Instapundit:
THOUGHTS ON gay rights and the G.O.P.’s future: “It’s not that we’re likely to crack more than 35% of the gay vote (well, maybe 40%). But, to win back the suburbs, Republicans can’t alienate suburbanites. And anti-gay attitudes don’t resonate with families who have known gay people in college –and maybe even in the workplace–and even in their own families.†Sounds right to me.
Yeah sounds right, unless you think about it.. even a little. Then it sounds absolutely chilling, even if Gay Patriot himself doesn’t put chillingly.
Guess what: Notwithstanding the antique Jerry Falwell image of cultural conservatives painted in the media — including the libertarian blogosphere — the vast majority of cultural conservatives are not “anti-gay” any more than they’re “anti-black.” We know homosexuals … gays, yes… and blacks. We’re friends with gays and blacks. And regarding gays In the 21st century, few but the most hopeless paleoconservatives, fundamentalists of mainly non-Judeo-Christian stripes, and, well, weirdos have any interest in busting into bedrooms and getting any bit involved in what goes on behind closed doors.
But this is not the issue. Conservatives are labeled “anti-gay” because people don’t know that some of our best friends — really — are gay. And here Glenn Reynolds is not writing like a law professor, but like, well, a libertarian blogger. In fact:
Regarding civil rights of blacks, it was not enough to say that they could be “tolerated” for being black. It was and is a moral imperative to ensure that blacks received every legal right and benefit under the law that any other American received. Beyond that, we can agree to disagree as to specific policies and goals to address America’s legacy of racism, but on fundamentals, in our time there is no disagreement.
It’s different for gays. Yes, it is. Gays are not asking for the same rights as everyone else, no matter how much they jump up and down and threaten to hold their breath till they turn blue. It is not mere semantics to say “we want the same right to marry whom we love as straights have”; it is a fundamentally different, new, radical, revolutionary right that they want — the right to change the word very concept of marriage to include “marrying whomever they love,” whereas until just right now it has meant, semantically and legally, the right to join in matrimony with a person of the opposite sex.
This is not an argument about whether they should be entitled to that right. If Instapundit and the rest of the decidedly irreligious rightosphere believes that gays should be entitled to a new right — the right to same-sex marriage — let them say so, as many do. But conservatives are entitled to insist that this right be acknowledged, debated and addressed as new, radical and different, not — as its advocates insist in utter disregard of intellectual honesty — the axiomatically, morally-mandated extension of basic civil rights to gays comparable to ending the ban on miscegenation. It is not that. <Read the rest of this entry>
{ 24 comments }
There are a lot of regulated behaviors (like public drunkeness and binge dringing) related to matters of choice. And there are LOTS of people who would argue that kids are going to drink whether they are legally entitled to or not (or smke dope or have sex or….).Â
The fact that there are choices does not mean there are no wrong choices, and certainly does not extend the label of "normal" (whatever that means) to all possible choices.  I fully understand that homosexuals want to be considered "normal," but the fact that there is a discussion about inserting homosexual definitions into the normal world is a pretty good indicator that homosexuality is not normal.  (There may be some contingent of homosexuals that are OK with leveling the playing field in some legal way that does not re-define the term marriage outside historical norms, but the ones driving the boat will not be satisfied without the word "married.")
Â
In the local high school, a less than "fightin words" insult but solid slap in the face – "you’re so gay." When I was a kid, it meant happy. In spite of pretty active attempts to normalize homosexuality by TV, Hollywood, and the U.S. government (like including homosexuals in lead positions with homosexuality being a qualifying condition) it is now (or still) an insult to call someone homosexual at the kid level. Homosexuality is not normal, and never will be because of pretty basic and obvious biology.
Geez, dude. Chill.
I’ll respond with the same bargain I’ve offered everyone else who unfurls this banner: give me a reason to oppose gay marriage, and I’ll join you. Show me exactly how it harms any existing or future heterosexual marriage, or any other aspect of the warp and weft of civilization. Until then: meh.
A sign I saw carried by a presumed homosexual at an anti-Prop8 rally photographed by Ringo the Gringo says it all for me: "don’t worry about my marriage, you aren’t invited."
