Crystal Hyslop, 55, of Madison, helped rally Fair Wisconsin volunteers for a final late-afternoon push of canvassing... [She] said she's been with her female partner for 26 years. Before Tuesday's results were known, she said she would "just be devastated" if the measure passed. "The first thing I'll think is, 'Why do they hate me?'"
[Julaine Appling, president of the Vote Yes campaign,] said supporters of the ban don't hate gay people.
"For us, this amendment was not personal," she said. "This was about protecting the institution of marriage that we will collectively hand down to the next generation. We didn't see Fair Wisconsin or the individuals comprising it as our enemy, and we do not see them as second-class citizens."
She said she was proud that her side "never fell prey to bashing" people.
ADDED: But it looks as though the gay marriage ban may fail in Arizona. Imagine that! Arizona getting out in front of Wisconsin. So much for the progressive tradition. I just noticed that news via Instapundit, where I'm also seeing that Michigan has voted down affirmative action. After all that litigation defending affirmative action, the people say no.
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
The first thing I'll think is, 'Why do they hate me?'"
Because starting your argument in favor of major social change with the reductionist premise, "anybody who disagrees with me necessarily is evil and hateful" is sort of the opposite of a box of chocolates and some roses. "They" hate you because your politics are somewhat fascistic - "either agree with me or be damned." That "argument" invites only two responses: either "I agree" or "screw you."
I think those of us who opposed this amendment should take heart: This was a battle in a war that we are winning, and will win. Things are changing, just not as quickly as we would like.
10 years from now, only a few very honest people will admit to having voted yes on this disgraceful amendment.
quietnorth, what you say may be true. But in the meantime, what will be the economic damage to the state? Why should Gays stay somewhere where they perceive they are unwanted? I think this will hit the UW particularly hard.
Re: "only a few very honest people will admit to having voted yes on this disgraceful amendment."
"Why should Gays stay somewhere where they perceive they are unwanted?"
Thereby proving Al Maviva's point that proponents of SSM can see no principled opposition to their cause, just "either agree with me or be damned." And MM concurs, advancing the interpretation that opposition to SSM means they hate gay people.
Bullocks.
pogo, re-read my comment. It has everything to do with how opponents are perceived by gays. If opponents want to change that perception, they have some education to do. Just saying Bullocks doesn't work.
Yes, the Michigan thing was actually quite lovely to see, although it's disappointing that so many people still support it.
The proponents of SSM have adopted the same "victim" and "if you oppose me, you are evil" approach of the left. I consider myself a non-religious social moderate.
The tipping point in any of these votes are going to be a set of people in the middle like me who don't "hate" gays, but rather are "conservative" in the simple use of that word. It is not hateful to say:
marriage is one of the bedrocks of civilization. Overall, the codification of 10,000 years of testing alternative arrangements has generally settled on one man, one woman approaches. (to the extent that some societies have encouraged (one man , several women) that has often been a safeguard / safety net for widows, etc). These conservatives want to go slow and be careful before we throw out a cultural system that works.
that is not evil, just risk adverse.
Re: "It has everything to do with how opponents are perceived by gays. ...Just saying Bullocks doesn't work."
My comment "Bullocks" was damning the critique promulgated by proponents of SSM that disagreement defined opponents as those who hate gay people.
What a simplistic interpretation. Gay marriage supporters should worry about alienating the anti-SSM majority, and risk isolating themselves further by suggesting that people who voted for this amendment are by definition bad. Demonizing the rubes won't sway them to your side.
As for the "economic damage" threat: Do you really think gay people are going to leave Wisconsin in large numbers because of this? What kind of tactic is that? That would leave even a smaller minority in support of SSM behind. Not a successful plan for change, in my view.
pogo, re-read my comment. It has everything to do with how opponents are perceived by gays. If opponents want to change that perception, they have some education to do. Just saying Bullocks doesn't work.
True enough. But what we've seen over the years is that explaining the reasons we are opposed to SSM doesn't work either. At some point, it's more reasonable to quit trying to reason with someone.
The perception is wrong, but it's too well-loved for many people to let go. It feels good to nurse a grudge and to believe the worst about a perceived enemy. A universal (and bipartisan) flaw in human nature, that.
-there's alot of myth and tradition in keeping men and women in marriage and Santa in Christmas, but it is what the people want. I have encountered very, very few who outright hate gay people for being gay and I've been around the proverbial block many, many times. Victimhood, like anal sex, is a rather messy business that few try to fully understand because of the stench.
The Michigan amendment is a great victory for freedom. I think such an amendment would pass in almost all states. We will start seeing them in the years to come.
Regarding gay marriage. This is the fault of the gay marriage lobby. They should never have pushed the argument that a gay marriage is the same as a traditional marriage. Most people just don't see it as being the same and saw marriage as being under attack by leftist organizations. Instead they should have recognized the difference but pushed for equal contractual rights and economic benefits - i.e. a civil union.
Pogo said:
As for the "economic damage" threat: Do you really think gay people are going to leave Wisconsin in large numbers because of this? What kind of tactic is that? That would leave even a smaller minority in support of SSM behind. Not a successful plan for change, in my view.
Well, the hypothetical people that would leave would be GIVING UP on Wisconsin completely. They stop caring about what happens there.
I don't know about Wisconsin, but here in Ohio, brain drain is a big deal. The kids leave and never come back, and people from outside the state think that coming here is a bad thing. Anti-gay policies are disliked by many people that aren't gay, and those people tend to be young, and they vote with their feet. Maybe Wisconsin can afford that.
It's not about people with roots leaving, it's about people without roots not putting them down.
We have to resort to psychological explanations to explain why people oppose civil unions because none of the stated ones make any sense.
How is my marriage impacted by civil unions? I can't think of one way. Are there any other threats to marriages besides civil unions, and have they inspired constitutional amendments? No.
David blames gays for the fact that they aren't fully integrated into society. This is how the change will happen: At first, people will oppose gay people being integrated into society. Then, they will say they were for integration all along, but blame gays for not integrating. Then, as society changes, the fact that there was ever opposition will be forgotten.
This issue will be moot in about 30 years. Social change takes longer than technological change but like technology, the social change we are seeing is astronomically faster than at any other period in history.
