.

Um, Puck? How can I put this?

People are already gay. Not everyone, obviously, but somewhere between three and ten percent of the population, according to which census you read. That means they're already either not having children or seeking children by adoption and/or alternate biological methods (surrogacy, insemination, whatever). These things are already happening, and have been happening for, well, ever. In fact, the recent advances in medicine have made things like insemination possible, so the overall birthrate for gay couples has in fact increased over the years.

These things are happening, have happened, and will continue to happen, regardless of the legality of gay marriage. (see earlier comment about "they're already married whether or not you or anyone else chooses to recognize this") Continuing to keep same-sex marriage illegal and/or unrecognized is not going to inspire hordes of gay people to suddenly sit up and say "OMG, I must go make babies." Legalizing it, conversely, will not make hordes of previously straight people sit up and go "OMG, I must go marry gay now and make no babies." Any effect on the birth rate caused by homosexuality happened long before either of us was ever born.

Legalizing same-sex marriages makes it easier for those gay couples who already have children, or are planning to have children, to raise those children. It means kids get health insurance benefits, and it means parents get legal recognition and rights for things like custody and medical approvals. It means that kids from previous marriages who get a new stepmother have the same legal recognition as her child as I did when my father remarried, and that these children aren't legally discriminated against due to the genders of their parents. Societally speaking, legalizing the recognition of same-sex marriages helps children.

Even the pagans celebrated fertility.

This is true. Of course, we also practice birth control. We're funny that way.

an important leg of which is the homosexual lobby.

I'm continually amused by the Big Skeery Homosexual Lobby / Homosexual Agenda. Three percent of the population, did I mention? (Coincidentally the same percentage of people who self-indentify as Jewish on the census.) So, either homosexuals are a large, powerful group in the country (since they push through so many laws over the will over the people dontchaknow) and thus deserve to be recognized with rights like any other large group, or they're a tiny little interest group who barely register a blip in the population (since there's no need to make "special rights" for such a small group) and thus wouldn't make any kind of impact on society at large if they were to be granted the same rights as everyone else. I'm curious as to which one you think.