In comments, responding to Christopher, Elizabeth wrote a very concise summary of the heart of her own (anti-Same Sex Marriage) stance, and also the heart of Christopher’s (pro-SSM) stance.
there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who wish to have equal rights to marry someone of the same sex, and there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who believe redefining marriage will weaken even more the social and legal idea that kids, the vast majority of whom are born to heterosexuals, need whenever possible to know and be known by their mothers and fathers, which is most likely to happen with their mother and father are married to each other.
Here’s a curious thing I’ve realized about the gay marriage debate: There’s a big split between the intellectuals and non-intellectuals on the anti-equality side of the debate, but not so much on the pro-equality side.
Both Elizabeth and Christopher are, obviously, far more well-read and articulate when discussing marriage equality than most Americans are. (Practice does that for ya.)
But the core of Christopher’s argument — “equal rights” — is the core of the arguments you can commonly hear from practically anyone who supports same-sex marriage. It’s easy to explain, and it’s an argument that has a lot of salience among Americans (particularly younger Americans).
But as far as I can tell — both from personal encounters and from polls – the same can’t be said about the argument against equality. Most ordinary people who oppose same-sex marriage say they’re against it because of their religion, or because they just don’t think being gay is moral.
Intellectuals who articulate a secular case against marriage equality, such as Elizabeth and David, are making an argument that has very little to do with why ordinary people oppose it.
(Let me emphasize that this is merely an observation. The rightness or wrongness of the secular anti-equality arguments are not determined by how popular they are; an argument can be entirely correct and nonetheless be unpopular.)
Does this matter? Well, I think it has a great deal to do with why the pro-equality side is winning this argument. The core argument against marriage equality isn’t the secular argument skillfully articulated by David and Elizabeth; it’s that God doesn’t want gay people getting married. That’s an argument that has less and less salience with each new generation of Americans.
Categories: Marriage
There is no requirement that those who’d SSM engage in same-sex sexual behavior or even be sexually attracted to each other. Lack of a legal requirement making this mandatory is something that SSMers here ought to consider before going on about incestuous sexual behavior being attached to the hip of SSM’s ban on some, but not all, related people.
Chairm, you’ve posted WAY more than three times on this thread, and I’ve specifically told you to stop posting on this thread. No more posts on this thread, please.
“There is no requirement that those who’d SSM engage in same-sex sexual behavior or even be sexually attracted to each other.”
And there is no requirement that those who’d OSM engage in opposite-sex sexual behavior, or even be sexually attracted to each other. Again, let’s apply the same rules equally and fairly to both gay and straight couples.
The biggest problems with the last posts here by La Lubu and Phil involve two either-or assumptions, which I don’t think they even really believe but are talking as if they were so for the sake of this discussion:
1. That cultural effects will either occur rapidly, almost overnight or at most over a few short years, or they will not occur at all, even over generations. As I’ve mentioned before, a failure to appreciate incremental changes in cultural attitudes, and how they start by affecting the marginal cases.
2. That people are either straight or gay, and that they know that from early on, with little or no continuum or gradation in between.
Also, in Phil’s case at least:
3. A belief that in seeking solutions to our problems, there is no middle ground that can be reached, but that the solution can only be entirely at one end of the scale or the other, regardless of any concern about excesses, and that the alternative is to do nothing about the problems or totally ignore them.
4. A belief that in evaluating a statement or concern about a possible cultural effect, stating that any inequality, not merely in assumptions about the groups involved but even in the differing effects on the groups, renders the concern itself unfounded and the effect disproven.
La Lubu:
So you believe that if SSM is made legal, that previously heterosexual people will start looking upon their platonic friends of the same gender as sexual partners? Pray tell, what is stopping them from doing that now? Granted, SSM isn’t legal in most states, but so what? They could still have plenty of sex with one another, cohabit, even build a family with one another if they so chose—just without the protections (or responsibilities) of marriage. Yet….this isn’t happening. Why do you think that is?
There’s either-or assumption #1. That it will all happen suddenly, and in the most obvious and extreme way, or not at all.
Yes, I realize that to a lesser extent this might already be happening now. And I will tell you that I have seen it in action to some extent already now.
No, not the reductio ad absurdum case of heterosexual friends suddenly becoming gay lovers overnight, but more subtle things. A heterosexual friend plagued by doubts about whether his friend is interested in him just as a friend, or something more, and shying away from the friendship because of this. Friends shunning another friend, not because of advances or any sign of sexual interest, but because he/she has some tertiary traits which make them suspect them of being gay and thus having interest in them. Husbands suspicious and/or jealous of their wife’s close same-gender friends. Less frequently, wives suspicious and/or jealous of their husband’s close friends. Kids reluctant to have any friends they are particularly close to out of unease that it may be, or may be perceived to be, more than a friendship. The list could go on; I even include in this the ways in which teenagers who tell you that they have no problem with SSM keep using the term “that’s so gay”, as if trying to make it easily distinguishable so that (they think) it is more readily apparent that they or a friend are not gay.
I know, you’re both going to give other explanations for this; often, the other explanations imply solutions that sacrifice needs to ideals.
I’ve already seen these things (the effect on friendships) to a much greater extent in the last ten to fifteen years than I did before. Still, I accept that this is to some extent what we have to live with, as if we wanted to eliminate them completely (or come close to it) we’d have to go to the other extreme which I cannot accept—trying to pretend that homosexuality did not exist, with all that implies. I do not want to see that ever. That’s the one extreme. The other extreme is pretending there is no difference whatsoever between gay and straight, and between male and female (other than purely biological). With all that implies.
Do you think maybe, just maybe, it’s because that the overwhelming majority of people find their sexuality to be an inborn trait; as something immutable, that one can fight or accept—but not change?
There, either-or assumption #2. We’re all either straight or gay, no in between. Only Kinsey 0′s and Kinsey 6′s. No 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, or 5s.
Or do you feel that there really are only 0s and 6s?
A large reason why these things are not happening more now, why they won’t happen right away with SSM, and why the effects you (and I) fear would happen right away if interfamilial sex or marriage were legal, is that people do not just abruptly erase the cultural ideas they’ve had instilled in them over their life because a law changes It takes time before a generation grows up with the cultural changes in attitudes that a new law necessitates, when and if it indeed does so. If marriage between close family members were legalized tomorrow, most people will still have the old prohibition on such relations ingrained in their heads, even if they decide to accept the new law—for “other” people. It would probably take a generation before you’d actually see the effects you and I expect in a way that is obvious and measurable.