Re: Gridlock. The Wisconsin legislature is now divided -- Democrats control the Senate, Republicans control the House. So I expect less insanity to reach the Governor's Desk. Hooray.
I would not want to be a recruiter for the Univ. of Wisconsin now. The UW has already lost a talented researcher -- and the $3M he brought in annually. When domestic partnership benefits are eliminated, retention will be all the more difficult.
Re: "It's not about people with roots leaving, it's about people without roots not putting them down."
An Ohio "brain-drain" would refer specifically to people leaving the state, not failing to move there. nevertheless, your point is well-taken, and restated suggests that gay-friendly Madison isn't gay-friendly enough (even though nothing has actually changed for them in state law), leading to fewer future gay citizens.
Let's just say I doubt Madison will become a gay-bashing town, or that it is now or will be anything but strongly supportive.
Regardless, maybe supporters of SSM should move to states that favor their approach. Such is Federalism, and by that method achieve their goals incrementally. But such an all-or-none tactic seems self-defeating to me.
Re: "So the argument that gay people are trying to throw out or destroy marriage is not borne out by reality..."
Not borne out by what "Reality"? Your fallacious argument offers nothing at all but the statement itself as support.
Julaine Appling thinks this amendment is just about protecting marriage and not discriminating against gay people? OK, fine. What is her group's next step to "protect marriage". What other legislation is in the works to clean up the sacred institution from rampant divorce and broken families. How does her group explain to children that many of the authors of these amendments have themselves been divorced. How is her group moving to protect children from watching one marriage dissolve only to see, confused, their parents remarry. Where are the amendments against divorce, remarriage, having children out of wedlock? I think the whole thing is rather hypocritical.
Ann -- Did "the" people vote no, or did the white people vote no? If it lost fair and square then I can live with that, but I have a hard time saying "the people" in a context like this, because it would not be the first time the phrase "the people" has excluded African-Americans.
In an unrelated note, anybody who thinks that gay marriage is worse for society than straight divorce is a moron. That's just my opinion.
r,s, buck said:
"This issue will be moot in about 30 years"
Especially since America will be vastly different in so many ways by then. Just finished Steyn's new book which more people should be discussing.
Steves,
Re: "So how is attempting to let more people marry in any way synonymous with trying to destroy the institution? It is not."
Again, you are merely restating your opinion as a fact. It is not.
Re: "the vast majority of people's sexual orientation is essentially fixed"
Interestingly, gay rights folks argued precisely the opposite in the 1970s and 1980s. Why did they change? Anyway, the jury's still out here.
Re: "therefore straight people will continue to marry in the same way they do now..."
Therefore? Therefore? No, sorry, it doesn't follow as simply as you suggest. I know this is a blog and posts must be brief, but your statements are classic examples of logical errors and fallacies.
Re: "If you think you have a better argument to illustrate how letting gays marry is tantamount to "throwing out" the institution of marriage..."
Sorry, but since you are arguing for change from the status quo, it is your responsibility to show that altering the current state would be better than what we have now, or at least no worse. The Drill Sgt stated the conservative approach most succinctly. Start with that, and argue why you think he's wrong, and not via conclusory statements alone.
We have to resort to psychological explanations to explain why people oppose civil unions because none of the stated ones make any sense.
See what I mean about explaining our reasons not working?
Terry: I have a hard time saying "the people" in a context like this, because it would not be the first time the phrase "the people" has excluded African-Americans.
I thought this was a weird thing for Terry to say, because the African-American community is well known as being against gay marriage. But then I realized that Terry was talking about the Michigan affirmative action vote. From the linked article:
A CNN exit poll of Michigan voters suggested that the ban passed because of support from men. Sixty percent of men, but only 47 percent of women said that they backed the ban. By educational status, support for the ban was strongest among those who were college graduates, and opposition was strongest among those with postgraduate education. Among white voters, CNN found that 59 percent backed the ban, while only 14 percent of black voters did so.
You can look further at the polling data and see if it all adds up.
As for Wisconsin passing the ban, I'm still surprised that AZ failed to do the same. AZ is growing and is not as conservative/libertarian a state as it used to be, since we're getting a lot of people from CA and liberal states to the north and east. The opponents of Prop 107 were heavily funded and ran a terrific ad campaign, while the proponents were scarcely heard on the airwaves or seen on billboards or street-corner signs. The opponents spun the question as taking away already-established benefits, and obviously the majority of people didn't want to do that. The proponents response to that charge were late and weak.
Of course, nothing changes in AZ state law. None of the major newspapers endorsed 107 because marriage is already defined as man+woman only in law, and the editors are all confident that will never be overturned. I guess the majority of people also believe that the AZ judiciary is not as activist as those in MA or NJ. AFAIK, there isn't a huge gay community in AZ, so it may be some time before that statute is challenged, at which point we'll see whether or not the state constitutional amendment would have been necessary.
Pogo,
We didn't know a lot of things in the 70's that we know today. Gay rights advocates at that time said it was a choice because 25 years ago America was still open to protecting the right to choose. Today, science shows that you're born gay (or lesbian.) Either way, nurture or nature, it shouldn't make a difference. I haven't heard a good reason why it should make a difference.
Unless you come from very old money, the odds are that your great-grandparets weren't married in a church. The state only started recognizing church marriages exclusively when the church lobbyists got to them. For decades (and centuries, going back to colonial times) you'd just start living with someone until people started referring to you as man and wife.
Arizona getting out in front
Describing Arizona as in front and Wisconsin as therefore behind is certainly in keeping with your position on this issue. That's fair enough.
However, compare this slant with the quote you attribute to the Wisconsin supporter of the amendment (we don't hate anyone). I also note the slant being spun by the anti-amendment leader (they hate us!.
Who's being the bigger person? We ask, you respond, or something like that.
As a conservative who holds his gay friends dearly, I would reiterate to gays who support gay marriage ... this is not about you, or your lifestyle, in which you are entitled to live.
This is about the definition of marriage, and a majority of us want do not want that definition to change.
Re: "Either way, nurture or nature, it shouldn't make a difference."
Well then, tell Steves. He's using it as an argument that since "the vast majority of people's sexual orientation is essentially fixed", therefore SSM will have no effect on marriage itself.
Derve said "much of the anti- support comes because of fear, ignorance or bigotry"
'Why do they hate me?'
I still say bullocks.
