How the left views SoCons
Short Answer: We freak them out.
Oh, and please do take some time to read the comments. It’s quite the experience.
-
Search SA
-
Premium BlogAds
-
-
Patron Saint
Pages
-
Archives
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
-
Blogads
-
Meta
Powered by WordPress
Interesting article. His prop 8 example is probably tell — we need to do a better job of giving secular, philosophical or practical reasons why our faith-based values are right.
in my defense, i was trying to argue that it’s not blind bigotism (admittedly, some is). Instead, there’s a very rational substantive concern — just as SoCon’s anger at liberals is perfectly understandable in some respects.
frankly, i think the anti-gay is destroying the GOP with the young. i think more people than you think are willing to hear you on abortion, stem cells, etc. but the anti-gay stuff is perceived as wholly absurd, very mean, and wholly without any rational justification.
it’s a long-term PR disaster.
So is it better to compromise with evil or resist the compromise and accept political irrelevance?
frankly, i think the anti-gay is destroying the GOP
Frankly, I think the over-the-top rhetoric wherein opposition to gay marriage is considered to be “anti-gay” is destroying the GOP – and the credibility of the people making the argument.
Publius,
Is there any credible reason to think that most youths who reject “anti-gay” traditionalism do so with rational justification?
Youth are notoriously poor judges of sexual ethics, and they’ve grown up with the largest free porn dispenser ever invented. Conservatism’s failure here was perhaps due to lack of argument, since some conservatives think it’s obscene even to allude to sodomy.
However, I think their greater failure was not better anticipating and fighting the blitzkrieg of propaganda which has so exacerbated and rationalized youthful permissiveness.
<i/.we need to do a better job of giving secular, philosophical or practical reasons why our faith-based values are right.
Good call. I’m what you might call a “libertarian” conservative, and I’m pro-life for non-religious reasons. Like it or not, a large percentage of Americans don’t think the Bible is a persuasive source.
That said, we have a problem with gay marriage for a couple of reasons: (1) the arguments from the socio-cons against it are almost identical to the arguments made for interracial marriage (and integration) — It’s hard to go, well, we were wrong there, but…, and (2) sure, the young may be idiots, but those who are young today will not be changing their opinion over time — America has become more permissive on the issue over time, and the fact of gay marriage in at least some states is unavoidable. You can’t put the crap back in the cat. Today, 2/3rds of Americans believe in either gay marriage or civil unions. Keep bashing this issue and you come off as not only wrong, but discriminatory and intolerant.
I saw a guy on CNN last night addressing the Big 3 bailout, and he stated that the reason they were in trouble is because their labor and retirement costs are much higher than their competitors because of the unions. He then said, “That’s not anti-union; that’s not pro-management; that’s a fact.â€
So, how do you handle bad facts?
“Intermarriage between homosexuals is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to homosexuality will bring this nation to a fatal conflict”
Oh, wait…..what he ACTUALLY said was: “Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict”
Sorry, slip of the keyboard there.
Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia’s 1911 appeal to Congress upon introducing a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages.
Centinel,
Your claim that social conservative arguments against gay marriage are identical to arguments against interracial marriage is ridiculous.
Arguments against interracial marriage uniformly focused on concerns of racial purity and racial separation, none of which is even remotely connected to the arguments against gay marriage.
The argument against gay marriage has overwhelmingly focused on the fact that from almost time immemorial marriage has been between a man and a woman, members of different sexes. Changing the fundamental understanding of that arrangement would ultimately alter the institution of marriage beyond all recognition. If the definition of marriage can be expanded to include a union between two men why not three men? Why not two men and three women? If you are going to take an ancient institution like marriage and change its fundamental composition then how do you draw the line regarding other attempts to redefine marital relationships?
Joel – I can answer in part. First, “from almost time immemorial” marriage has not been exclusively between a man and woman. There are numerous examples throughout the world where polygamy has been the order of the day (including places in this here good ‘ol U.S. of A.) or where a large group, such as a tribe, has functioned as an extended family group without much delineation between who is sleeping with whom.