Perhaps you agree that friendship relationships are different from familial relationships—that they have a different structure and practice.
In some respects they are different, in others they are similar. In adulthood, they are increasingly similar.
Perhaps you also agree that sexual feelings and attraction are different than the fondness one feels for a friend—that the feelings and consequent behavior one expresses towards someone to whom one is sexually attracted is a different experience than the feelings and behavior one expresses towards a platonic friend.
I know what I feel the difference should be, but I don’t know that everybody else knows the difference, or sees it the same way. (And please don’t try to infer from this that I want to dictate to everybody else what it should be). Let alone whether or not everybody else knows that their friend sees the difference in the same way.
Legally allowing sexual relations between family members–even if there is no fear of genetic damage from reproduction—opens the door for a hell of a lot of abuse. It breaks the bonds of trust between other members of the immediate and extended family.
Are you saying that if even a miniscule number of related adults were allowed to marry, within only a few short years we’d see this effect in an obviously measurable way? Or do you mean over time? Anyway, in the same way, the effect of absolute cultural non-differentiation of homosexuality and heterosexuality (herewith abbreviated as ACNDHH) could break the bonds of trust between a wife and her husband’s same-sex friend.
Sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters would all have to wonder in the back of their minds if they were being “groomed” rather than allowed to develop in their own chosen direction.
Likewise, under ACNDHH friends would have to wonder in the back of their minds if they were being “groomed” for something more.
They would have to put a great deal of emotional distance between them and other family members in order to protect themselves—and it would be hard for them to do so physically in the more confined, intimate quarters family members tend to live in.
Similarly, under ACNDHH people would have to put a great deal of emotional distance between themselves and other potential friends. As for the last part of your statement, that I will grant, so in that respect it would usually be less severe of a problem (for children at least), but still a bad problem.
whatever else family relationships may be, they aren’t equal. They are inherently unequal. You may not see sexual relations between two inherently unequal persons as a problem; I do.
As do I. Though I think you’re failing to see how sometimes apparently equal persons are in fact unequal. Ask any kid who was ever bullied in school. (And La Lubu, please do not try to minimize this as an experience which can have lasting effects. It does, for gay kids and many other kids as well).
You may not feel that family members having the potential of being sexual partners (and particularly family members who have more authority having sexual relations with family members of less authority) would affect the communications, relations, and human development of all the persons within the family; I do.
As do I. And a generally lesser, but still real problem would similarly affect communications, relations, and human development within peer groups under ACNDHH.
You may not feel that the introduction of interfamilial sexuality would have inherent conflicts of interest with the pre-existing family bonds and obligations; I do.
As do I, but as I stated above, I can see how, under ACNDHH jealousy or suspicion between one’s friend and one’s spouse would also create conflicts of interests with family bonds and obligations.
I’m curious about your use of the term “androgynizing” marriage. Is there anything other than biological sex that you are referring to with that?
Saying that gender is totally irrelevant to marriage.
I mean, even if a couple has no intention (or ability) of having children, do you still feel it is important, and necessary to the practice of marriage, for one partner to be male and one female? Other than mutual heterosexual attraction?
If you see an infertile married heterosexual couple in a store or out walking, and you don’t personally know them, you don’t know that they are infertile. If you see an elderly heterosexual couple, and don’t personally know them, you don’t know that they don’t have grown children. In this way, allowing marriage for infertile couples doesn’t totally dissociate procreation from marriage in the way that androgynizing it (neuterizing it, whatever, but if you say that gender has nothing to do with it as an institution how do these terms not apply?) does.
BTW, I stress it this way, rather than saying “allowing two of the same gender to marry” because I’m fine with there being some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples as long as doing so does not have the effect of saying that marriage the institution has nothing to do with gender, or that it’s not even built around procreation.
I ask because the mutual heterosexual attraction does it for me! Other people may have different feeling based on the “separate spheres” construct—which I don’t experience. I use that term deliberately—it’s not that I reject the argument for/from “separate spheres” for intellectual reasons—I’ve actually seen no evidence for it in reality.
But how do you define “mutual heterosexual attraction”? As being attracted to someone merely because they have different sex organs? Or does the attraction involve more than just that? Is there no such thing as charm? Does that concept rely too much on “stereotypes”?
So…when coming to an impasse like that with other folks, I think it best for a “you go your way, I’ll go mine” attitude—treat everyone equally under the law, and peacefully agree to coexist with our different practices.
Sure, as long as you don’t really mean “you go your way, I’ll go mine, but let me work on the culture and the next generation so that they’ll all see things as I do”.
Anyway—I agree that friendship relationships are very important as well. I just don’t think the introduction of SSM will have any affect on friendships because the practice of same-sex relationships hasn’t had any effect on friendship relationships in general. People don’t choose their sexuality.
An excellent summary of either-or assumptions 1 and 2.
Phil: I can tell that you think this argument is clever, but I’d like to point out to you that it is actually kind of silly, and also offensive.
I have never used it because I thought it was “clever”. And how does saying that calling a cultural effect “offensive” (especially when the raising of it’s possibility does not even involve stereotyping) mean that it can’t be true?
The thing that keeps family relations from being threatened is not just the ban on incestuous marriages; it is the cultural prohibition on incestuous sex. If you could not marry your sister, but it were 100% legal and culturally acceptable to have a sexual relationship with her, I think you’d see an effect similar to what Barry described.
See my response to La Lubu above. I would still expect that even though you’d see some effects from mere legality of sex between them (without cultural acceptance), that effect would be still greater once you added cultural acceptance, and greater yet if you legalized marriage between them, as marriage would carry with it the implication, not just that it’s tolerated, but that there is no difference between them and all other married couples.
On the other hand, same-sex sexual relationships happen with great frequency in our culture, and they are–and should be–legal. To suggest that legal SSM will change the nature of same-sex friendship requires one to hold some really out-of-the-mainstream views about sexual orientation…
What? That there’s a continuum with many people falling between Kinsey Zero and Kinsey 6? That everybody is not either 100 percent gay or 100 percent hetero? Either-or assumption #2.