Paul,
What you just said is irrelevant. The Wisconsin marriage amendment was not about preserving the definition of marriage. Read the amendment. The second sentence of the marriage amendment goes beyond the definition of marriage to state that the legislature shall pass no law creating a legal status substantially similar to marriage which would afford people rights similar to those enjoyed by married couples.
Make no mistake about it, the Wisconsin amendment was about enshrining gay bashing into the state constitution. In other states with differently worded amendments, it might be a different story, but the whole "preserving the definition" argument strikes me more as a massive rationalization.
Pogo:
...your point is well-taken, and restated suggests that gay-friendly Madison isn't gay-friendly enough (even though nothing has actually changed for them in state law)...
What do you mean, nothing has changed? What are we discussing if nothing has changed? Why are you happy with the result if nothing has changed?
...leading to fewer future gay citizens.
Yes, and fewer non-gay citizens who don't want to live in a state that is explicitly anti-gay.
Regardless, maybe supporters of SSM should move to states that favor their approach. Such is Federalism, and by that method achieve their goals incrementally. But such an all-or-none tactic seems self-defeating to me.
Self-defeating in what sense? Ah, you're thinking that they'll never get gay marriage legalized in WI if everyone who favors it leaves. My point is that they STOP CARING about WI once they leave. How is that a defeat for the individual doing the leaving? It looks more like a defeat for WI, at least in economic terms. Or do you not think that it matters economically what places people choose to move to and what places they choose to move away from?
Sorry this is long, but maybe it will enlighten some people on us "haters."
Some who are sadly among the legal and academic leaders of the pro gay marriage movement are clear that their motivation is Marcusian in nature – they wish to overturn the existing social institutions and they feel gay marriage is a step in the right direction. Other gays want to join a valuable social institution. Those of us on the fence are simply reluctant to tamper with a good arrangement.
The Drill Sgt. was on the right track, I think. If you want it in more academic terms, social institutions matter. It is consistent with conservative intellectual tradition going back to Burke to point out that social habits and social institutions are a bulwark of society. At a very high level, laws are nice, but a society where people are in the habit of doing the right thing based on their participation in various social institutions is a better place than a society where the government has to constantly police people to get them to do the right thing. Laws against littering are nice, but they won’t cause a tight knit neighborhood to self-organize to pick up downed trees after a storm. Welfare is a nice social safety net, but government coerced charity isn’t as high a good as the local volunteer food bank, which operates without the threat of government coercive power (in taxation) and which is more immediately responsive to local needs. Admittedly, this views society as more of a interconnected web of institutions than as a random collection of completely autonomous, unconnected beings; and if you don’t buy that premise then nothing I say could convince you that social institutions even exist, much less have merit.
Many conservatives or traditionalists view ordinary historical marriage as perhaps the most important social institution, one that exists on a formal (legal) level but also on an informal level. That it is legally recognized is generally thought proper, but conservatives would point out that marriage or something like it has existed at most places in known history whether or not the laws are functioning.
A recent example that makes us believe marriage is more than a legal arrangement, part of the social web, involves divorce and welfare. From my reading – formerly extensive though I haven’t studied the area in four or five years – a lot of kids come through divorce and broken homes just fine, but there is a higher percentage of children of divorce with bad outcomes than children of intact families; and among the children with bad outcomes, the children of divorce on the whole generally have markedly worse outcomes than children from families that don’t divorce but who also manage to have bad outcomes (felonies, drug addiction, welfare dependency, etc). This doesn’t mean that divorce is an unalloyed evil or the kids have to go bad as a result, rather that in making it easy to break up marriages means it is more likely that you will have more kids with really bad outcomes. Similarly, the problem with welfare as it was then working was pointed out by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the late 60’s. He led a study group at the LBJ-era Department of Labor looking at the Great Society programs and determined that treating out-of-wedlock births as a value-neutral activity, permitting it without attaching any entitlements penalty and in fact incentivizing it by providing higher payments to one-parent homes, would destabilize the family and especially wreak havoc on the Black family which was already under assault by centuries of slavery and decades of segregation. At the time he was run out of town for being such a racist fool; by the mid-90’s, he was hailed as a prophet for having the courage and foresight to speak the truth. The laws concerning marriage or who could receive welfare didn't change much in the 1960's, but the habits of people who would otherwise have been married changed due to relatively minor legal shifts, with disastrous results that we are still paying for today.
My point isn’t anti-gay marriage per se. My point is that we didn’t arrive at these traditions in an arbitrary manner, society arrived at them after a lot of trial and error, sorting out the bad ideas and holding onto what works. The end result of destabilizing marriage in the other contexts wasn’t just damage to people directly involved; ‘bad outcome’ means that your vandalized store front, your burgled house or your assaulted child was victimized by one of the unintended consequences of our social experimentation. I'm hesitant to sign onto another re-engineering of the marital relationship, given how bad our last couple great ideas have turned out.
So my conclusion? Insofar as we want to radically re-define what constitutes marriage, we should do it slowly, and at the polls, with some attention paid to any unintended consequences. If people like what they see, they can do more; if they don't like it, it's in their hands to move back. I’m not against gay marriage per se. I am against having it inflicted on an apparently unwilling country by judicial pen stroke, with a lot of high minded language but little regard for how the whole of society will be affected. “Who could it possibly harm?” isn’t proof that nobody will be harmed, it’s a speculation that nobody will be harmed. If marriage is an integral part of the foundation of society, you need to ask: would you put some new building material in your home’s foundation without it being tested? I believe the polls are the right place to settle this question. As people’s mindset evolves, so too should our understanding of marriage. But it’s a dangerous applecart to tip over all at once and it's disingenuous to pretend you know that nobody will get hurt as a result. Yeah, society will recover no matter what we do. It always does eventually, it’s just a matter of time and how many damaged people you screw up before you realize the error. See the original incarnation of welfare and housing projects, and the eugenics movement if you have trouble understanding why I worry. A lot of ideas thought to be really progressive and smart at the time had disastrous results, some that we're even sort of ashamed of now.
Re: "What do you mean, nothing has changed? What are we discussing if nothing has changed?"
Gay people couldn't marry before the amendment, and can't marry now. The only thing that has changed is the prior traditonal view has now obtained a legal imprimatur.