And, you are right; taken to a logical conclusion, there is no reason why the Federal Government should be able to tell three, four, five, etc. people that they cannot enter into a marriage arrangement. Freedom of contract, freedom of contract, freedom of contract. Freedom of religion, freedom of religion, freedom of religion.
In addition, there is no ‘slippery slope’ to bestiality, etc. as has been argued by some – the reason being that animals and children are not capable of having the informed consent necessary for two or more people to enter into such a relationship. We do not and cannot allow in this society of laws contracts to exist where one or more of the parties to the contract are incapable of making an informed decision to enter into the contract.
And, finally, I have been waiting for years to have someone tell me what is meant by “altering the institution beyond all recognition.” What, exactly, is the damage? How does two gay men owning property together destabilize your marriage? In real terms, not the “oh, God, it’s morally reprehensible” terms. At the end of the day, what IS all this babble about the “affront” to marriage? What harm?
The burden is upon those who would remove a right, not upon those who wish to retain a right. As far as I can tell, opponents of gay marriage haven’t met the burden.
Why is this always framed in terms of self-interests?
I’m against gay marriage not because it will destroy my marriage*, but because it is harmful to a persons in gay marriages. I’m against abortion not because I will be aborted, but because I care about the unborn and I believe they need protection. I’m against banning prayer in school not because I need to pray while I’m in school, but because I think others benefit from an atmosphere that acknowledges there is a God that should to be prayed to.
While the left may worry that I want to impose my religious beliefs on them (and they perceive that they will suffer for it), I’m worried that they will destroy themselves as they seek to enshrine in our laws a perverse sense of freedom from the natural law that we are all under whether we like it or not.
* I’m not married and don’t plan to get married, but that is beside the point
John – I take your point that your opposition to gay marriage is not that it is harmful to the ‘institution’ of marriage; but how, exactly, is gay marriage harmful to the people in the marriage?
As for the rest of it, I’m sorry, but it does sound like personal bias couched in terms of ‘keeping people from harming themselves.’ Sort of like lobotomizing the population so that it won’t pick it’s nose. Or sterilization. Wanting to protect people from themselves is all fine and good, but dictators and despots have been using the hammer of government to ‘protect’ people from themselves for a long long time. Liberals do the same thing. Laws intended to protect an individual from themselves without a solid foundation in a legitimate and overwhelming governmental/societal interest aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Centinel said: “Today, 2/3rds of Americans believe in either gay marriage or civil unions.”
They said they should have the same rights to inherit property, to make medical decisions, to visit the sick, etc, so we gave them civil unions. Then they say that’s not enough.
In California they’ve proved that it’s not about having the same rights as heterosexual couples. They want to use that one word. And people don’t want to give them that.
Sir Elton John on Civil Unions, it might surprise you…
Personally I would vote for gay marriage. As a government civil function it does not impact me–other than if school boards decide to indoctrinate kids over the “joys” of the institution (and that is happening anyway). I have no problem telling my kids about same sex couples (they have friends who have same sex parents and partners)–I would just like a say on any educational cirriculum on the subject (which should be the bare minimum).
Fireduck,
I may not make a very credible defender of traditional marriage laws based on anything other than my religious views because I am very Catholic and unmarried (I am a Jesuit). But I’ll give it a shot if you want to listen:
For reasons based on Natural Law philosophy, certain behaviors will be intrinsically harmful to anyone who engages in them. Sodomy qualifies as one of these. When two people of the same sex wish to have such a relationship recognized as legally binding, I fear for them that it will only make reversing that decision more difficult if one day one of them realizes just how unnatural the relationship is. While I’m not ever in favor of sodomy, I don’t think we need laws outlawing every instance of it – the liberty interest here is worth the risks. But having our government change its laws to recognize the relationship and support the binding is a problem.