…and also requires at least some notion that same-sex romantic relationships ought to be culturally prohibited.
Again, see my response to La Lubu above. Yes, to some degree the effects I note will occur with mere cultural tolerance, but that’s what we have to live with rather than go to the extreme of banning or punishing homosexual relationships, or encouraging harrassment, or violence, or anything like that. I don’t want that; I also don’t want the other extreme of trying to pretend that there is no difference whatsoever between heterosexuality and homosexuality, or between women and men, because that will make some problems worse and perhaps create some new ones, without any real guarantee that it will in fact make things better for gays (and the things which could be made better could be accomplished in other ways if we could just put our heads together rather than insist that it’s either our extreme solutions or nothing at all).
The fact is, if you are a gay male and you have a non-romantic gay male friend, there is a kind if dynamic present that isn’t there is a relationship with a lesbian. It’s also a slightly different dynamic with a straight male friend, with a straight female friend, etc. It doesn’t mean that two people who match each others’ orientations are going to want to jump each others bones, but it is infantile to suggest that all same-sex friendships have the same dynamic and that this dynamic will be changed in any meaningful way when SSM is legal.
Phil, I understand that we’re talking about many different dynamics here, including the difference between friendships which involve only Kinsey Zeros, and those that involve only Kinsey 6′s, and those that involve those of different Kinsey numbers and those in between. And I never said all friendships would be so affected. Either-or assumption #1 is entering in your reasoning here, at least subtly.
Correction: In my response to La Lubu above, I wrote: “A large reason why these things are not happening more now, why they won’t happen right away with SSM, and why the effects you (and I) fear would happen right away if interfamilial sex or marriage were legal…”
That should read: “and why the effects you (and I) fear won’t happen right away if interfamilial sex or marriage were legal…”
Further, it is sexist and heterocentric to imply that same-gender friendship deserve so much more deference than friendships between males and females. And to suggest that the law should be used to advance this sexist and heterocentric notion of the privilege of nonromantic same-sex friendships is ignorant.
Yes, friendships between males and females are already affected by the problems I’ve noted. I know this even though I have several close non-sexual female friends. Unfortunately, this is one of those things that we can’t do much about, unless we want to become extinct. There are unfortunately some things that can’t be made equal simply because of nature, and the fact that male-female friendships (particularly if either are married) are more problematic culturally than most same-gender friendships is one of them. If you’re saying that same-gender friendships need to be made equally problematic for more people, then I take it you’re also saying that friendship overall is less important than your notion of equality, and that if friendship is compromised by equality, too bad. OK, if that’s your position, that’s fine, we’ll just agree to disagree. But don’t argue that friendship can’t be compromised because the argument for how or why it may do so does not apply to all combinations equally.
You’ve been making this argument for years, you say? Are you going to keep making it?
As long as I see it as likely, yes.
The arguments against equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian partners that rely on future negative social effects are undermined by the clear legal doctrine that states are considered incubators for social experimentation. This legal theory is supported by the “states’ rights” claim. Given this, it is absurd that marriage discriminators are now working toward a national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. If the real worry is negative social change, let the states experiment with same-sex marriage, and see what happens.
I suspect what marriage discriminators really fear is that there WON’T be any negative consequences from legal same-sex marriage, and that greatly weakens their objection to same-sex marriage. Implying that any social change, like promoting a society that no longer maligns gay and lesbian people, is negative, is ridiculous. More and more, I feel like I’m reading comments that say, basically, if we don’t stop discriminating against gay and lesbian people, people will stop discriminating against gay and lesbian people. It’s a tautology: if don’t stop marginalizing gay and lesbian people, we’ll have to stop marginalizing them, because it will become uncool or even illegal to stop marginalizing them.
Folks, please stop trying to associate marriage with procreation. There is no legal connection between the two. Folks who don’t want or can’t have kids are free to marry. Folks who have kids are under no legal obligation to marry. It’s not enough for a couple to look like they can have, and do have, kids, to qualify for this newly created marriage scheme. If it were, a same-sex couple could show up at the marriage license bureau, one dressed as a man and one dressed as a woman, and they would qualify for a license.
I really don’t have time to participate today, but R.K. just keeps making the same error in comment after comment, and I wanted to point it out before he repeats it another 2 or 3 times.
Quoting La Lubu, R.K. wrote:
In no possible way does what La Lubu wrote mean what you said.
1) She didn’t say “straight or gay, no in between” she said most people experience “sexuality” as inborn and immutable. For instance, many bisexuals feel that they were born that way.
2) She said “the overwhelming majority of people”; you changed this to “all” people. Those two concepts aren’t the same. If I say “the overwhelming majority of Americans are under 90 years old,” that’s not the same as me denying that people over age 90 exist.
Barry: …R.K. just keeps making the same error in comment after comment, and I wanted to point it out before he repeats it another 2 or 3 times….In no possible way does what La Lubu wrote mean what you said.
But what I said was:
“The biggest problems with the last posts here by La Lubu and Phil involve two either-or assumptions, which I don’t think they even really believe but are talking as if they were so for the sake of this discussion”.
Yes, literally speaking, La Lubu left those “outs”. But the overall thrust of her (and Phil’s) response was written with no acknowledgement of those areas in between, and this is highly relevant when the effects I’m referring to particularly depend on how those “in between” are affected. By leaving them out of the equation, even if she said “overwhelming majority” rather than “all”, she was painting an overall either-or picture that made it easier to reduce my argument to a strawman.
She said “the overwhelming majority of people”; you changed this to “all” people.
I should have acknowledged that, yes, though it doesn’t change my response much, because that leaves those who don’t regard their sexuality as immutable (or who would like to think it’s immutable when it may not be, or when they really are not so confident themselves) as an “overwhelming minority“, which intentionally or unintentionally reads as “so infrequent as to be insignificant”. But from observation and experience I definitely would not describe the number of people as such to be “overwhelming” whether a majority or not.
Jeffrey: If the real worry is negative social change, let the states experiment with same-sex marriage, and see what happens.
So, Jeffrey, can I take it that thus you’d be willing to accept a situation whereby the majority of the states wait for about a generation to see what the effects are in the states that have already legalized SSM?
“So, Jeffrey, can I take it that thus you’d be willing to accept a situation whereby the majority of the states wait for about a generation to see what the effects are in the states that have already legalized SSM?”