(For transparency, I should point out that there are eleven failed marriages in my immediate family, that I’ve been happily living in a domestic-partnership arrangement – heterosexual, thank you for asking – for more than 21 years, and that I couldn’t care less about the "sanctity" of the institution, secular or religious, because of my status as an atheist and as one who knows that the average marriage in the US breaks up after only 6 or 7 years. So you’re not going to impress me with any high-minded or righteous language.)
I am actually on your side on this, Ron. At least when it comes to the actual question at hand.
I agree with you that gays are asking for something new. Well, not actually new really; these relationships have existed forever and ever. Read about Alexander the Great if you don’t believe that, or the ancient Greeks that so much of our civilization is based on. Also just read the New Testament that most Christians base their entire belief system on: somehow, in his entire ministry, Christ managed to not say a word about the homosexualists. Read it from Matthew to Revelation, there’s just nothing from Jesus in there on this matter, and of the other N.T. authors most references are cryptic (involving "natural use of a woman" and such).
Also from what I’ve read and heard of Orthodox Jewish thinkers, the best they can come up with is that they think it’s a sin for a man to put any of his members into another man’s anus (for anything but medical purposes).
But I grant you–ENTIRELY, without reservation–that gays and lesbians are asking for something new here. I’ve never denied it. They ARE asking for something new. I don’t think it’s crazy, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable, but I DO think they should have a LOT more respect for people who say, "whoah, what the hell are you talking about?"
I think they should accept this. They really are asking for something new and weird. They should just acknowledge this point-blank. And their real argument should be this:
"Look, you don’t have to approve of what we’re doing in the bedroom. That’s between you and God, or between us and God. Just leave us alone and give us certain basic protections for us and our children that you give to everyone else. You don’t HAVE to like it. You don’t HAVE to approve of it. Just like you don’t have to approve of adulterers and fornicators raising children together. We just want you to be fair to us."
I am 100% convinced that if they’d just say it that way they’d win easy majorities in damn near ever State of the Union. Including, even, possibly, voters like Ron Coleman and Kevin Dombrowski. ;-)
(And this, basically, is my answer to my brother Kevin D: I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the Pope is against this. I know exactly why he’s against it, and I totally respect it. But I am allowed as a Catholic to disagree with him, and I do: it’s not a question of the sin, it’s a question of what’s ultimately fair in the eyes of Our Lord. Just like it’s ultimately a question of what to do for people who have children out of wedlock. We don’t have to approve of it, but we damn well know it happens. What is the RIGHT THING TO DO when confronted with this reality? Your dad was a fornicator and an alcoholic: do his rights just terminate at the moment of that judgment? No they don’t. That’s really how I see this. It doesn’t fucking MATTER what you think of these relationships, treating these people like scum as opposed to fellow sinners has no moral basis. Not in how I read the scriptures, anyway.)
". And anti-gay attitudes don’t resonate with families who have known gay people in college –and maybe even in the workplace–and even in their own families.†Sounds right to me."The above isn’t referring to gay marriage specifically, but the general anti-gay sentiment that is present in some part of the republican base. And I don’t really think this is a debatable point. A large portion of evangelical christians, who make up a good chunk of the GOP base, view homosexuality as a sin and logically disapprove of gay culture being brought into the mainstream of America as something that is not wrong.Up till 20 years ago there was zero political cost for holding this view, as the vast majority of the public was still apprehensive to homosexuals. 10 years ago it was still a net positive. In today’s climate, it is a political liability for a politician to come out and say homosexuality is a sin.Putting aside whether gay marriages should be allowed, the political trajectory of the issue is similar to that of general attidude towards homosexual. In 20 years, I am extremely confident that the majority of the US will come to approve of gay marriages.Republicans can either start to adjust now and pay the short term costs or dig in and face a far larger cost down the road.
Bye bye USA. Hello decadence and decay.
Mark Shaw,
Dude, male and female sexuality compliment each other to enable a control and sublimation of sexual impulse and a channeling of it into productive, life building activities. It creates the framework of a bonding between men and women because of their complimentary natures.