I’m not talking about using the “hammer of government†– I’m not talking about using the government at all. I’m saying the government shouldn’t act to change its laws in this case. And as for dictators, it seems to me that the voters are generally not in support of those activist judges who have been trying to change the definition of marriage.
I know that Natural Law philosophy is a big idea to tackle in a blog comment box, but I want to encourage you to look into it if you haven’t already. Without the recognition of some overarching guiding principles, we’ll be left with mob rule and that has never been good for anyone.
Fireduck,
Obviously there have been examples in the past where certain primitive or fringe societies have enlarged the scope of marriage. That is not an argument in favor of expanding the definition of marriage in our society. Like it or not, the importance of marriage is that it creates a healthy and stable environment for raising children. Obviously, not everyone that gets married has children but that does not change the fact that the institution of marriage is intended to act as a foundation for the creation of families.
Studies, as well as common sense, point to the benefits of a family unit headed by a man and a woman that provide positive male and female role models. Family units that deviate from this model will not, as a general rule, provide the same stable environment for the raising of children. The more the deviation the less stable the environment. Treating the traditional marital and family arrangement just like any other arrangement will deemphasize the importance of the traditional unit and dilute its positive influence on society. Overtime, the institution of marriage will come to be seen as nothing more than a living arrangement that may or may not confer certain property or tax benefits. That is how gay marriage and arguments about the freedom of contract in this area will alter the institution beyond all recognition.
Joel,
You can attempt to secularize your argument all you want, but if homosexuality wasn’t considered a sin under Judeo-Christian beliefs most Americans would have no more problem with it than they do with jam on toast.
Look, I don’t like the idea of providing special rights based on who, when, what, why, and where a person likes to get his or her respective rocks off. I may find homosexuality personally disgusting. I may think homosexuality is a mental illness. I may find it morally repugnant. That’s for me, my family, friends, and God to work out. But I have a reeeeal hard time justifying why the government should step in and tell Americans who they can and can’t marry. If the Catholic or Baptist churches don’t want to sanction the marriage under their religions, fine. Have at it. But the idea that the sky is falling because the government allows two men in love decide to marry and use the the word “marriage” is ridiculous. Fireduck nails the whole argument right on the head. You can deny the interracial/homosexual comparison all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that 50 years from now Americans are going to view your beliefs like we view the beliefs of the racist SOBs that tried to stop integration 50 years ago.
Oh, and I think the prohibition on polygamy is equally as ridiculous, and the Left has a hypocrisy problem there. Oh, and I think felons should be allowed to vote (unless they’re judged to be incompetent). I’m just a crazy dude when it comes to personal liberty. Guess there goes my run for public office.
Overtime, the institution of marriage will come to be seen as nothing more than a living arrangement that may or may not confer certain property or tax benefits.
Joel, that’s all marriage is – a living arrangement ordained by the state with certain rights, duties, and privileges. Any other argument is religious.
But I have a reeeeal hard time justifying why the government should step in and tell Americans who they can and can’t marry.
This is why the whole gay “marriage” debate is a farce. Government is not telling anyone that they can’t “marry” anyone else. If Joe and Bob want to have an elaborate ceremony, say some vows, and then live monogamously as husband and husband for all eternity, nothing is stopping them. The government is simply refusing to allow the same legal status on that arrangement.
The continual framing of this debate as being anti-gay is an absurdity.
Centinel said:
“But I have a reeeeal hard time justifying why the government should step in and tell Americans who they can and can’t marry.”
No one is telling anyone they can’t do anything. We’re just saying we won’t bestow the special privileges we give certain relationships on their relationship.
There are lots of relationships that do not receive any special legal recognition. Some of them are even between sexually active couples. We do not have an obligation to create special categories for every conceivable relationship.
Government is not telling anyone that they can’t “marry†anyone . . . The government is simply refusing to allow the same legal status on that arrangement.