No, R.K., you can’t. I firmly believe that allowing different-sex couples to marry, but not same-sex couples, violates the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens; there is no exception listed for gay and lesbian citizens in the Constitution.
I am not the one worrying about future negative social effects. I reject unfounded cries of “the sky is falling!”, as a rational, thinking person. These cries seem to forget all the social GOOD that we can predict when same-sex marriage is legal: less homophobia, greater security for the children of same-sex couples, less crime against gay people, renewed respect for equal treatment of all citizens. Remember, there is a corollary: if same-sex marriage may bring bad effects, it may also bring good effects. There is no logical reason to assume same-sex marriage is an entirely negative thing, and if the argument is about “future effects” of a thing, let’s be prepared to analyze the bad AND the good.
My point, as you probably realize now, is that if the argument is that “there may be social change, and that change may be negative” then the proper response for those with these beliefs is to quietly sit back and let states adopt marriage equality, and then monitor the situation. But that isn’t what the anti-gay marriage crowd is doing: they are undoing marriage equality laws, implementing state constitutional amendments, now trying to make marriage a federal issue, and talk about a federal constitutional amendment freezing marriage discrimination in the here and now. The rallying cry used to be “leave it to the states to decide!” and when the states started doing so, sometimes in favor of marriage equality, they switched to “it’s time for a federal marriage amendment!”
Further, R.K., not to get repetitive, but they betray their own fears of same-sex marriage: if they truly thought it would be revealed as damaging to society, they’d happily sit back and watch the states that adopt it wallow in the misery they’ve created, clucking, “I told you so!” That’s what people do.
But they fight adoption of same-sex marriage tooth-and-nail. Why? Because they are MORE worried that it will be an insignificant social change, the good of legal same-sex marriage may be exposed, and the bad, non-existent. I am always suspicious when people predict future dire consequences when they offer insubstantial reasons for their belief. It is a weak argument, and usually used as a last resort. But even they don’t believe it, as I’ve explained above.
R.K., you certainly put a lot of time into your answer, but I still don’t understand your concerns. If someone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, makes unwanted romantic or sexual advances to you (that’s the royal “you”, not “you” specifically), you simply say some version of “no thanks/not interested.” Reasonable people who are rebuffed let it go. Those who don’t are….well, they can be many things, but “friend” isn’t one of them (friends don’t sexually harass or otherwise bully friends).
I simply can’t fathom the idea that SSM is problematic because it may cause discomfort to a statistically insignificant number of same-sex platonic friends (“statistically insignificant” because we certainly aren’t seeing evidence of that now, even in cities like mine where gay and lesbian couples are a visible presence). You are assuming a mutual sexual tension will exist, even when attraction is one-sided. That changing the law will change folks’ minds about their own sexuality, rather than the changing of the law being a rational response to the pre-existing reality. Pardon me, but I can’t see how one-sided attraction on the part of a same-sex friend is any more problematic (or likely to happen) than one-sided attraction on the part of an opposite-sex friend (especially since heterosexuals greatly outnumber LGBT folks).
Also, this has to be one of the more bizarre arguments I’ve heard against SSM—that (for example) the local women’s book club will dissolve amidst a fit of sexual tension generated by the possibility of same-sex legal marriage. Illinois passed civil unions this year, and there is no evidence of this happening. There has been no change in the dynamics of same-sex (or opposite-sex) friendships since the establishment of civil unions.
And Barry is correct; I’m not claiming that everyone falls to either extreme of the Kinsey scale, but that wherever they fall isn’t subject to change. I’m also not claiming that “live and let live” means anything other than exactly that. I have zero interest in changing others’ belief systems. I figure that if they are dissatisfied with the path they are on, they will gravitate towards another of their own volition. If SSM is made legal, people who firmly believe that marriage should be reserved for those having children (or also, those who could theoretically have children, or those who at least physically resemble a couple that could theoretically reproduce)…..they’re still perfectly free to do so. And they will. They certainly are in states where either civil unions or same-sex marriage are legal. Statistically, marriage of the heterosexual variety is in much better shape in Massachusetts than in, say, South Carolina.
Are there threats to marriage? Yes. Is SSM one of them? No.
Barry, an important concession was made by those who responded to my comment. They said that since sexual behavior is not mandatory, then, it is not an essential of the type of relationship known as marriage.
If that is so, then, the homosexual emphasis is misplaced in SSM argumentation. As are the concerns voiced here regarding incestuous sexual behavior and sexual influences on familial relationships.
The marriage law clearly entails a sexual basis — I have pointed out the marital presumption of paternity as a rather obvious example — but it is not a same-sex sexual basis.
The marriage law does not make sexual behavior mandatory in the sense that the Government peers into the marital bedroom arbitrarily. But it is a requirement that those who enter the marital relationship consent to all that this entails, including the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. This is a reasonable law; on a case-by-case basis the default — the legal presumption — can be challenged and the criteria begin with the two-sexed sexual basis for procreation. No 100% guarantee is enforced; the law on this is reasonable rather than dictatorial.
So, if we are to have a legal presumption of same-sex sexual behavior as the basis for sexual consumation of SSM, so as to justify the homosexual empahsis of SSM argumentation, it must have more to it that mere sexual behavior. It must have a deeper meaning; one that provides coherency to the SSM idea.
However, SSMers have conceded that SSM, at law, is not a sexual type of relationship given the lack of a legal requirement making same-sex sexual behavior mandatory. That is the application of the rule used in SSM argumentation against the marriage idea. So it must in turn be used to test the SSM idea.
Marriage, at law, is a sexual type of relationship and justly so. Its sexual basis is not sex-neutral nor is it one-sexed.
“The marriage law clearly entails a sexual basis”
Although this is a meaningless observation, I will address it, for clarification. There is no requirement to have sex while married, with regard to frequency, quality of encounters or desire for it. Married couples are presumed to be engaging in sex, based on romantic desires, not marital responsibility or obligation. Sexual relations are a part of a romantic relationship, whether the couple is married or not. Sexual relations are not limited to married couples, nor a legally necessary part of the married couples’ routine. Since gay people express their romantic love with sex just like straight people, notions of the sexual nature of marriage tend to support, not refute, legal same-sex marriage. When we see how alike gay and straight committed couples are, making an artificial marriage distinction seems ill-conceived.