Re: "Yes, and fewer non-gay citizens who don't want to live in a state that is explicitly anti-gay."
More 'Why do they hate me' demonizing. Bullshit.
Re: "Self-defeating in what sense?"
No, self-defeating in that if the goal were to gain social acceptance for homosexuals and SSM, disappearing isn't likely to be a successful approach. Instead, you'll achieve balkanization, state versus state.
Re: "How is that a defeat for the individual doing the leaving? "
It's a defeat if a goal for gays is greater social acceptance. Demonizing your opponent and taking your ball and going to your new home will not advance this cause. It is victory however for a gay individual who has an eye only on the short term.
Al Maviva said...
Wow! Wonderful full length version of my "Cliff" notes.
More on AZ:
1. Yes, slightly changing demographics -- peeps from California + a hearty young partying population. Live and let live crowd.
2. Confidence that the judiciary will not start whipping out a batch of cloth, etc.
3. "No on 107" did a good job (albeit they were deceptive if not outright lying) on the subject of benefits for people currently in domestic partnerships.
4. "No on 107" also repeatedly said that this amendment was not necessary because marriage was already protected. They were able to pose this amendment as overkill. Hence any move toward gay marriage already has a built-in speedbump.
“But it looks as though the gay marriage ban may fail in Arizona. Imagine that! Arizona getting out in front of Wisconsin. So much for the progressive tradition.”
“In front of” – “progressive” , why must the cultural left always paint their agenda as a fait accomplie’? Why does it always appear as if they are the conductors running the freight train of history? Why does the argument for their social agenda always seem over before anyone ever here’s it start?
Yes Wisconsin has a long, storied, “progressive” tradition. Yet this Amendment passed? Were the considerable Liberal voices that voted for it? If this is such a progressive no-brainer, then why are mainstream democrats and average liberals not spouting their superior morality to us mindless bigots?
Perhaps it has something to do with the breakdown in family structure over the last forty years. A forty year stretch that corresponds directly with cultural libertine ascendance.
I can't help but notice how the views of those (largely on the left) dissenters on the SSM ban differ from my own thoughts.
Not as to the amendment itself, but as to the election results.
As a solid conservative, I'm more than a bit disappointed as to the polling results. Am I blaming things on the 'cut-and-run' crowd, or the hollywood left, or on people who hate freedom (or just about anything else Jon Stewart suggests for that matter)? No.
Republicans lost because they didn't get out a consistent message. They didn't do as good a job at selecting moderate candidates to run for office in contested seats (Heath Shuler had been approached twice by Republicans to run for Congress before running as a Democrat this year). Moreover, their actions in Congress didn't stay on-message with Conservative principals: they got spendy, they got distracted.
Anyone who thinks that the SSM ban amendment passed because Wisconsin hates gay people (or, as Fair Wisconsin put it, just don't know any gay people) fail to understand what really happened.
If you quit trying to convince the center to support you...you've already lost.
Jeez- the commenters here veer the discussion into gay rights so often, you'd think that was all people had concerns about.
And I know in this case that is the topic and Ann selects the topics, but no matter what she selects, the discussion oftimes veers back to gay rights. Whassup with that?
SteveS:
After proponents redefine marriage to deny that parenthood and marriage are intrinsically linked, and insist instead that marriage is just one of many relationship options, fewer parents will choose marriage, favoring mere cohabitation.
Such has been the case in the Netherlands.
"Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at a striking clip.
The Netherlands is so important because it provides evidence for an actual acceleration of out-of-wedlock birthrates following the passage of same-sex unions—proof demanded by Eskridge and Spedale. We see this in the Netherlands because, in contrast to Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates were relatively low in Holland prior to the advent of registered partnerships and gay marriage. So in the Netherlands, we aren’t comparing apples and oranges (out-of-wedlock births for second-born children and above, as opposed to first-born children). In the Netherlands, we are still largely dealing with an increase in out-of-wedlock births for first children. And the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has in fact accelerated dramatically following the introduction of legal same-sex unions."
Re Fenrisulven's comment: So your point boils down to "SSM won't damage marriage because marriage is already damaged"?
No, the point is "why should anyone believe that you care about stemming the damage to marriage that SSM might cause if you aren't doing anything to fix the damage that already exists." Unless you show me continued enthusiasm to make marriage a better institution, how can I believe that this amendement is your attempt to protect marriage instead of a mean sprited attempt to "protect" it specifically from gay people.
bob,
Aren't the family policy council's (who have generally been behind the amendments) the same groups who have advocated covenant marriage and against no-fault divorce?
Wouldn't those qualify as shoring up marriage?
BTW, the reason Prop 107 has not yet been called as an official "No" is that there are 300,000 to 400,000 absentee ballots yet uncounted.
"No" still leads by 30,000, however.
Caveat to last post:
POTENTIALLY as many as 300k to 400k.
It's also the reason that they Hayworth has not conceded and Mitchell has not claimed victory.
Pogo said...
Re: "but how will "mere cohabitation" suddenly emerge as a new option after same-sex marriage?"
Of course it's not a 'new' option. How foolish. Unmarried cohabitation increases, as do unwed births (and then, more easily, separation of the partners).
Re: "Is parenthood and marriage "intrinsically linked now?"
Traditionally, yes, but that has been eroding thanks to Marxism, socialism, and leftism of the 20th century. Marriage between couples unable to procreate was previously a marginal number, having no effect on reproduction within a nuclear family, and therefore of little concern.
Now that you've seen how adoption of SSM in the Netherlands has in fact been followed by an undesirable increase in out-of-wedlock birthrates -a "a causal smoking gun for gay marriage’s negative effects"- what say you?
SteveS, thanks for your thoughtful post.
Re: My best sense of why it feels that way to some is that they think the difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is so wide, so different in character, that heterosexuals will no longer wish to participate in the institution once gay people can marry, and it will fall into disfavor.
Close, but not quite, at least about how I think. You are right that I think the difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is entirely different in character. I view it as definitionally different in character, almost mathematically so: a set that includes just {A A} or {B B} is existentially different from the set {A B}.
But I don't think it will prevent heterosexuals from marrying. That seems like a non sequitur to me. In fact I do not expect there will be a great deal of effect on heterosexual marriage, at least not directly.