Homosexual relations do no such thing, they merely increase the oversexualization of society and contribute to unleashing the sexual genie that it took thousands of years to get under some level of control.Â
Back to paganism and all of its destructiveness – that’s what legitimizing homosexuality is all about.Â
People take our current moral "furnature" for granted. They will be very surprised what it’s like to live out the philosophies they spout. Paganism was very tolerant – and exceedingly brutal and exploitative. Â
People who critisized Elivs and the Beatles for upping the sexual temperature of the country were also told to "chill dude". Really, what could happen? Then the 60s and 70s and 80s happended. This is a slippery slope.
At the rate we are going, "I can do whatever I please as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone" is going to be narrowed down to "it doesn’t murder anyone between the ages of 1 year to 70 years old unless they have what I consider a poor quality of life".
Dude, male and female sexuality compliment each other to enable a control and sublimation of sexual impulse and a channeling of it into productive, life building activities. It creates the framework of a bonding between men and women because of their complimentary natures.
So?
Homosexual relations do no such thing, they merely increase the oversexualization of society and contribute to unleashing the sexual genie that it took thousands of years to get under some level of control.Â
Says who? And: So?
Back to paganism and all of its destructiveness – that’s what legitimizing homosexuality is all about.Â
Oh please. Your argument seems to be that gay marriage must be prevented because teh ghey is badness. That’s a nonstarter. I’ve known gay people all my life, and I’ve never known them to be any more "destructive" or promiscuous than heterosexuals are.
Whether you think gay marriage – or, for that matter, anything at all – will "legitimize" homosexuality is irrelevant. Homosexuality is a reality, always has been, and always will be. Even in cultures where homosexuals are stoned or thrown off buildings, it appears – doesn’t it say something to you that some people would take such desperate risks to express themselves sexually?
Sheesh. Again: come up with a good reason for me to oppose gay marriage – which is, as Dean says, something new and different – and I will.
Mark,
Oh please. Your argument seems to be that gay marriage must be prevented because teh ghey is badness. That’s a nonstarter.Â
Why is it a non-starter? ‘Cause you said so?
I’ve known gay people all my life, and I’ve never known them to be any more "destructive" or promiscuous than heterosexuals are.
Here’s the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000897.htm
Whether you think gay marriage – or, for that matter, anything at all – will "legitimize" homosexuality is irrelevant. Homosexuality is a reality, always has been, and always will be.Â
That is a blinding statement of the obvious. But its besides the point – is it a reality we approve of or a reality to deal with. Poverty is also a reality. So should we just say to poor people – go away- poverty is a reality and always was and always will be. I really don’t understand your "becuase its a reality" theory.
Even in cultures where homosexuals are stoned or thrown off buildings, it appears – doesn’t it say something to you that some people would take such desperate risks to express themselves sexually?Sheesh. Again: come up with a good reason for me to oppose gay marriage – which is, as Dean says, something new and different – and I will.
I did. You ignored them.
Mark,
I thought this was obvious, but apparently not: sexuality contains a potential for great selfishness in it. Unregulated and untamed, it is a powerful force for selfishness and evil in the world. Sublimated and channeled, it is a force for good. The ONLY context that even has the potential for so channeling it is marriage between man and woman. That is why it is a foundation stone for civilizations. So says thousands of years of literature and history and religon. Â
Do you recognize that male sexuality is less emotiion driven and more driven by lust than female sexuality? Do you realize that it is more dangerous?Â
To all of  this you answer "so".Â
detroit,
yay 1987 data! Â
also, it’s well-documented that lesbians have significantly lower rates of STD infection and are significantly less promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts. Â so should we only disallow heterosexual relationships based on their deleterious effects on society when compared with lesbians relationships?
IMHO (and so far I think this discussion has been based solely on opinion), channeling of mutual energy into productive, life-building activities has less to do with male and female sexuality and more to do with those sexualities existing within a stable societal framework (marriage) in which significant social pressure exists to be productive. Â After all, if sexuality took 1000s of years (by your own admission) to be brought to heel, then it hardly stands to reason that the meeting of a man and a woman is inherently a productive, life-building event.