“….one that provides coherency to the SSM idea.”
The coherency of the same-sex marriage idea comes from the construct of different-sex marriage: that a committed relationship ought to be secured by legal recognition. In other words, what’s good for straight couples is just as good for gay couples. And since there is no shortage of marriage licenses, it is easy enough for society to grant them to gay couples as to straight couples.
Most Americans would be revolted to see marriage reduced to a legal-sexual construct. Most Americans will say they married for love, companionship, social acceptance, access to wealth/power/security, etc., and not for some far-fetched notion of sexual legitimacy.
Jeffrey: …if they truly thought it would be revealed as damaging to society, they’d happily sit back and watch the states that adopt it wallow in the misery they’ve created, clucking, “I told you so!” That’s what people do.
Not when the other side has indicated that they are not willing to wait and see what the effects really are before getting all the other states to jump on the bandwagon as well. To which I know what your response will be, “we’ve already seen the results, we’ve had enough time”. When the Netherlands first legalized SSM I said wait thirty years to see what happens. I have never stretched my proposed test time. If SSM skeptics agreed to leave it alone in the states that have already legalized it in return for proponents agreeing to wait thirty years in the other states, would you accept this? Didn’t think so. What are you afraid of, then? Oh well, I think I know your answer. This is why we’re at an impasse.
La Lubu, your response still indicates that you don’t (or won’t) understand the concept of incremental change, or the effect on the marginal case. You keep using strawman examples to try to prove that my concern is groundless. You also fail to fathom that the limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality.
I’m willing to say that it’s quite possible that my concerns might turn out to be groundless. I’m not asking you to agree that they will happen, nor do I expect to “convert” even one person on this forum who disagrees with me into opposing making marriage (the institution) genderless. (Converting anyone on forums like this is like what F. Lee Bailey said about Perry Mason-style courtroom confessions: It never happens). But when you refuse to even grant it possible that an undesirable effect could happen, you’re indicating that you think you not only can perfectly envision the future, but that you perfectly understand mass human behavior. There isn’t any person whose foresight comes even close to that.
That’s all I’ll have to say on this thread.
R.K., as another commenter said somewhere, I am glowing with incivility, but I will try to respond to your comment with some civility.
I didn’t opine on the truth of your predicted cultural effect, R.K. I called your argument silly and offensive. It is immaterial whether what you predict is likely or unlikely to happen, because it is stupid and bigoted to worry about the effect that you are predicting.
Does this mean that I am calling you a bigot? It would be more accurate to say that I am calling your argument bigoted, and I don’t find that uncivil. I believe that bigotry is an actual word with an actual meaning, and should be called out when it is witnessed.
Allow me to quote you.
Here, you describe “cultural tolerance” of same-sex romantic relationships as something “we have to live with.” You go on to explain that we don’t want to go to the extreme of punishing homosexual relationships, or encouraging violence or harassment. But rather than saying that cultural tolerance of same-sex romantic relationships is a good thing, you act like it’s a necessary evil that “we” have to live with. When I said that your argument requires some notion that same-sex romantic relationships ought to be culturally prohibited, you responded “yes”–they ought to be prohibited, even though it is not practial to actually prohibit them.
And then you want a cookie because you’re not in favor of harassment and violence. Seriously? One is reminded of The Onion headline Buchanan Woos Gay Vote: ‘I Promise I Will Not Incinerate You’.
You are framing the chance that a person may feel uncertainty about what another person feels about them as a problem. I do not disagree that people will, and already do, feel uncertainty about the feelings of others toward them. I disagree that this is a problem. I call it something else: life. That is simply a fact of interpersonal relationships. People are always going to wonder what others feel about them–not just romantically, but in terms of friendship, respect, and every possible type of appeal. That is the status quo, and that will remain the status quo for all of human history. To call this a problem, and to suggest that it needs a solution, is ludicrous. So that when I say that your argument is silly, or that your argument is stupid, that’s what I’m talking about.
Okay, so your contention is that some men and/or some women will become uncomfortable about the nature of their relationship with a same-sex friend, and that this discomfort will relate specifically to the possibility of romantic feelings, right?
But the only thing one needs in order to experience this discomfort is an awareness that members of the same sex can be attracted to you in a romantic way. You argue that this awareness, and therefore the resultant discomfort, will increase over time as same-sex marriage becomes a part of our culture.
It is reasonable to conclude that a person who has romantic or sexual feelings toward members of the same sex is already aware that members of the same sex can be attracted to each other. So, your bit about “different Kinsey numbers and those in between” is irrelevant. If one is attracted to members of the same sex in a significant way, one is therefore aware of the possibility of such attraction.
You keep trying to define the status quo as a problem. How about we do the reverse, R.K? If you are unaware of the possibility that a friend of the same gender could possibly be attracted you, that is a problem. The fact that a friend of the same gender could possibly be attracted to you is just that–a fact. Your friend may or may not be attracted to you (regardless of their gender), but the possibility that a friend may feel attraction is absolutely an unquestionable fact. So if you are ignorant of this fact, you are just that: ignorant.
Now, you may argue–and it appears that you are arguing this–that living in ignorance is preferable to having a more accurate idea of the way the world works, and the way that human beings interact. But there is no reason to accept your (ignorant, bigoted, and ridiculous) contention that losing one’s ignorance is a problem that we need to solve.
If the possibility that your friend may be attracted to you compromises your friendship–not the actual attraction, mind you, but the mere possibility that another human being may be attracted to you–then you do have a serious problem. But that problem is not, as you suggest, the knowledge of the reality of the possibility of attraction. The problem is that you are processing this knowledge in a stupid/ridiculous/ignorant/bigoted way. If you choose to do that, it is your business, but it is asinine to assert that we should make public policy decisions based on that highly personal and offensive decision.
Consider: if a person said, “We must not integrate restrooms, because white customers may feel uncomfortable in the presence of black customers,” it does not matter how real the possibility of discomfort is, that is still an ignorant and bigoted argument to make.
If a person says, “We must not permit legal same-sex marriages, because straight people may start to worry that their same-gender friends are gay or bi,” it does not matter how real the possibility of that worry is; it is still an ignorant and bigoted argument to make.
I was not going to respond, but Phil has misstated my statement:
Here, you describe “cultural tolerance” of same-sex romantic relationships as something “we have to live with.”
