If you're wishing Glenn had been matched with someone who disagrees with him, I have good news. Here he presents the other side of the argument, which leads to some interesting thoughts from Ann about the role of religion in progressive moral change....... with a second clip.
Lots of comments over there.
Posts
33 comments:
Consummate fence-straddler that I am, I favor same-sex marriage and think it's kind of weird.
38 of our 57 states now have laws or constitutional provisions limiting "marriages" to be a bond between a man and a woman.
All new initiatives with this law have passed. Liberals are at it again on this "society is changing" bullshit. It is not, nor does it have to change, because "marriage is principally about procreation. Let those who want to engage in intermural sex, with a legal bond attached, find their own word.
You two had a good conversation.
I guess Wright didn't expect that.
Gadfly, your sentiment about "what marriage is" is as common as it is wrong.
It has no basis in the Bible, Chaucer, Shakespeare or the Constitution.
There is, indeed, no marriage in the Bible that remotely resembles Modern Amerikan Marriage.
What the Bible features are Adam & Eve sex, second generation incest, polygamy, Solomon's Song, David's homosexuality and betrayal, love of Ruth & Naomi, singleness of Jesus and Paul, and turning water into wine.
The closest parallel to Modern Amerikan Marriage must be the Book of Job.
When jimbino has nothing to say, he comes right out and says it.
Spelling it "Amerika" really lends your point credibility. You should have gone all the way: ShaKKKespeare and the Konstitution....
I will not frequent businesses like Katy's Korner, Kountry Kafe, etc.
Very good bloggingheads. It echoes what I feel, that activistism is the enemy here, not gay marriage (or Sandra Fluke's birth control or the right du jour).
A friend with a gay son was crushed when CA voted down gay marriage. He has some shame with being gay, and she hoped that would help. I didn't argue, but again, like in Roe v. Wade, did passage of a law change what's in people's hearts? As you posited, is moral difficulty with gay marriage really hate?
Loury does have better lighting in his office. Althouse has a muted quality to hers.
jimbino, the Bible features a lot of different kinds of sex. But none of what it approves of - even stuff that we ourselves don't approve of today - includes homosexuality (regardless of how you misinterpret the relationship between David and Johnathon).
My lighting is the 27" iMac and behind it a big picture window with a northern light (filtered by oak leaves).
Maybe I am old fashioned, but video is just too slow for me.
"some interesting thoughts from Ann about the role of religion in progressive moral change"
Because religion is the only argument to be made about this (Yawn). I didn't watch when you posted it and I won't watch now:
Like a movie about the future, in a post-apocalyptic mess, I'm pretty sure I've heard it all before.
And now I'll avoid the rest of this thread as it, too, meanders down the same well-tread path,...
As to gay marriage, I'm with Mitt Romney it should between a man and a woman and a woman....
Marriage is not only about sex and procreation. It is also about controlling who shall inherit property, especially land.
"marriage is principally about procreation"
No, it's not, and never has been. You can easily procreate without ever being in anything that looks like marriage. For most of marriage history, it's been a method of transferring wealth and status from one family to another. It's been about merging bloodlines. It's been about inheritances and securing ruling lineage. Marriage is a great way to provide a secure environment for raising a family... If both parties in the marriage take that seriously. Marriage is NOT, however, about procreation. Any two people of the opposite sex with functioning adult reproductive organs who get it on can procreate, with or without a marriage sanctioned by either the church or the state.
who shall inherit property, especially land
Yes. This was the original purpose of marriage. It was not about love or romance or happiness. No one really cared if you were happy.
It was about power, political connections, money, possessions. Children were of course part of the line of succession and a marriage was (ostensibly) to ensure to the man, that the children, to whom he was going to pass along the goodies, were really his own.
The secular argument against recognizing SSM is this: a man and a man or a woman and a woman are simply not the same as a man and a woman. And the institution of marriage as recognized here in the west is a distinct and unique arrangement that deserves special regognition. It's that complementarity - a man and a woman - that is unique.
Ross Douthat has argued - pretty persuasively even though I favor the legal recognition - that heterosexual marriage in the west is "a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal."
True.
And that it's not that other relationships have no value but that:
"It’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best [that] can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support."