I object because the word "marriage" *means* a particular kind of union between a man and woman. The heterogeneity of it is part of the definition and always has been. And any attempt to change the legal definition to include the homogeneous sets {A A} or {B B} will always be a legal falsehood.
That's all.
Can calling same-sex couples "married" undermine marriage in an indirect, long-term way? If so, I think the mechanism is that it is one step toward rendering the word so inclusive as to be essentially meaningless. Why get married if there's nothing special about it?
The specter of "same-sex marriage" also threatens people who belong to religions that won't recognize these unions as sacramental marriages. We fully expect, if it becomes widely accepted in mainstream secular society, that someday we'll be portrayed as senseless bigots or fanatics for refusing to bless such unions. I'm sure some people think that's a good thing and that such social stigma ought to apply to members of these religious groups. However, as you can imagine, we don't like the idea much.
I do not believe that most gay people or other proponents of changing the definition of "marriage" want to undermine or destroy marriage. I give y'all the benefit of the doubt. Rather, I'm concerned that its destruction will be an unforeseen consequence.
Gosh, you're not named 'the Jerk' for nothing! What wit! What depth!
Pffft.
Sorry, Edward, but I don't want to risk being an intellectually reckless jerk again.
Re: "The other readers in this thread will simply conclude that I've successfully refuted all your arguments."
Perhaps they will.
Re: "Shorter Pogo: I got nuthin'."
Both you and Edward are operating under the erroneous idea that there can possibly be some sort of "proof" that you would agree to call "evidence" of causation. But it doesn't exist, and cannot, given the complexity of human interactions.
It's the idiocy of "social science" writ large. By rejecting the traditional wisdom of embedded within social institutions, and even claiming they don't exist at all, but are mere structures for maintaining power, you are blinded.
And you refuse to see. Europe is dying. Its demography favors Islam to take over, and very soon. Gone will be their vaunted SSM. Gone will be their way of life.
Well, since you are the ones demanding the change to SSM and saying it will cause no harm, and you believe in the scientific application of 'proof' to human interactions, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. Show me the stats, the grams, the windspeed, the graphs, the isobars, the nanograms, the volume, or the DNA that proves SSM is safe and effective.
“The African-American experience and the experience in Eastern Europe, where out-of-wedlock births are also common, show that this social problem typically has nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage.”
Agreed (& I know of no one who says otherwise) But it dose prove a variety of other points we try & make.
#1. The institution of marriage is not invulnerable. (its susceptible to damage)
#2. Its breakdown has serious consequences for society.
#3. State manipulation has unexpected results.
#4. The cultural left are incapable of foreseeing them.
#5. The cultural right has foreseen them quite clearly.
”If Stanley Kurtz wants to claim a connection to gay marriage, then he’d better be able to prove it. But he can’t. He probably knows that he can’t, and so he doesn’t even try.”
It’s important to accurately understand Kurtz thesis in order to understand if he has “proved it” .
(Here it is verbatim – people always misrepresent it, as you have Ed)
“Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood
More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.
He does try & continues to. He has answered Spendales & Eskriges work directly.
The problem with “prove” - is to who’s satisfaction.
“But Kurtz does none of this, and he never cites any reputable scholar who does.”
He sites many reputable scholars??
“The longer same-sex marriage exists in the states and countries that have already legalized it, you will see that civilization does not collapse as a result.”
Rome wasn’t burnt in a day Ed. “Societal collapse” is not the bench mark, rather the number of children being raised in married households by their mothers and fathers. The health of the social institution of marriage is important than any single groups desires. I’m sure you agree if this concerns polygamy and other deviations.
Re: " I’m sure methods exist in the social sciences for establishing a certain degree of proof on these matters"
I disagree. Nos uch proof is possible. Opinions are the best that can come of such post hoc reviews , but these are always biased.
The only real proof cannot not ever be done: an experiment assigning one society to the SSM arm, and the other to traditional marriage. Only in a totalitarian society could this be possible.
And I repeat: if you're demanding scientific proof of harm by SSM, I turn the tables and say that science has always placed the burden of proof on those who are proposing the new idea. And you admit it can't be proven. So how could its opposite be proen either? It can't. So we agree. So quit asking for proof, and quit pretending that Kurtz is dishonest when you can't prove or disprove the concept either way.
I find the smirking about a collapse of civilization worrisome, for it exposes the bias common amongst the left that 'human progress' is inevitable and follows a left-leaning social trajectory. Thus, they express disbelief that civilization could ever be at risk.
But civilization has fallen, many times in the past. And living through the rebuilding phase was a bitch.
Shorter version: out-of-wedlock births are the canary in the coalmine heralding societal collapse.
Edward- I understand your position and that of your sources.
Its simply inaccurate however to portray Kurtz work as either
#1. Unsubstantiated or debunked
#2. Not recognized and affirmed by other scholars.
Stanley Kurtz. I have a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from Harvard
University (1990). His scholarly work has long focused on the intersection of culture and family.
European demographers British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that "marriage is becoming a minority status" in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. Yet citing the 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate for firstborn children, Danish demographers Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson argue that marriage has ceased to be the normative setting for Danish family life
This collection of Dutch Scholars – singed this joint statement
http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/105038/
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam
Containing (this)
“there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favor of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.
In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences…..At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”
The list goes on.
Edward, I am not even close to arguing that conservatism means 'no change -ever'. That's bogus and you know it.
I was calling your demand for "proof" bullshit because
(1)the burden of 'proof' (if such were possible) would be yours
(2) not you nor any SSM marriage supporters could ever agree what would constitute acceptable proof after which you'd say "okay, I'm wrong"
(3) I'm with historian Paul Johnson in finding that accurate methodologies do not exist in the social "sciences" to prove or disprove anything at all. It cannot do so, for it is not a science in that way. at best, it can show vectors, but it cannot demonstrate causality.
(4) the real agenda is that you don't believe the objection to SSM based on its effect on kids could possibly be true, so you cannot even discuss it intelligently. (e.g. "The concerns you raise are obviously hysterical.") Yeah. Being concerned about the colllapse of the family is unreasonable. It was hysterical when the family was destroyed by Mao, and 50 million people died. A real laff riot.
In the end, you will dismiss all evidence against you as insufficient, and merely fall back on calling me and those who object bigots, haters, and jerks.