Wrong. Read it again. I said the effect of that on friendship is something we have to live with.
Other than that, to keep my word that’s all I have to say.
If SSM skeptics agreed to leave it alone in the states that have already legalized it in return for proponents agreeing to wait thirty years in the other states, would you accept this? Didn’t think so. What are you afraid of, then? Oh well, I think I know your answer.
No, you don’t. What am I afraid of? I’m afraid that for your proposed thirty years, existing families, and those that will form during the course of that thirty years (because LGBT people aren’t going to say, “gee, no legal recognition of my chosen relationship? I can either fake heterosexuality or—nothing? Guess I’ll go hole up in a hermitage somewhere for the next thirty years!”) will suffer. Living, breathing people will suffer (and not by their choice) for the cause of some theory. That living, breathing people will be (actually, continue to be) treated unequally according to the law.
R.K., I’m trying to be charitable here, but it doesn’t seem that you recognize these people, people like my cousin—as being people deserving of equal rights. It seems as if you see them as lesser varieties of human. If you saw them as equal, you wouldn’t suggest that they kick back and wait thirty years to get the basic rights you take for granted.
You know what has caused a lot of societal upheaval? A lot of it? And we’re not done yet? Industrialization and women’s emancipation. Boom. Yet you’ve never mentioned wanting to turn back the clock on either of those two items. Why not? Is it because that would affect you, in a concrete, immediate, negative way—despite the possible positive changes that would come incrementally, over generations?
But when you refuse to even grant it possible that an undesirable effect could happen
I’m not saying that perhaps unimagined undesirable effects could happen. I’m saying that the specific undesirable effect that you apparently believe is likely—that of people (in statistically significant numbers) distancing themselves from same-sex friends because of the possibility that some of those friends could be *gasp* attracted to them—will not happen, and it definitely will not be happening because of SSM.
As a bona-fide representative of Middle America™, I’m telling you that this particular fear of yours is unfounded. Remember when the evening soap opera, “Soap” came out? And included an openly gay character? And “everyone” gasped? OMG he’s gay? Lemme tellya, a lot of folks have come out of the closet since that time. And that was well over thirty years ago. Nowadays, LGBT high school students are taking their partners to the prom. But in all that time, same-sex friendships haven’t taken a dive. I can’t vouch for the men, but women still undress in front of strangers in the locker room. Know what else? In spite of all that out-of-the-closetness, the proportion of human sexuality on the Kinsey scale has remained the same. It just isn’t hidden, is all.
A reminder to all readers and commenters: Please limit your comments to 3 per post – unless, of course, the author gives you permission to add more. Thank you.
Sorry, I was away for the weekend and am not able to address RK’s point, below, but I would like to do so if that’s okay. (I don’t expect a response since I know he said he is not participating in this thread any longer).
He wrote:
“But as I’ve argued for years, if you argue this, then by the same token, not androgynizing the concept of marriage allows non-sexual friendships of the same gender to continue as they are, and saying that they are marriageable does, or at least might, or it is at least rational to think that it might, threaten friendship in the same way that allowing marriage between close relations threatens family relationships.”
As far as I can tell from this comment and his later ones clarifying, he is arguing that same-sex marriage will threaten same-sex friendships because people will be worried that others might think they’re gay.
Here’s a better solution than using this (literally, homophobic) fear as justification for not allowing same-sex marriage:
Creating a social environment where it’s not seen as a bad thing for people to be gay or assumed gay.
Because, honestly, when a person understands that it’s not embarassing, gross, or deviant to be gay, their reaction to being called gay is “so what?” not “OMG we can’t be friends anymore!!!”
Permission to post further comments?
Permission to post more than three times granted to Phil, to La Lubu, to R.K., to Fannie (who isn’t yet at 3, I think, but might as well get ahead of the curve), to Elizabeth (ditto), and to Jeffrey R05.
“Not when the other side has indicated that they are not willing to wait and see what the effects really are before getting all the other states to jump on the bandwagon as well.”
No one is forcing all states to adopt same-sex marriage. Because opponents of same-sex marriage tried to use a federal roadblock to stop it, like DOMA, supporters of same-sex marriage have no choice but to also pursue federal remedies. Threats to go to the Supreme Court by supporters of same-sex marriage are a response to threats to use the federal government, again, using DOMA or federal marriage amendments.
Imagine if the marriage discrimination crowd had simply sat back and said, “we’re gonna let this happen, state by state, because we know that it’s a bad thing, and will be exposed as such.” That’s what SHOULD have happened. But opportunists, such as Maggie Gallagher and her National Organization Against Same-Sex Marriage (NOM) made, literally, a national issue out of it, probably for personal financial gain.
“If SSM skeptics agreed to leave it alone in the states that have already legalized it in return for proponents agreeing to wait thirty years in the other states, would you accept this?”
I’ve already explained that I believe gays and lesbians have the equal right to marry as straight people do. I strongly oppose the state-by-state method. But it would have been the right method for the “it will harm society, just you wait and see!” crowd. How many states is enough to “normalize” same-sex marriage enough to draw reliable conclusions about its effect on society?
I am motivated by a desire to see all citizens treated equally. I have no fears about legal same-sex marriage. I also know that if unforeseen calamity erupts, we can pass laws against legal same-sex marriage, and do so with a rational mind and rational reasons.
“But when you refuse to even grant it possible that an undesirable effect could happen….”
This wasn’t addressed to me but I’d like to write to it. It’s not enough to deny a fundamental right to a minority because of a theoretical harm to society. Who will get to decide what the harm is, and whether it is severe enough to deny a minority a fundamental right. You’re forgetting that things can be undone if an undesired outcome results. But as I mentioned, I believe the vast majority of opponents of same-sex marriage are more worried that nothing detrimental will result, and unless marriage equality is stopped in its tracks, people will become indifferent to it, as they should.
If I may (and I completely understand if I get cut off after posting so much), I would like to pose the question why it is the burden of the people who support same-sex marriage to limit its scope, because some people worry that there will be deleterious effects? Why isn’t it the burden of people who have imagined a malignant future to accept broadly legal same-sex marriage, and then persuade society that it’s not working out?