Wow, that is either the best satirical comment I’ve ever read or it is doublespeak worthy of Orwell. I salute you, sir, in what has to be the most twisted wordplay I’ve read in awhile. “Sure, you black folks are free, citizens. You can live here, fly the flag over your house, but you just can’t have, you know, the legal status of voting, access to courts, etc. No biggie. Same thing really. Oh, and you can’t call yourselves ‘Americans’ but we’ll find another word that’s almost as good.”
That was a put on, right?
There are lots of relationships that do not receive any special legal recognition.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to compare two buddies to two people of the same sex who are in love, living together, perhaps raising a child together?
Look, this is either massive denial or this is deception. You are denying two people the right to enter into a government recognized relationship because of their gender. You can try to twist discrimination into “special rights” all you want, but that’s merely wordplay.
1965: “Gee, Mr. Black man, welcome to freedom. I’m sorry, but we only allow white folks to vote, and giving you the vote would be a ‘special right’ because you see, you currently don’t have the right to vote. Ahhhum, ahhh, see what I did there?”
My cousin is a woman. She lives with a woman. They split bills, share responsibilities, and say they love each other. They have been together for 13 years. I presume they have a sexually monogamous relationship, though I don’t really care. They have a daughter that my cousin’s partner gave birth to 5 years ago. They are both raising her as her only parents. However, they are not married. If my cousin’s partner dies, she may have the child taken from her. If one of them gets sick, the others health insurance may not cover them, which may wipe out the family economically. If, God forbid, my cousin’s partner decides to break up the relationship and move to Florida, she can deny my cousin the right to see their child and my cousin cannot go to the court for protection. Society will not accept them as a “married” couple because of their gender.
You can spin your argument all you want. You can say it’s “special rights” and has noooothing to do with them being gay, but in the end, you’re Jim Crow talking about racial purity.
Centinel,
Obviously we disagree on gay marriage. However, my original point regarding your first post was to point out that it is ridicolous to claim that the arguments against gay marriage are essentially the same as those against interracial marriage.
As I said before, that is a gross mischaracterization. Nothing in the argument against gay marriage is, on any level, concerned with racial purity or racial separation.
The two arguments have nothing in common other than dealing with marriage. I don’t care if homosexuals want to live together. I just don’t want the institution of marriage convoluted past the point of recognition. You may not agree with that argument. However, it has nothing to do with racial purity and is based on the legitamate concern of protecting an institution that people of all races and religions participate in.
“Jim Crow in bed.”
For Pete’s sake are you drinking already??
This has nothing to do with special rights. Marriage has been defined as the union between one man and one woman long before this country was ever formed. No one is advocating segregating gays from society or even denying them changes in the law that will address the concerns you mentioned.
The only thing being argued is that marriage as an institution should not be redefined some broadly that it ultimately has no meaning or that its importance to society as the best environment to rause children in is lost.
Save the bourbon until later in the day.
i still fail to see how “the institution” is harmed in the slightest. this issue has just become “one of those things” that social conservatives have decided to draw a line on — it’s seen a proxy for some type of larger battle against liberals.
i think it should be divorced. you can fight that battle — that’s fine, and that’s how politics works. but this one is lost. and it’s lost for good reasons. letting two gay people marry (and enjoy the hundreds of legal rights that come with it) affects exactly zero people in any concrete way whatsoever. it’s been legal in Mass for years and the sky hasn’t fallen yet.
as for the ‘but what about 3 people,” i think there’s a perfectly rational line that can be drawn at 2 people. the existing legal regime regarding marriage (which is really the heart of the matter) has been built around two people. it’s very very easy to add gay couples into this mix without wrecking centuries of precedent. a polygamous marriage wouldn’t fit that way.
agian, i just don’t understand why people care. just leave gay people alone — it will you help you politically. it’s this urge to meddle in everyone’s private lives WITH LEGISLATION that makes liberals (and others) so wary. i think most people would be fine with SoCons if they would just leave everybody alone
Denial, Joel. First, there are plenty of Americans out there that want to deny those attendant rights of marriage to gays. Second, I’m not even sure I’m getting the same line drawn from the people commenting here. Are you telling me that you are willing to give gays the panopoly of attendant rights, but just want to deny them the word “marriage”? Because if you aren’t, you are still denying them rights and opportunity based on their sexual orientation, and if you are, then we are back to pedantic wordspeak.