P.S. I agree with your economic points, Edward, to a point. But you neglect the rest of the economic setting: choice in human behavior. Economics isn't just about money.
Consider the effect a change in definition of marriage, its loss as a privileged status, would have on people (especially men) at the margins.
That's the real economic question here. The answer is the same as the effect that welfare had on black men and families.
You know, "schmarriage" does have a nice ring to it.
“Reasonable concerns about the potential harm of some changes certainly need to be considered.”
“Reasonable” – Hell, we’ve been dismissed as “irrational bigots” by the Massachusetts Supreme Court before this debate even started.
“But only reasonable concerns need to be considered. The concerns you raise are obviously hysterical.”
I disagree; the demographics of Europe are widely known and agreed upon. Civilizations peek and fall, this is hardly a novel conception. I don’t think Pogo or I would blame homosexuals. We would however talk about the integrity of the marriage based family, and importance of childbearing & rearing.
“And despite what you say, accurate methodologies do exist in the social sciences to prove or disprove those concerns that are reasonable and that merit consideration.”
Yes they do Edward. But if your PH.D has any connection to social science , you knows that those scientists always require one thing…..More Data.
We can only “prove” our case (to your satisfaction) by running the long term experiment you are advocating.
An important article for understanding the complex ways that society, gender & tradition interact is the touchstones article focusing on the work of George Akerlof a Nobel prize-winning economist, and professor at Berkeley.
Its by Brad Wilcox (and yes its in a Christian magazine- but try and chew slowly)
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-038-f
You may want to look into George Akerlof work itself, for full effect.
Like I said… the cultural left has a track record on marriage & the family.
POGO
“I'm with historian Paul Johnson in finding that accurate methodologies do not exist in the social "sciences" to prove or disprove anything at all. It cannot do so, for it is not a science in that way. at best, it can show vectors, but it cannot demonstrate causality.”
I guess I’m with him too. Obviously we are talking about a “soft science” here.
The variables are incalculable, the laboratory incapable of being sealed off (societies) & all the control groups have been contaminated.
In Edwards zeal for “proof” he forgets that the closest thing in the social sciences is “consensus”.
Even when this emerges (divorce, birth-control/abortion, Fatherless ness, & the importance of traditional marriage for healthy childrearing) cultural leftists will continue to refute that consensus & refuse to extrapolate what we already know with what is being proposed.
It pathetic, but dangerous.
Edward.
“When a rising rate of out-of-wedlock births runs up against the very real cost of raising children, something’s gotta give.
And it’s the rate of out-of-wedlock births that’s sure to diminish once economic reality fully kicks in.
So far the “gotta give” has been
#1. Getting married at all.
#2. Having children
#3. having children within marriage.
#4. Replacing absent generations with immigration.
Physiologists consider an instinct for self preservation to be a hallmark of mental health.
Re: "And yet you deny that you’re being unreasonable and hysterical?"
Edward, you would do well to read the work of Robert Conquest, an historian. He noted that the inability of the left to foresee the negative consequences of their experiments in social 'progress' was due to "a failure of imagination". They could not accept the many warnings (quite prescient, but mocked at the time), even dating to the years Marx wrote, given in advance of attempts to implement his folly. Millions of people died. One of their goals was the destruction of the family, a wish dating back to Rousseau, and even earlier.
I believe that same failure explains your inability to grasp the dire effects of SSM and the denigration of the family, and thus your need to classify that threat as 'hysterical'.
Your inability to imagine is a danger to the rest of us.
The ideas that gay unions hurt society or families just do not hold up under scrutiny.
That is apparently your whole argument.
*sigh* It's probably not worth the effort, but...
"The idea that two men or two women are capable of contracting 'marriage' just does not hold up under scrutiny."
If I stopped there, would you be satisfied?
No?
Ann: Not only did Arizona vote "no" while Wisconsin overwhelmingly voted "yes," the race on this issue in South Dakota was even closer than Wisconsin, with only a52-48% yes split. South Dakota!! I wish I'd sent them the contribution I gave to Fair Wisconsin. I doubt they would have wasted it mailing me dozens of times asking for more money (despite my specifically asking them not to).
(I wonder if they would have sold their donor list, as Fair Wisconsin must have done - I'm getting lots of mail about gay charities and other stuff at the address I gave them - one no one else had until then.)
The Family Research Council wants legislators to implement "required premarital counseling"? Well, that's just crazy talk right there. Those fringe assholes on the far right have a lot of nerve
Sarcasm aside, that certainly clears up any misconceptions about the FRC being "small government" conservatives. No such conservative could support a policy like that; it simply isn't the government's business.
Edward, that was an impressive display of brilliance and humility, not to mention the graceful manner in which you accepted the good faith arguments of those who disagree with you.
FWIW, my original point wayyyyyy up in comments, was that many of the pro gay marriage forces get a lot of abuse for starting their argument with the premise with the reductionist premise, "anybody who disagrees with me necessarily is evil and hateful". Let me add a corrolary to that based on your discussion with Pogo: a lot of folks on your side might add "stupid" to the first premise, and frequently use the same statement as the conclusion of the argument as well.
I'll just stand over here in the corner with the other stupid conservatives, like Burke and Marcuse (and Gramsci, can't leave him out), who all thought social institutions mattered and that inflicting change on such institutions often has the effect of destroying them.
Edward,
I think I understand the generosity of spirit animating the newly-minted demand for SSM. But it is this kind of "radical politics protected by bourgouis order" (cf Dalrymple) that has long been the fashion among the left. That chic moral exhibitionism portrays itself as the highest good, while giving notice to peers of one's leftist credentials.
But while the demand for SSM may give you the warmth of generosity, it does so without the cold requirement of responsibility. Such has been the recurrent fault in all leftist experiments in the 20th century: thinking that radical change in social institutions is "incremental", or even not change at all, and being blind to the downstream effects of their actions. Moreover, it assumes the continued safety and order of the society, even though those very conditions exist only because of these selfsame traditional institutions.
Your failure to admit that there might be any risk at all here makes me dubious of your ability to prognosticate. It means you are blinded by ideology.
Social revolution is always violent? Really? I'm stunned. I didn't realize the massive move into the workforce by American women required so much bloodshed. Hell, my five sisters must have kept their personal gulag pretty quiet! I never realized the Industrial revolution required mass murder and prison camps. I never knew the rise of unwed-motherhood came by the jackboot.