I think I can at least partially answer my own question: because maintaining the status quo is far easier than creating change, especially on an issue with roughly equal support for both sides. Possession is 90% of the law and the status quo is, is, well, it’s something like that.
But the reality, like I said, is the fear that with legal same-sex marriage comes broader acceptance of legal same-sex marriage, a downward spiral if you oppose it, and don’t want it to be legal.
JRO5, Opponents of marriage have a burden. They must prove that their concerns are rational, in a legal sense, and related. There is certainly concern about poorer parenting in all it’s forms but as we saw in the Perry case, the Yes on 8 legal counsel could not prove any kind of causation with is required to sustain a “rational basis” for the restriction of a “fundamental right” in US law. Win or lose on Constitutional grounds, that is now a “finding of fact” in Federal Court and is permanently part of federal jurisprudence.
R.K., I am willing to take you at your word that you mis-typed, and what you meant is that cultural tolerance of homosexuality is actually a good thing, but also that we must simply live with the effects of it because we don’t want to go so far as to punish homosexual relationships. But I’d like to present a grammatical analysis of your statement and then a logical analysis.
First, to be completely fair, let me directly quote what you wrote:
First, grammar: “that’s” is a contraction for “that is.” That is a pronoun, and is is a singular verb. “Effects” is a plural noun, and “tolerance” is a singular noun. So while I am willing to accept on your word that you meant for the pronoun “that” to refer to the plural noun “effects,” it isn’t reasonable for you to think that interpretation of your sentence is the most obvious one; that interpretation requires your reader to assume you meant to type “the effects I note [...] is what we have to live with.”
Be that as it may, even if you definitely never meant to type that “cultural tolerance…is something we have to live with,” all that means is that you didn’t intend to type it. The bigoted sentiment is still implicit in your argument. You said that the effects of cultural tolerance are something we have to live with rather than (among other things) punishment, harassment, or violence.
If I say that the effects of allowing women into the workplace with men are just something we have to live with, rather than physically forcing women to remain in the home, is that a bigoted statement to make? It is clear from the statement that I do not believe that allowing women into the workplace is a good thing, is it not?
I’ll respond to Phil’s most recent post first:
First, grammar: “that’s” is a contraction for “that is.” That is a pronoun, and is is a singular verb. “Effects” is a plural noun, and “tolerance” is a singular noun. So while I am willing to accept on your word that you meant for the pronoun “that” to refer to the plural noun “effects,” it isn’t reasonable for you to think that interpretation of your sentence is the most obvious one; that interpretation requires your reader to assume you meant to type “the effects I note [...] is what we have to live with.”
Actually, I don’t quite see that, Phil. And I have no problem admitting to grammatical mistakes. You’re saying I should have said, “but those are what we have to live with….” to be more clear, as this would have more obviously referred to “effects”. Now I admit when I wrote this I was not exactly examining it for grammatical correctness.
Yet scrutinizing this more now, I can see that when I wrote those words “that’s what we have to live with”, I don’t think I was referring to just the word “effects” but to the whole phrase, “to some degree the effects I note will occur with mere cultural tolerance”. And the more operative part of that phrase is, “to some degree the effects I note will occur” (I really should have qualified that with “probably” or “may occur” to not sound like I’m clairvoyant), not the “mere cultural tolerance” part. I really don’t see why it was so hard for people to see that “that’s what we have to live with” referred to the first part of the preceding phrase, not the second. But that’s just how I see it, perhaps you don’t. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt rather than assume that you were reading it with a bias for finding something with which to hang me.
If I say that the effects of allowing women into the workplace with men are just something we have to live with, rather than physically forcing women to remain in the home, is that a bigoted statement to make? It is clear from the statement that I do not believe that allowing women into the workplace is a good thing, is it not?
No, Phil, I wouldn’t accuse you of that if you had wrote such a statement (particularly not if you had also stated what effects). Any more than I would accuse you of having a bias against freedom and for dictatorship if you had wrote something like this: “there would likely be more crimes under a freer society, but that is something we would have to live with rather than a totalitarian dictatorship”.
Fair enough, R.K. So are you saying that cultural tolerance of same-sex romance is, in and of itself, actually a good thing, as opposed to just something we have to live with?
I really wasn’t going to respond further, but Barry has given permission. No more super-long posts in this thread for me, though.
Phil, I’m going to put it this way:
Yes, cultural tolerance of same-sex romance/sex is, in and of itself, a good thing. While androgynization of the concept of romance/sex is a bad thing. That is how I see it, and it is the matter of how we can have the former without the latter that I’d be glad to work with others on to figure out. I know, some will say that it can’t be done, or that nobody’s talking about the latter, or that they don’t know what I mean by the latter, or that the latter is a good thing, or that the former without the latter doesn’t make sense, or that the former without the latter puts an undue burden on gays. But that’s where I stand.
I thought of simply quoting a number of statements made by La Lubu, Jeffrey, Phil, or Fannie which I feel just have major flaws which should be apparent upon reflection, and leaving them to readers to see what I mean. But that would stretch out this thread too long. Rather, I’m just going to again give one quote, which I’ve posted here before (more than once, probably more than once, which I feel encompasses the problem in the responses:
John Maynard Keynes (regarding Bertrand Russell): “Bertie in particular sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that in fact human affairs were carried on after a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was to carry them on rationally.”
Now I ask again, why do you think Keynes referred to Russell’s two opinions as “ludicrously incompatible”? You may see his point, or not see it, or see it yet disagree, but what did Keynes mean by this?
La Lubu, I also have a gay cousin whom I respect, and yes, gay friends as well (including one who opposes SSM even more than I do, though most others support it). Sometimes, however, you may care for or feel for what someone is going through deeply even though you cannot agree to the solution they advocate. I know this is not easy, for me or anyone else. I will give an example of this in another thread.
If I say that the effects of allowing women into the workplace with men are just something we have to live with, rather than physically forcing women to remain in the home, is that a bigoted statement to make?
And this is where perspective varies according to life experience. Here we have two men discussing whether such a statement would be bigoted; one man believes it would be, another man believes it wouldn’t necessarily be.
But from my perspective, the perspective of a woman, a woman in a man’s field (99% of electricians are men), a woman who gets to hear such so-called innocuous statements on a regular basis (yes, still) and who still has to deal with deep biases on the job that affect both the course of my career and the everyday course of the workaday world—-such statements are never innocuous. They’re always bigoted. I have never been treated equally (or even with respect) by men who make comments like that. The most common bigoted comment I get to hear (especially in this economy) is that the women on the job are keeping men unemployed.