The “it’s always been done that way (except where it wasn’t)†argument is fallacious and you know it. Look, tradition has its place, but you can’t deny a minority access to rights granted to the majority on the basis of some innate characteristic based on some outdated principles. And the Lord knows that tradition has served to institutionalize the bad with the good.
As for the “Jim Crow” analogy, I’m not asserting that gays have it worse than blacks did. I’m stating that 50 years from now, when gay marriage is normalized and society hasn’t fallen apart (or the “institution” of marriage), those who were on the wrong side of the issue are going to look to people then like the buzzed-cut rednecks of the 50s look to us today — no matter what their convoluted reasoning is. You and I don’t have to like it, but that’s the inevitable historical path we’re on.
as for the ‘but what about
3GAY people,†i think there’s a perfectly rational line that can be drawn at2 peopleA MAN AND A WOMAN. the existing legal regime regarding marriage (which is really the heart of the matter) has been built aroundtwo peopleA MAN AND A WOMAN. it’s very very easy to addgayBLACK couples into this mix without wrecking centuries of precedent. a polygamous INTERRACIAL marriage wouldn’t fit that wayI see your point . . .
@#$%. Missed that last
strike.I’m going to point out, again, that the logical case from natural law against recognizing homosexual sodomy as worthy of legal recognition was lost when we accepted that heterosexual sodomy (through contraceptives) was legally protected.
As opposed as I am to gay marriage, I think this is a lost cause. Cut the losses, pull back, try to win elsewhere.
I think the best answer to the question of SSM I’ve seen was this:
Either marriage is a word with a specific meaning or it is a word we can define however we want.
If it is the former, then marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
If it is the latter, then the majority chooses to define it as a union of a man and a woman.
Either marriage is a word with a specific meaning or it is a word we can define however we want.
Bumper sticker logic. Semantics isn’t law. New meanings are added to old words all the time. And even if it weren’t, will you accept the view of the majority when it changes?
Publius-
Some of us worry about the judiciary interferring with our lives and society by imposing new judge-created law without any authority whatsoever.
And last time I checked, gay couples in Cali. didn’t get the “right” to “marry” by legislation, this right was created out of wholecloth by the California Supreme Court. You think that may have had something to do with the Yes on Prop 8 movement? I certainly do.
or – if it is the former, it means the union of two consenting adults.
Circles, circles, circles. Look, be offended. Shout in righteous moral indignity that your faith and your strong Christian marital bond is being destroyed because Tommy and Billy now have the contractual obligations that they provided to each other recognized by the state. Do what you will, but don’t complain when you and the deceased Grand Wizards and Imperial Wizards find yourselves alone in the eyesight of God, who looks at you and says “really? No, really?”
Publius, where in history has it ever been “two consenting adults?”
Centinel, will you accept the view of the majority now?
Feddie – that’s a fair point, and I think that’s a big part of you. But i doubt how widely shared it is.
many conservatives for instance have no problems removing things from the political process when it comes to construing the commerce clause, or Kelo, or the originalist interpretation of whatever.
so it’s hard for me to believe that passion this stirs up is essentially procedural
Publius:
That’s the whole point, it’s not procedural. Every procedural argument is post hoc rationalization to justify the argument in a non-religious or non-personal basis. I know, I’ve been there.
The moral side of me may think that homosexuality is a sin, but I’ve been instructed not to judge. To be fair, I had to consciously put aside my personal feelings and focus on the issue itself, and I came to the conclusion that (1) my personal feelings were crowding out my belief in individual liberty and (2) that gay marriage in inevitable and it would be easier to stop the tides.