Edward, don't be so foolish.
P.S. As for my supposed ignorance of "the history of traditionally oppressed minorities"? Please. I had heard and read of nothing else throughout grade school, high school and college. You mean there's more navel-gazing and DeadWhiteMale flagellation to be read? Aack!
Nataraj,
When you say "What WI said to them was, "You can form no meaningful relationship", it brings to mind a repeated criticism brought against opponents of SSM.
It has been oft-repeated that "SSM has no effect on your heterosexual marriage." But then the converse must also be true. The presence of heterosexual marriage can have no effect on same sex couples. Either one affects the other, or neither does. Which is it?
Moreover, a claim that gays and lesbians can have "no meaningful relationship" makes no sense when the legal reality before the amendment (no SSM in WI) is exactly the same now as before, leaving existing relationships unchanged.
What has changed is an ability to alter WI law in favor of SSM (and civil unions). I think the latter a mistake, but one brought on as a backlash against the incessant moralistic in-your-face grandstanding by proponents of SSM. Sorta like Edward here, who demonizes those who disagree with him.
the legislature shall pass no law creating a legal status substantially similar to marriage
As well the law should read. I would hope that all state constitutional amendments would disallow gay marriage and gay civil unions.
The civil union track is clearly a mechanism to create gay marriage via a back/alternate door.
Once again, so far with one exception, states in the USA have overwhelmingly said that our culture will not allow marriage to be redefined.
I for one support this, and my support for this does not make me a basher of anyone.
Steve S, SSM redefines who is eligible for entering into this particular social institution. As a parent in a traditional marriage, I can confirm from first hand experience that there is a bond formed by the biological process of having a child with somebody. While things are tougher with a kid in the house, more arguments, less fun play time for the grownups, more stress, our relationship is also a lot stronger because of it. We get through hard things - financial stuff, discussions about whose family to spend the holidays with - a lot easier now.
Now I know there are other ways to reproduce but I find the biological congruence of traditional marriage to normal reproduction striking, and I suspect that the social institution has been so widely accepted because it is complementary to and supports the biological process. Both the biological process and the social institution have evolved with each other. I don't *know* that gay marriage would damage this symbiotic relationship but I am positive it would change the nature of it. I suspect the harm, if any, would come from the attempt to legally (and attitudanally) untie the biological component of marriage from the legal portion of it.
Yeah, before having a child we were married and close alright, but having a child together sort of put an iron hoop around the relationship. Part of that iron hoop is the natural love I feel for my son, part of it is my understanding of the societal expectation that I'm married, have a child, and must be a good and present provider for them, I have to live up to certain societal expectations. Along with my own choices, these expectations placed on me make me a decent husband and father. Where a lot is riding on people's adherence to certain social conventions (like being a good parent, sticking around to help raise children, etc) I believe it is risky to try to tinker with society's expectations.
We talk about the damage done to marriage by easy divorce (and miscreant heterosexuals) and I think that an attempt to untie the legal aspect of marriage from the biology of the situation might weaken our expectations of what being married actually means, reducing it to something like a mere contract. So I guess for me marriage is a sum of biology and a legal contract, where the sum is much greater than the constituent elements.
This isn't to say gay marriage would wreck that, but I have concerns and would prefer that we proceed with a bit of caution. Our record of altering laws relating to families, whether divorce, custody, welfare or juvenile justice is pretty dismal, we tend to screw it up, especially when we impose top-down changes. If you follow Hayek at all, social institutions are strong because they are more or less spontaneously organized rather than directed. So I'm more than willing to give civil unions a shot, and open in the long term to SSM as long as it comes about by democratic process, by social evolution. It is important though, if we realize we are damaging ourselves that we have the ability to pull back somewhat. I see civil unions as more amenable to a traditional conservative viewpoint because they are more in the nature of a special contractual relationship, and they don't attempt to co-opt the unique symbolism of marriage and dilute it by applying it to a relationship that is generally unmoored from the biological, reproductive basis that has reinforced the social institution for so long. The defense of traditional marriage is often vociferous because it really does occupy a special place in the mind of many people - perhaps a supermajority if the recent referenda are too be believed. It is a bit hard to articulate, but then explaining the formation and operation of most of "life's little platoons" is difficult to explain as well.
Please pardon me if my Catholic roots and natural law philosophic leanings are showing...
Edward
"The only response that people like you make to this argument is that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will force a change in the way everyone “thinks about marriage.”
The law effects culture. This is a given. If the law states that marriage as exclusively between a man & a women is bigoted idea, then it will speak with the same authority it has now - considering it a male/female institution.
I’m sorry, but that is a truly pathetic response. It’s not only a weak reason to oppose same-sex marriage. It’s no reason at all.
Your not being hyperbolic here Edward, your revealing yourself. Its neither "pathetic" , nor "no reason at all" to assume what we define, honor, subsidize, & promote within our laws doesn’t actually matter.
"Same-sex marriage will not force anyone to change what they think about marriage. If conservatives want to continue believing that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, they will be perfectly free to continue believing that. They will also be perfectly free to teach that to their children."
But that will not be able to say the laws of the United States reflect that view. This is a powerful authority in any society. It effects the culture & society. No man is an island onto himself. Schools, government documents, laws, regulations, will all support a vastly different conception.
Its just as inane to say that maintaining traditional marriage wont - "force anyone to change what they think about marriage. If gays want to continue believing that marriage exist between a man and a man & a women & a women, they will be perfectly free to continue believing that. They will also be perfectly free to teach that to their(?) children."
UW Student said: "the familial rights and privileges they have created here are now on shakier ground"
That's a reasonable interpretation, actually, one I hadn't considered. Whose fault do you think that is, though?
If not for the aggressive and demonizing efforts of the SSM marriage crowd which has, anew since 2000, pushed for and loudly demanded this new right or else, this ballot would never have come before the people. The all-or-none approach of SSM proponents got them none, and maybe even less than they had before. Sounds like the 'moralistic' tactic failed, and badly so. This is what comes from a backlash, a reaction which often overshoots.
And re: "I've seen a number of conservatives here state that it's cowardly for gay families to move somewhere ..."
Actually, you are the very first to do so. Congrats!