Now that we’ve come up with a model that works, however, wouldn’t it only make sense to extend that model to encompass homosexuals? Â To bring them into the stable social framework?
zach,We’re not really talking about opinion, but perception. We didn’t come up with a model that works. G-d did. See Bible etc. And G-d said – that won’t work between men and men.  Which is why there are 2 (count em) sexes.
Regarding 1987 data – do you really think my point isn’t proven by it? Do you really think that data was all outliers? Then what did that data mean to you?
detroit,
i’m not questioning the data, i’m questioning its relevance. why should i care about 1987 society when we’re living 20+ years hence. Â a 20 year span that has included radical changes in gay society, as well as society as a whole.
"god said so" is your opinion. Â dean’s take on what god said is seemingly entirely different. Â and in any case it makes a singularly uncompelling argument unless the two parties happen to agree exactly in their conceptions of god.
zach,
OK, let’s put it a different way. Men give love (generous behavior) to get sex. Women give sex to get love. This dynamic makes men more generous. i.e. marriage tends to have a civilizing influence on men. (Not just becuase of sex but for many many reasons.) Strong man uses his strength to take care of weak woman and kids. This enobles men. etc.
This dynamic is not there when there are 2 revved up male sex drives involved in a relatinoship.Â
Even homosexual "couples" often imitate this by one man pretending to be the "woman". But it doesn’t work since a man really is different.Â
I thought this was completely obvious. Not even in need of mention…
detroit,
I think we’re at a belief impasse, here. Â I frankly find your reduction of human interaction to be both grotesque and inaccurate. Â I don’t dispute that men and women are different, but that there could ever be one archetype to fit all men or all women is, to me, absurd. Â Within the infinite variability of human personality, there are an infinite number of compatible pairs. Â To postulate that some of these might possibly be between two men or two women seems completely obvious. Â Not even in need of mention…
My view, by the way, also has the weight of thousands of years of history behind it if you view that as lending merit to the argument. Â The Greeks held love between two men to be on a higher plane than love between man and woman. Â Up until very recently marriage was not viewed as a trade between sex and love, but between land, money, power, and prestige. Â Are you arguing that prior to the 20th century, human society and progress was typified by just so many unwashed savages?Â
zach,
Do you want to go back to ancient Greek ways and values?Â
Women give sex to get love?
Men give love to get sex?
Yeesh, that’s awful. And incorrect. And sad.Â
Elizabeth,It’s what every teenage girl should know, but finds out too late.
It’s not the totalaty of a relationship, but that element is there. So sorry.
detroit,
I wasn’t citing them as paragons of modern virtue. Â I was merely stating that in your conception, all productive society stems from the sanctified man/woman bond, and that without such man’s impulses cannot be restrained, must run free and become destructive. Â Clearly this conception is false, as evidenced by productive civilizations that did not contain either the judeo-christian concept of marriage or the modern conception of the romantic relationship as the pinnacle of human accomplishment.
Furthermore, your conception is also flawed because in it any homosexual relationship is a priori a failed endeavor. Â Even in my own limited personal experience I know no less than four homosexual couples (2 male couples, 2 female couples) in successful 10+ year committed relationships where neither partner is even attempting to fit into your horribly outdated butch/fem dynamic.
detroitVB,
I don’t think male and female attitudes towards sex and love are identical, but your characterization seems simplistic to me to the point of being basically false, and I’m far, far beyond my teenage years. Have you really never known any women who enjoy sex? Or men who crave love and affection?  How old are you, exactly?
Elizabeth,
I’m painting things in broad strokes to bring out the essential point I want to make. I assume I don’t need to qualify every statement I make with – but some people are different and its a matter of degree and so on. I find that very stilted. The point is, this is a key feature of male female dynamics. It’s real and its essential to the dynamics.  It’s certainly not the whole story by any means, but it is relevant to this discussion on homosexuality.
Obviously women enjoy sex, but they don’t buy pornography.  Men have feelings but don’t make romance publishers rich. Women do that. Let’s see what’s in front of our eyes.
I’m 50, happily married for 25 years with 7 kid, 5 of them girls. I have a bit of experience with this and don’t find politically correct/ feminist thinking on these matters useful.Â
detroit,
but you have clearly never read a romance novel. the phrase "his throbbing member" features prominently in many of them.
Comments on this entry are closed.