CB, I’d accept your compromise. Full civil unions for gays until they hit 51% in a few years.
Just to keep on point, in 1967, 71% of Americans opposed interracial marriage and support did not reach a majority until 1991. My prediction is that, like interracial marriage, the shift to gay marriage will continue at a rate of abuot a percent a year.
Feddie – that’s a fair point, and I think that’s a big part of you. But i doubt how widely shared it is.
Of course not. Because you view the judiciary as a means of advancing your agenda, you naturally assume that everyone else must have the same motivation.
And Centinel – yeah, keep trying with the segregationist/racist angle. If you repeat it often enough it will be true eventually.
CC: That’s not an argument — of course, the only argument on it I’ve gotten is Joel’s lame “They’re totally different because they used ‘racial purity’ and we use Leviticus (well, he may not have said the last part).
That said, you’re point is interestingly in line with what I’m saying: To your grandchildren it will be true. Gay marriage will be considered by most Americans to be a civil right. You find yourself on the wrong side of history. I suggest you have a better justification than, “umm, it’ll harm the institution” or “we’ve always done it this way.”
i second centinel
I remain puzzled by the claim that extending the right to marry to same sex couples will somehow harm or undermine the more traditional institution of heterosexual marriage.
An individual marriage is typically as strong, or as weak, as its spouses choose for it to be. If I may be indulged a personal anecdote, I have been widowed now for two and a half years. I would like to marry again.
I have accordingly given a lot of thought as to what kind of woman will be an appropriate partner in marriage. If her commitment to marriage is so tenuous that the gender of the spouses a block away, or the marital status of the same sex couple across the street, can undermine that commitment, I know that she is not a good candidate for marriage.
According to the view that same sex marriage will harm or undermine opposite sex marriage, what am I missing here? Please enlighten me.
If marriage was still done as ‘it always was’ then I (as a woman) would have no say in who I would marry. My father would contract with another man and would exchange property/money for me. To say that traditional marriage has *never* changed is a farce. Also, 30 years ago I would be unable to marry my boyfriend regardless since he is black and I am white. You have to be purposely deny actual *history* to claim that it is gay marriage that will change the *true* meaning.
Centinel, Publius, John in Nashville and Marie H: bless your hearts. I have never understood the ‘harm’ argument for opposition to same sex marriage. And I must say the John in Nashville’s take on the matter is exactly how I’ve always felt. Besides, if we have a relationship that is ordained and blessed by God, what outside power has enough force to tear that asunder? Only our own weaknesses, failings and desires can do so, and if that is the case than the only possible ‘threat’ to marriage by same sex marriage is that someone in the heterosexual marriage would be seduced away by the prospect of a same sex marriage. Which, I’d argue, they’re going to do anyway if so inclined.
Marie, for my sake, I’m glad that you have a stake in the process rather than being guided by tradition and rigidly paternal decisions. Welcome to 2008 where you are no longer property.
Centinel,
Maybe my mistake was in assuming you were smart enough to understand what I thought was an obvious point. Since it seems that you aren’t I will brake it down barney style for you.
My issue with gay marriage is the same as my issue with heterosexual polygamy and niether are based in arguments from leviticus. niether are based on some dislike of a particular group.
Marriage has traditionally been understood as a union between a man and a woman. This arrangement sets the stage for the ideal arrangement whereby children will be raised in an environment that provides a positive male and female role model. I understand that this ideal is not always realized and, humans being flawed beings, is imperfectly realized even in the best of circumstances. However, we should still seek to uphold a traditional institution that strives for such a positive end.
Enlarging the aforementioned definition sets the stage for removing any concrete definition or value from the institution. Centinel, read carefully here, It does not matter if the definition is changed to facilitate new heterosexual practices like polygamy, or homosexual changes like gay marriage. The uniqueness of the institution, especially over time, will be lessened if marriage is redefined to encompass any living arrangement between any group for any reason at any time.