The answer to this - my answer - is that SSM doesn't threaten this particular arrangement. That recognition doesn't disappear simply because same sex couples get to legally marry.
So, Douthat is both right and wrong: heterosexual marriage warrants special recognition but same sex marriage simply won't hurt that recognition.
Getting down to brass tax, gay marriage doesn't hurt any traditional marriages. You can't make the connection. What it does do is it massively hurts the sensitives of Christians. They prefer to live in a society where we legislate their version of morality, and now they see the writing is on the wall. They see their entire world crumbling and they are panicked.
"What it does do is it massively hurts the sensitives of Christians."
And who cares about them, right?
In any case, SSM isn't recognized in most of the world and most of the world doesn't follow Christianity. In officially atheistic and secular nations, SSM isn't recognized.
It's not all about religion. There's a secular argument against the change (one I reject but it's a good one).
Second, of course SSM "harms" traditional marriage. It diminishes the uniqueness that traditional marriage has enjoyed over the centuries.
By redefining legal marriage to include same sex couples, the particularity of marriage changes: it's no longer about a man and woman it's about any two people. Heterosexual marriage is no longer particular.
I say all this as a supporter of SSM but let's be honest here about what is happening. It's not just Christian bigots against this, it's about people opposed to changing a fundamental institution that has served us so well for thousands of years.
Gays should be able to marry, but it won't be marriage marriage. Even after they have compelled, which they will, the government to force the churches to marry them it will still not be marriage marriage. And that, dear readers, is what really pisses off the same sex/trans sex cohort. Because all the king's horses and all the king's men will not make it marriage marriage.
"Because all the king's horses and all the king's men will not make it marriage marriage."
I'd put it differently but I think that's right.
As long as men and women are different, marriage between a man and a woman will be viewed as different than marriage between two people of the same sex.
Because, y'know, it is different. As Freud said, if it wasn't for sex men and women would be at war with one another.
And it's that difference that opponents of SSM wish to keep. It's not hatred of gay people, it's not bigotry, it's not intolerance: it's the view that the particularity of heterosexual marriage needs to be recognized.
Regarding the "bigot" and "church" discussion. It's easy to dismiss bigotry if you're not the object of it. Northern whites used to say of the south that it wasn't bigotry just the way things are down there. But when you've been targeted by the same political and religious voices for years, you can recognize that someone is ignorant who holds a bigoted opinion, but it's still an opinion that is directed at you.
Conservative church leaders obsession with personal sexual issues seems to be more about politics than anything else. Church attendance used to be a politically neutral activity. Now with some exceptions church attendance correlates directly with political affiliation. At the same time - the "gay agenda" and abortion are such a threat to Christendom that old issues like peace, justice, and respect for the other (since all are made in God's image) have seemingly been forgotten. Mainstream Protestant denominations have been marginalized and right wing fundamentalists and Roman Catholic hierarchy claim to speak for God. Not knowing any better the media accepts this arrangement. Churches increasingly aligned with the Republican party do their part and support the false narrative of the "assault" on religious freedom. It's an old political game. This started with Nixon's Southern Strategy and is one reason that good people vote against their own self interest - fear.
The villain in this story who's trying to destroy society is no more of a threat than the Jew or the Arab or the Black or the Indian or the Feminist - just people many of whom pray to the same God. But they pray, "God protect me from your followers!"
^The churches would argue that they didn't pick this fight. This fight was started by others.
Let's be honest here: it's true. We're the ones wanting to change the defintion of legal marriage; they want to stay with the status quo.
Since I believe in a secular state, they'll have to accept these changes. But, again, we're forcing the changes, not them.
I disagree, 50 years ago pre-marital childbirth, inter-racial marriage, even divorce etc. were all treated as shameful. The danger of "Rock n' Roll" was the subject of many sermons. And don't even think about Playboy! Times changed and churches, sometimes reluctantly, changed with it.
There has been a deliberate politicization of religion in the last 40 years, and "Gays" were seen as the safe group to villainize. Look at the reaction to the AIDS crisis. Mother Theresa was one of the few who responded with compassion sending Sisters to NY to comfort the dying. Falwell and Robertson and many others blamed the victims. And Pres. Reagan didn't even mention that major public health crisis for years.