Men who have no sexist biases against women on the jobsite? They don’t make those statements. It doesn’t occur to them to do so. They don’t feel that women on the job are something to “put up with”, nor do they feel that there are any negative effects from us being there (that our presence doesn’t bring any more negativity than the presence of men).
I want to be clear, RK, that I do think you are speaking in good faith when you say that such a statement wouldn’t necessarily be bigoted. But, you are wrong. You don’t live under the barrel of those statements. This is an abstract for you, and a concrete reality for me.
Yes, cultural tolerance of same-sex romance/sex is, in and of itself, a good thing. While androgynization of the concept of romance/sex is a bad thing.
Again, I do not understand this. What is “androgynization of romance/sex”? Can you give me an example of this in practice? The LGBT folks I know are just as particular about the sex of their partner as myself and all the other heterosexual people I know.
RK:
“I thought of simply quoting a number of statements made by La Lubu, Jeffrey, Phil, or Fannie which I feel just have major flaws which should be apparent upon reflection, and leaving them to readers to see what I mean.”
That’s not really how dialogue or argumentation works, though. Your later quotation is not a Magical Self-Evident Rebuttal For The Win, IMO.
I would be welcome to hear which of my statements have major flaws; if I’m not making myself clear, I want to know when and where so I can rephrase for clarity. I don’t assume that I’m always expressing myself well, particularly to people from a different background (hence, different phraseology and language use); I do have my limits when it comes to code-switching. *smile*
For all Barry’s (and Hernan’s) faith that I am as entitled to the mantle of “intellectual” as anyone else, one of the reasons I don’t see it that way isn’t *just* my lack of formal education, but my general practice of not dealing in abstractions—needing that grounding in the concrete, observable, measurable consensus reality. Example? My failure to understand what is meant by R.K.’s use of “androgynizing”. To be frank, it’s a word I haven’t heard much since the 70s (or more accurately, since 1982 when the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment ran out). I’m not trying to be a PITA; I truly don’t “get” it. (Picture my bewildered look)
One last thing. Awhile back, I tried to explain my communication style—specifically, how much I rely on nonverbal communication to get my point across, and how difficult I find conversations on the printed (albeit electronically) page to be. Yeah, I’m the stereotypic Sicilian that talks with her hands, LOL! (and facial expressions, glances, tone, volume, stance, you name it—translating the 3D to 2D isn’t easy). I think I come off a lot “harsher” in print than I do in person. Keep that in mind if I sound like I’m spoiling for a fight—almost always that isn’t the case….what’s really happening is that I’m sitting in front of the screen with my head cocked to the side, my brow furrowed and questioning, and a Scooby-Doo-type “huh?” exclamation.
La Lubu: But from my perspective, the perspective of a woman, a woman in a man’s field (99% of electricians are men), a woman who gets to hear such so-called innocuous statements on a regular basis (yes, still) and who still has to deal with deep biases on the job that affect both the course of my career and the everyday course of the workaday world—-such statements are never innocuous. They’re always bigoted.
La Lubu earlier: You know what has caused a lot of societal upheaval? A lot of it? And we’re not done yet? Industrialization and women’s emancipation.
Are you not very clearly implying in that last statement, that “a lot of societal upheaval” is indeed something we have to live with with industrialization and women’s emancipation, because you would not want to turn the clock back on them (nor would I).
Am I to understand that it’s not bigoted for you to say that, but would be for a man to say that?
Fannie: “That’s not really how dialogue or argumentation works, though. Your later quotation is not a Magical Self-Evident Rebuttal For The Win, IMO.”
Of course it’s not a “Magical Self-Evident Rebuttal For The Win”. Please note that I was only asking for some indication that you understood why Keynes said what he said. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, Keynes was an economist and as such had to consider into his equations the kind of far more basic questions that most of you seem unwilling to.
Why would it be “ludicrously incompatible” to say that human affairs have been carried out irrationally, and then that the solution is to carry them out rationally?
R.K., my point was that a man who makes a statement about tolerating women in (the workplace, the military, college, the voting booth, whatever)….is a man who cannot be trusted. He won’t defend the interests of fellow human beings unless they are male. He will either actively or passively betray the people he regards as lesser-thans (in this case, women).
Meanwhile, societal upheaval is the constant state of humanity. Funny how no one is concerned about societal upheaval when it gifts (do I really need to add “white”, “straight”?) men with blessings and freedom and opportunities (and puppies! and rainbows!—sorry, couldn’t resist a little friendly sarcasm). No, then it is called “human advancement” or “progress”. See what I mean?
So the Keynes comment is not recognizing how humans are in reality, only how they ought to be on paper. As an economist, he is used to dealing in the pristine behavior of numbers—not the messy behavior of people (witness: how many economists fail to recognize that people will make bigoted choices even when it costs them money to do so; that they literally pay and are willing to pay a cost to keep their bigotry! That is how valuable it is to them). Russell was making a rather cogent observation: that human beings intrinsically contain two simultaneous impulses—rationality and irrationality. That we have always, and (at least at this stage in our evolutionary scale) will always act irrationally; yet we also can and do choose rationality as well. Russell was merely saying that if we pick rationality (which we can—it isn’t outside of our abilities), we’ll be better off.
‘Nother words, human beings contain contradictions that numbers (well, most numbers; I’m not a physicist) don’t. It’s who we are. We have to recognize that. That’s not ludicrous at all.
As an economist, he is used to dealing in the pristine behavior of numbers—not the messy behavior of people…
Even though I’m more of a mathematician than an economist, I have to say that is a rather curious and naive description of what economists have to deal with.
It was Russell who was the mathematician and so was the one more used to dealing with “the pristine behavior of numbers”. Economists by their very profession have to deal with both people and numbers. Yes, they have to ask what people will do, not just what they ought to do. But they have to also ask whether more or <fewer people will do something as well as what most will do, what some do, and even what a few will do, and whether or not the actions of that number of people has an effect. Russell’s statement implied that we could easily just change into a rational-thinking society and this would solve our problems. How, just by “choosing” it? It was the belief that this was so simple that Keynes was criticizing when he said what he did.