To address Marie’s point, while some traditional practices or beliefs are harmful and should be abandoned that does not hold true for all traditions. Just because you can point to past harmful racially motivated practices regarding marriage does not mean that every and all traditions regarding marriage should be abandoned. For instance, are you willing to abandon the traditional practice of spousal fidelity simply because it is a tradition?? I am willing to bet you would like to keep that one. And you should since it is a tradition that supports the integrity of the institution (and probably would make your relationship a happy one).
So for those of you like Fireduck and Centinel that want to attach your arguments for gay marriage to the broader civil rights movement like some parasite I suggest you try harder.
“For instance, are you willing to abandon the traditional practice of spousal fidelity simply because it is a tradition?”
Well, as someone once said, not every and all traditions regarding marriage should be abandoned.
Joel – I’ll respond to the rest of your position in a later post, but you are confusing what “spousal fidelity” really is – its not a “tradition” it is part of the contract between the parties. Some marriage contracts don’t even have that as part of the agreement. Don’t confuse “tradition” with contract or agreement terms.
Fireduck, that makes no sense. Are you saying there is no such thing as tradition relating to marriage? every term is nothing more than a matter of contract? Not a very high view of marriage; in fact, it is not a view of marriage at all. It is simply a view of contract, and any arrangement should be acceptable, include a “non-exclsive one-night marriage contract”
C matt -
First, you would be absolutely correct in assuming that I think two consenting adults can enter into a “non-exclusive one-night marriage contract.” I wouldn’t see much point, personally, but who am I to dictate the terms of a marriage to others? I’m not the government, after all, and what is being advocated here is governmental control of marriages, right?
Look, the “high view” of marriage comes in the form of the relationship and commitments between the parties and their person God, if that is how they perceive their relationship. The “tradition” related to marriage varies over time, from place to place (including Christian marriages, and if you don’t believe me look at the difference between the marriage rites performed in a Pentecostal church as opposed to a Roman Catholic church). If, as a result of 1) inconsistencies in the form of the spiritual commitment/vows/rites and 2) our (I hope) shared commitment to keep government out of our personal lives as much as possible, we end up not being able to dictate through law and custom the spiritual considerations of a marriage, what is left? The terms between the parties. That’s it.
And all of this discussion of the sanctity of the relationship to foster the bearing and rearing of children is pure bunkum. That would mean that two 70 year old people who had lost their first spouses and have no hope nor desire of having any more (if they ever had any) children cannot enter into a “marriage” as defined by those who would wish to deny two men such a freedom of contract and spiritual commitment.
Wups. “Personal God,” not “Person God.”
what is being advocated here is governmental control of marriages, right?
Yes. Those who want to include gay marriage within the definition of marriage want the government to force everyone to accept it as legitimate.
That is the thing – no one is denying them the freedom to contract between themselves whatever it is they wish to contract. Sign away. Throw a party. Make a will leaving Fifi to your significant other. Whatever. There is nothing stopping them.
But that is not what they want. They want to claim the word marriage and force the rest of us to accept them as married. As Shea often says, Tolerance. Is. Not. Enough. You. Must. Approve.
How does this hurt marriage? Heck, not just marriage, it hurts the concept of objective truth in general. It creates a cultural milieu in which truth is whatever we define it to be, whatever we decide it to be. And one truth that gets swept away is that marriage is primarily for the creation and raising of families. Couples do not need marriage at all. And society does not particularly need married couples at all. Society needs a stable environment in which the next generation can be created and reared. Therefore, it has no need to favor relationships that do not meet this end. Sounds a bit harsh, but from a purely pragmatic point of view, that is the reality.
C Matt: Therein lies the rub – you are telling me that the seventy year olds who get married in the sight of God in a church-sanctioned and officiated ceremony are not entitled to the “marriage” because their intent is not to create and care for children. You ignored that point. What say you?