Regarding marriage - marriage is always changing. We reinvent all the time - especially in America. Not to long ago people were ostracized for marrying outside their faith. Today it's a non-issue. It's also an issue of emphasis. Why obsess about gay marriage or abortion for that matter? Why not feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, visit those in jail, etc.? Because political actors (secular and religious) can take advantage of people by frightening them.
If you want to see the political money part of this, check out the Institute on Religion and Democracy which has been undermining "mainstream" Protestant churches (Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran) for years.
Oh - I know a Unitarian minister who performed a same-sex marriage in the 50's. A number of Founding Fathers, US Presidents and other famous Americans were Unitarians including Paul Revere. Probably a few at the "real" Tea Party too - Just saying .....
"Regarding marriage - marriage is always changing."
Well not the basic or essential legal definition that's been in use for thousands of years. At least in the west (obviously polygamy has been the world norm).
Our essential standard has been an arrangement between a male and a female. It's that unique quality - the complementarity of opposites - that makes it different. And important. And, well, unique.
Opponents (the secular ones) argue that it's that unique heterosexual relationship - the continuation of the species, the coupling of opposites - that needs to have special recognition. And we've done so through the institution of marriage.
And that SSM "breaks" that uniqueness.
It does. But I see no great harm in doing so. Heterosexual marriage has suffered more shocks than this. And survived.
It'll survive this.
As to the AIDS stuff: I'm not sure what your point is about that. The US Catholic Church, for example, provided more free care for AIDS victims than any other institution n the world. At one time, it housed more AIDS victims than any hospital anywhere.
AIDs victims and their families were helped by a lot of churches in this country. It's not as black and white as you characterize it.
Because political actors (secular and religious) can take advantage of people by frightening them.
From my experiences and in reading about others, churches in this country provide a great deal of help to the poor and weak and sick.
In fact, they spend most of their time on the issues. They don't spend all their times denouncing gay people or others. That's what the press focuses upon.
Robertson or Falwell do not equal the church in America.
I didn't say that churches spend "all their time" denouncing gay people. Rather, I was suggesting that over the last 40+ years "gay" issues have been used by politicians and church leaders to mobilize the membership as a political force. The result has been a major shift in the relationship between politics and religion. This didn't happen because LGBT people wanted protection from being fired or being refused public accommodation or being left alone in the bedroom. Nor did it happen because of the marriage issue. The political strategy to co-opt that voting bloc began back in the 1960's. Sadly, I think the result of this has been to make more and more people perceive churches as doing more harm than good. Many characterize churches as condemning people for who they are or for how they chose to deal with difficult life issues which seems hostile and lacking compassion.
You're right - religious institutions contribute much to our country and the world. And they don't spend "all their time" denouncing LGBT persons. BUT - the fixation on same-sex marriage and other hot-button "sex" issues (abortion, contraception) drowns out everything else. Just like Madison Avenue the church learned that "sex sells." I fear that this partisan, divisive posturing will irreparably damage the church in the US.
p.s. Talk to people who lived through the early days of the AIDS crisis and it was MUCH more black than white - choruses of condemnation and very few helping hands.
Think the push for SSM would be as strong if financial benefits weren't involved? I'm thinking specifically of health insurance through employers that covers spouses. I suspect that benefit arrangement extension was designed to support procreation and presumed stay at home moms. Of course, we see a push in some quarters to extend coverage to "domestic partners".
For most of marriage history, it's been a method of transferring wealth and status from one family to another. It's been about merging bloodlines. It's been about inheritances and securing ruling lineage.
Its also about domesticating males and redirecting their energy toward more positive pursuits.
As well as establishing a network to protect and support pregnant women.
I still don't understand how redefining the genders allowed for married is okay, while redefining the number is not.
If its wrong to discriminate against gays, its also wrong to discriminate against polygamists.
Love in any form should be celebrated, but let's find a new word. Why have 50 words that mean your buttocks, but have one word that means three different things. Marraige, union and harmony. That way when you say I'm going to a harmony, people know two women will be celebrating their love.
Post a Comment