Al said, It is important though, if we realize we are damaging ourselves that we have the ability to pull back somewhat.
I just don't think that this is a real possibility. If homosexual couples feel like they've "been kicked in the gut" after Tuesday night, imagine the reaction after they've been told "Sorry, this experiment didn't work out. We no longer recognize your status."
Yet feelings and opinions that are merely personal should not play a role in the public policy debate over same-sex marriage.
That's ridiculous. All public policy that comes to the vote is decided on the aggregration of the voters' opinions.
Same-sex marriage will not force anyone to change what they think about marriage.
You keep repeating this, Edward, but that doesn't make it true.
The end of the Cold War was a revolution across the communist world, but few shots were fired. East Germany's Communist country joined West Germany. Poland and the Eastern Bloc were freed. All without violence. The rise of the Christian religion was not a violent event by and large, although there was violence. And the Enlightenment was a clear revoluttion in thought, also without violence. The Industrial Revolution initiated some of the largest social changes in the history of mankind, mostly without violence. And Marxism profoundly changed Western thought, even though it did not result in the bloodshed seen elsewhere. Freud's ideas, and Einsteins as well, were also philosophical revolutions, and also bloodless. You may prefer not to call those events revolutions, but you'd be quite wrong.
It apears you choose to redefine 'revolution' in the same way you wish to redefine marriage. That doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees. Much of the world sees SSM as a revolution in thought. You prefer to call it progress or evolution.
Similarly, you wish to refine 'force'. I agree with Burke that 'the use of force is a clear sign of excessive haste'. However, the state is nothing if not force. Your belief that court-imposed legislation against the will of the people is not force is laughable. If not force, then how will the new law be enforced? Ridiculous.
You may be right. Tha nation may change and support SSM. Burke didn't think all change was for the good merely because it was change per se, however. You misread if that's your interpretation. He clearly held that certain fundamental institutions were required for liberty to be possible at all, and that hacking away at these roots would undermine the bourgeois order permitting the very change sought. Some writers point to this fundamental flaw as a reason why democracies are necessarlily doomed to fail (e.g. Ravel).
Nataraj, your statement "Much bloodshed did open the door to women in the workplace, WWII. " has to be the strangest reading of feminist history I have ever run across.
The bloodshed was not about women in the workplace. I know what you meant to say, but really, no need to be ludicrous.
Edward said:
"We’ve already won over the younger generations to our side, and they will soon be determining social policy in this country."
The same could be said of Europe Edward, and yet the very nature of "young people" is changing as result of cultural demographics (cf. Steyn).
You may be correct to be optimistic about the future of the youth in this country and in others, but I am not convinced it is a given, unless you are prepared to say that muslims and latinos are becoming more open to gays too.
Edward, I went through the time & effort to site several sources and articles. I even directly quoted Kurtz thesis. (which you had misrepresented)
One gets the distinct feeling in these debates, that the pro-ssm side doesn’t really want a debate. (Hence the judicial approach).
It seems always to be an obviation around what’s said, and a return to mantra’s of “equality”.
#1. You can prove it
#2. It’s the future
#3. Its no big deal (change)
#4. Poor me.
To your credit Edward, you have avoided #4.
Does this sound like a cause that has confidence in its purpose and message?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/11/legislators_aga_1.html
Re: "I don't think we are trying to dilute the symbolism of marriage, but rather say we want that symbolism to apply to us too."
That's exactly what dilution is.
Edward, your false comparisons are odious. Your only and recurrent tactic is to throw the absolute worst epithets you have at your opponent.
Having no real philosophical basis for SSM other than "I want it to be so", you resort to name-calling when others disagree. You've called me racist, crazy, hysterical, and the like. Big deal.
SSM has never been big in the black or hispanic community. Why is that? Are they racists? Do they see the struggle for black civil rights as as no different than gays wanting to marry? If they do, I'd like to hear about it. Good luck searching.
The word "dilution" was used not by me, but by a previous post, to which I responded. It referred to the term 'marriage' becoming diluted by redefinition, a possiblity recognized by that writer. I disagreed. You follow with a non-sequitur, and a vicious one at that. Your tendency to demonize makes for an unintelligent debate.
We disagree; I can accept that. The citizens of Wisconsin sided with me on this one.
Again the epithets. You are unable to see any reasoned or principled support behind opposition to SSM. Blinded by your SSM = civil rights paradigm, you are forced to conclude that those challenging your conclusion must be bigots.
You also have the usual leftist tendency to view the world with a magical kind of predestination, the dangerous messianic idea that "progress" is inevitable.
I think I understand what motivates your point of view, and it is honorable, even if misguided. I don't think you understand mine, nor do you care to, and you find me bigoted and hysterical, obnoxious and a jerk.
I wonder why those demanding tolerance seem to be the most intolerant of all?
The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is the inherently risky nature of gay sex. Anal sex -- even if "done properly" -- traumatizes the tissues involved. Over time, repeated use of the practice can lead to serious medical problems. The nether end of the digestive tract wasn't designed for sex. Other forms of gay sex, while less risky, still carry higher risks than straight sex does.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would put society's stamp of approval on this risky behavior, so we'd get more of it. Bi-sexual men who previously limited themselves to straight sex would have no disincentive to avoid gay sex.
Individually, I'm not about to tell anyone what they can do with their bodies. I just think it's absurd not to recognize that actions have consequences, and gay sex has many negative consequences that are glossed over because no one wants to talk about it. Here is a high-level article on the health risks of gay sex. Yes, it's on a Catholic website, but take a look at the footnotes, which cite many articles in peer-reviewed publications. This article from the LGBT Health Channel calmly discusses the risks of anal sex.
Let the drubbing begin.
Edward, why do you so hate heterosexuals? Why are you anti-straight? What secret repulsion toward the heteronormative class do you maintain? Do you similarly detest black people, and brown? Are you a heterophobe, fearful of your opposite-sex attractions, and projecting your self-loathing onto "the other"?
Search you heart, and be free of your bigotry.
So Edward, do you see how idiotic that argument is? It's just as worthless when you say it.
Edward:
Conflating gay rights with civil right along the lines of race and gender based civil rights is getting you nowhere. The numbers just aren't there. Most people are just rightly worried about other matters right now. Isn't there some sense of priority in you too?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा