Some of Samizdata’s more socially conservative readers seem to think gay marriage is a bad idea. But trying to work out why they hold that view is, at least at first, puzzling. They rail against social freedom saying that it leads to social degradation and also to lots of government spending. Well, I’m against ‘social degradation’ and ‘government spending’. So why don’t I agree with them?
The reality is that homosexual marriage would not lead to any degradation whatsoever. Homosexuals already live in a society where on the whole they are able to be open about their sexuality, and are able to have sex without the government arresting them. If the government lets two gay people marry, that if anything encourages fidelity. If you ask social conservatives to explain how this causes social degradation, the response is… BLANK.
The idea that homosexual marriage means that government spending has to go up is just plainly stupid. Homosexuals don’t have children, so they don’t impose the cost of education on the taxpayer. They generally die younger (although I suspect this will change), meaning they impose less cost in terms of pensions. If they split up, the taxpayer doesn’t have to look after the mother because both partners generally work.
The social conservative arguments are quite obviously bogus.
Could the real reason why social conservatives oppose gay marriage be much simpler? They oppose it because they hate gay people. They think it’s disgusting what these faggots do. They think the state should punish them for their depravity.
If not, could they perhaps explain themselves?
Why marriage, anyway? Isn’t a “marriage” just a piece of paper that the state keeps in a filing cabinet?
Well, Iwouldn’t necessarily put it that way [they hate gays] but fundamentally your insight that there is no logical, legitimate public interest to be protected by prohibiting gay marriage, is, I think, correct.
I think this is very black/white either/or position for folks who feel this way. To them homosexuality is just wrong — the way lying, stealing, killing is wrong. It’s bad enough to them that it is legal, but the thought of living in a society that condones it or accords it social acceptance is just repugmant to them.
It is bigotry pure and simple.
Too true!
In fact gay marriage would lower social costs. Gay couples would be allowed to raise children. These would be children whose parents are single mothers who were abandoned by their partners and are now unable or unwilling to cope properly with raising a child. Surely even social conservatives can agree that having children being raised by loving and committed gay “parents” (what would be right term here?) will bring forth children less likely to cause further social costs (crime, unemploymnet, etc etc).
The alternative for the mother of such potential children is of course abortion, another thing social conservatives are not particularly keen on.
I oppose homosexual marriage because it would be meaningless, and as such, would call into question the meaning of heterosexual marriage.
When I say “meaningless,” I mean that homosexual marriage would have no contractual content. Marriage is a contract. All contracts are sets of promises made by two or more parties to one another, with penalties for noncompliance.
At this time, the ability to get a divorce for “irreconcilable differences” (i.e., “I don’t feel like it”) has weakened heterosexual marriage near to the point of collapse. The only thing that still gives it meaning is that, if the wife becomes pregnant, even unintentionally, the husband is obliged to support the child until he achieves his majority.
What would the promises and penalties be in the case of homosexual marriage? How would it be anything but an excuse to hold a party?
My opinion is that it’s simply a ploy by which homosexuals hope to gain 1) employer benefits traditionally bestowed upon the spouses of heterosexual employees, 2) greater access to adoptive children, 3) Social Security survivorship benefits, and 4) the right to bring foreign born “spouses” into the United States as permanent residents.
For further thoughts, see this.
I think a lot of the kerfuffle over gay “marriage” has to do with the word “marriage.” There are really two different levels of marriage – the first is a kind of standardized social contract that is put up by the state – if you are “married”, then you are automatically in line for survivorship benefits, etc. In the gay marriage debate, this is sometimes refererred to as “civil union,” and is really all that anyone is pushing for as far as gay “marriage” goes.
The other level of marriage is religious marriage, presided over by a priest(ess) and recognized by some religious organization. At least in the US, there is absolutely no way that the state could require a religion to perform or recognize a marriage between two gay folks. I think a very serious Consitutional question would be raised by any attempt by the state to prohibit a religion from performing a marriage ceremony between two gay folks.
There is no reason why these two levels of marriage can’t coexist. Unfortunately, by using the same word to describe both, a lot of people who wouldn’t have any problem with civil unions are out there opposing gay marriage on the mistaken belief that it will be forced on their church in some way.
A great deal of the opposition flows from nothing more than semantic sloppiness and confusion.
Francis,
State marriage is meaningless, apart from the welfare-scrounging that accompanies it.
What gives marriage meaning is society. Marriage is still respectable. It’s a public commitment.
And, if you’re religious, marriage is a commitment before God. If that doesn’t give it meaning, what does?
Ah, checking back, I see RC Dean has made the point more eloquently.
Francis,
Unless I’m grossly mistaken, men are generally held to be responsible for the financial upkeep of any children they father, regardless of his marital status or that of the mother. This is certainly the case here in the US, perhaps it’s different elsewhere, but I think the western world is nearly unanimous on this point. So that’s what (heterosexual) marriage isn’t.
I am not a family lawyer, or indeed a lawyer of any sort, and I’m not married, but as to what contracts marriage contains, I believe that there’s effectively a contract to support each other (hence alimony and the like when the marriage fails). Also a whole pile of contracts regarding pensions and so forth which are between the spouses and the government, some of which are replicable outside of marriage, some not. It’s true that marriage isn’t the strong contract it was 100 years ago, but it’s not totally gone, and it has little to do with heterosexuality as such. I would imagine that such a contract extended to pairs of homosexuals would be essentially the same.
As to your list of 4 things homosexuals want, I’m quite sure that they do want all four of them. So do I, should I get married. Why is this a problem? It’s certainly not a ploy, implying subterfuge; the pro-gay marriage propoganda I’ve heard tends to be quite explicit on these points.
Francis wrote:
“My opinion is that it’s simply a ploy by which homosexuals hope to gain 1) employer benefits traditionally bestowed upon the spouses of heterosexual employees, 2) greater access to adoptive children, 3) Social Security survivorship benefits, and 4) the right to bring foreign born “spouses” into the United States as permanent residents.”
You mean, they want the same rights as heterosexuals?
Heaven forfend!
Bringing in foreign-born spouses…
Surely social conservatives should approve of this. After all, how many British gay men are going to be bringing in Islamofascist boyfriends and strings of children?
Alex,
I would be interested in pointers to anyone making the argument that “homosexual marriage means that government spending has to go up”. I might have seen one here or there, but I don’t recall it, and I would love to be able to refer to it with authority.
The reason is because I would develop the point that the logical absurdity is precisely similar to arguments for anti-smoking legislation, for example, because smoking saddles “society” with health-care costs, which is a position that completely ignores the fact that “society” should not be funding health care to begin with.
It’s an argument that begins in mid-air. Anyone protesting homosexual marriage on such grounds would do a lot better to face the more fundamental facts of “government spending”.
ibyx,
I don’t think that a dislike of gays can, in this instance be called bigotry. They are tolerated, but that does not mean they have to be universally liked for it. The dictionary description is as follows:
“The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance”.
“a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.”
That they have had their way of life accepted by society, does not mean that that it is to be compulsory, or that we have to like it – ‘as a way of life’, but it is tolerated, therefore a general critisim cannot be called bigotry.
For myself, I think that sodomy is a perversion, and try as I might, I cannot understand the mindset that indulges in it. But, live and let live, just dont keep reminding me about it.
The whole idea of gay marriage, gets into the religious aspect of the life style, which will be discussed for a long time, and probably means more to religious people than to general society, but if it is just a civil marriage they want, then ‘who cares’.
I find the idea of two of the same sex, gazing into each others eyes and vowing erternal love, to be rather sad, but then I probably am a bigot….
Odd, really, since the institution of marriage dates from when the state was not expected to provide for you or offspring, and you and other families made contracts to provide for them yourselves.
In a sense marriage is a rival for state provision.
Francis write:
The social conservative arguments are quite obviously bogus.
Could the real reason why social conservatives oppose gay marriage be much simpler? They oppose it because they hate gay people.
Ah, yes! The libertarian’s world is a very simply one, and his (or her) response to even the most multifarious problem consists of nothing more than scolding those who fail to see that which is, of course, patently obvious.
The people I know who are against gay marriage are against it because they group it with other social engineering they believe is being forced upon them. Some have religious reasons, of course.
But, I think for many (anti-gay marriage) it’s just a backlash against what they perceive is leftist dogma. Among some white, straight males there is a feeling of alienation and isolation. They view the world as divided into groups with special status and they have none and/or are blamed for societies ills.
I don’t know *one* person who is against gay marriage that would ever harm anyone who is gay or deny them employment. But they do draw the line at marriage. More emotional than anything and more a reaction against the erosion of rights via social engineering.
I find many white males angrier at the perceived unfairness in society. They can be passed over for college or jobs because they are white males. This bothers them because they believe they are being discriminated against and that it’s ok. So, they react out of fear and anger. One of the reactions is being against gay marriage.
Some people would not believe me, at first, when I mentioned several people I knew from the web who were gay and non-leftie. Most believe anyone who is gay must be a Marxist. They have never encountered a gay who was not associated with some left of center political group.
I oppose gay marriages sanctioned by the state… and heterosexual marriages sanctioned by the state as well.
What is the compelling interest that requires the state to interfere in such a personal decision by two (or more!) people?
Children? Common sense and a few moments reflection will tell you that getting rid of civil marriage will not end procreation.
Stability? Marriages are either rewarding to their members or they are not. If marriage is a rewarding condition, it should require no further encouragement from the state. If not, it should be given no subsidy.
Morality? Whose morality will be elevated to a universal rule? Many cultures practice polygamy and polyandry … currently forbidden by the state (at least in the United States).
The solution, of course, is to let people engage with each other on any basis they choose. Chain marriages, gay marriages, “open” marriages, grim puritan marriages of penance and remorse, etc etc. Let the market decide. Any marriages which actually possess the characteristics attributed to the “ideal” marriage will survive regardless of whether the state enforces marriage norms or not.
To those who disagree, a simple question: if the state abandoned the practice of sanctioning marriage tomorrow, would you get a divorce? If not, why not? And why do you assume that your answer would not be applicable to other marriages as well?
“If you ask social conservatives to explain how this causes social degradation, the response is…”
… here. Essentially, if governments allow “gay marriage” they undermine marriage as a social norm for straights. And that means more children being born to single mothers, who depend on government charity — hence both the social degradation, and the rise in government spending.
Also: since “homosexuals don’t have children”, what is the point of letting them marry by law? The legal benefits of marriage exist as an incentive for the birth of children in stable households. Why provide that incentive for households where children patently won’t be born?
One of the delights from reading Samizdata is a giddy feeling of being a lab rat.
Many Libertarians share with lefties the love of social engineering. Armed with only theory, many of you wish to change society and see what happens.
A politico, judge, or gov’t official can unleash massive change on our society, without the tedious testing necessary for a new drug or even new eyeliner.
No fault divorce destroyed the institution of marriage, retroactively changing the marriage contract so that one party could end it — on terms set by a 3rd party (a Judge).
Gay marriage and polgamy are just steps in the end game.
The net result — anticipated by many leftist writers — will likely be a massive increase in the reach and power of the State, as it assumes still more functions of the family.
Many Libertarians share with lefties the love of social engineering. Armed with only theory, many of you wish to change society and see what happens.
I am really hard put to see how wanting to remove the hand of the state from marriage is “social engineering.” Quite the opposite, I would think.
If that is social engineering, then what do you call promoting one particular lifestyle choice above others by giving it legal sanction and economic incentives? Anti-social disengineering?
I suspect that the the term “social engineering” is used by Larry to mean something like “having some ideas about how society should be structured.”
Libertarians, and indeed everyone I have ever met or even heard of, would probably have to plead guilty to that.
I am in favor of Gay marriage, why have the government dictate marriage terms &c — but the best argument against is the cover story of The Weekly Standard this week. She didn’t change my mind but she got me thinking. Basic premise is that marriage is about the children and promoting responsibility and Mommy-Daddy unions. To make it just a state/religous blessing changes the focus from kids to adults.
My opinion is probably reviled by both classic sides of the debate. I think that homosexual marraige should be allowed (with homosexual spouses treated the same as heterosexual spouses by the government), but that no private party should be required to recognize or respect a homosexual marraige.
Really, it is an intolerable and transparent discrimination that gay people cannot get married in the legal sense (while heterosexuals can). OTOH, while homosexuals are primarily the victims to date in this saga, it should be recongized that the larger “gay” agenda is to use government coercion to force acceptance of homosexuality on people who sincerly believe that it is a mortal sin. If we are honest about this, what the “gay lobby” wants is to have the government impose the gay lobby’s religous beliefs on others. Yet another case where using the law to address the wider question is the wrong approach.
Two questions for Bobadil: 1) does your vision of the “State” include the state enforcing contracts? 2) If yes, does this include enforcing marriage contracts?
Finally, regarding that whole “opponents of gay marriage just hate gay people” idea, someone (I think it was Andrew Sullivan) had an excellent insight–homosexuals see “gay” as something they are, opponents of homosexuality see “gay” as something people do. I don’t believe the government has to (and thus do not believe it should) impose on everyone a single choice between these two frames. Personally, I would be quite happy, however, to see social evolution towards “full” gay marriage (including being responsible for the kids until they grow up).
Yeah, that’s it Alex. We’re all a bunch of gay bashers. No chance any of us are faithful Catholics, or believers in Russel Kirk’s warnings about destroying tried and true prescription and social institutions.
Yup, clearly just a pack of gay bashers.
Probably really just closet homos, just afraid to admit it…
Two questions for Bobadil: 1) does your vision of the “State” include the state enforcing contracts? 2) If yes, does this include enforcing marriage contracts?
(1) Yep, I think a proper function of the state is to enforce contracts.
(2) Marriage contracts are like any other … but keep in mind that I don’t see any requirement for two people to contract together in order to be married.
When should two (or more!) people be married? When they say they are. If they want to say it in a church … fine. If they want to say it over a couple of beers at the local pub … fine. If they want to write up some elaborate contract specifying their mutual obligations … fine.
Contracts are contracts, whether the context is a business deal or a wedding.
Note that this also implies that unenforceable terms of the contract would be, well, unenforceable (for example, being together until “death do us part” etc).
I am proposing simply that there be no such condition as “married” under law. The state should not recognize marriage as any particular special circumstance. That means no laws forbidding a person from testifying against their spouse, no tax breaks for married couples, no divorce courts, no throwing Mormons in prison for polygamy, etc.
Nothing in the above paragraph precludes consenting adults from entering into contractual obligations, or from having those contracts enforced by the state.
I really thought I was going to swear off reading about gay marriage. I had been saturated by Andrew Sullivan and the good folks at the National Review (2 sites I otherwise enjoy). If you want some interesting debate, check on NRO’s The Corner and Andrew Sullivan, they both have been touching on this a couple of times per week for what seems like 4 months. They’ve really beat this horse to death. But, leave it to the Samizdata folks to make the debate somewhat interesting.
While I think the social conservative arguments about gay marriage destroying “the institution of marriage” are extremely week, it really does open up some legal issues that really would degrade society (polygomy for example). In the U.S. anyway there is also the federalism issue. Even if you believe gay marriage should be allowed, do we really want it imposed federally, or God forbid by the courts, instead of allowing states to answer these questions individually and letting the market decide?
Also, I’m wholeheartedly opposed to gay adoption, but as long as that’s done by private individuals, without government interference or tax dollars, I guess I can’t really bitch about it.
The real problem here is the general involvement of government in every aspect of society. By giving entitlements that can be passed on, by allowing out of control civil suits in marriages (not to mention relatives of children in a broken up marriage), and through the magic of legislation making divorces as simple as refinancing a home. Government is way too involved in marriage to begin with. It is also way too involved in how we raise our children. However, Tom’s question to Bobadil (who believes in zero state involvement in marriage) is central to the “just stay out of marriage altogether crowd”. How is the contract enforced? Is it a separate contract that’s not even considered marriage (like some sort of prenup on sterioids?).
But, I really think it’s harsh to label all people who are against marriage as bigots. That’s as simplistic as some real bigots who think all gays are evil. There are legitamate religious reasons (though those reasons have no place in legal debates), there are legitimate legal questions that arise if gay marriage is allowed, ESPECIALLY if gay marriage is forced on society by judges (i.e. via legal precedent) rather than through legislation. Now, I think a perfectly reasonable charge against the anti-gay marriage crowd is “statist” as they are wanting the state to prevent individuals from formalizing their relationship through state enforced mechanisms already granted to heterosexuals.
Michael Brazier said: “Also: since “homosexuals don’t have children”, what is the point of letting them marry by law? The legal benefits of marriage exist as an incentive for the birth of children in stable households. Why provide that incentive for households where children patently won’t be born?”
Michael, are you saying that marriage benefits and legal protections should not be given to married people who plan never to have a child? Should someone who is in their 60s whose procreation days are over with be stripped of their legal status of being married?
Lastly, I think the central problems with the social conservative position is not bigotry (though that is part of it in SOME cases) but rather a right wing version of government via the precautionary principle. Most of the “harm” and “degradation” are all theoretical. But, because it makes us squeamish, surely it would lead all sorts of terrible problems for society. At least, that seems to be their logic.
However, Tom’s question to Bobadil (who believes in zero state involvement in marriage) is central to the “just stay out of marriage altogether crowd”. How is the contract enforced? Is it a separate contract that’s not even considered marriage (like some sort of prenup on sterioids?).
Yes, exactly like that.
Additionally, let me point out that I am not against marriage at all. Great stuff – picket fences, Sunday dinners and all that.
I just don’t want the state making laws about who can and who cannot enjoy their wedded bliss, or upon what terms.
Good and reasonable responses Bombadil to Tom’s questions. Now, how ’bout this. How do these contracts relate to a child being born or adopted and the parents rights over them? Do they need a new contract that involves their rights over the children? How do judges in the case of a “divorce” or a voiding of the contract determine how the child fits in? While I like the idea of getting the state out of marriage, it’s really a paradigm shift legally for so many western judicial and civil systems. Marriage is so intertwined with every level of both the private and public sectors that changing it’s legal status in any shape or form has huge and possibly costly repercussions.
I agree with Francis Poretto, and disagree with Alice Bachini.
If you suppose that marriage is an evolved custom, and you observe that this custom occurs across this Earth, you must suspect that this custom performs some function. I do not see marriage as a “right” but as an obligation (placed mostly on the male partner) to support the children that were a near-inevitable consequence of frequent sexual intercourse.
Absent fathers impose costs on society. Societies make a public spectacle of marriage so as to be able to shame men who skip. In addition, we surround the child-bearing unit with such support as tax-free inheritance and employer-paid health benefits to assure children a benign environment.
All other “benefits” of marriage (medical power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc) are available through current legal channels (mutual adoption, power of attorney). We enjoy free speech in the USA; anyone can call himself “married”. You can call yourself a flock of sparrows if you like.
Don’t Libertarians support freedom of association and freedom of contract? It may be a mistake for your legislature to mandate employer-paid health insurance for heterosexual couples. This exception to the principle of freedom of contract we make on the basis of a cost-benefit calculation (benefit to children). To enlarge the group for whom we violate principle in the name of some odd construction of “equality”, to include people who are far less likely to have children and far more at risk of a very expensive medical condition, is to ignore the cost-benefit calculations that led to the policy in the first place.
I am not homophobic. I lived for a year with a male friend who prefers males for sexual purposes and who remains a friend. Three of my friends died of aids, and they were not Haitains, hemophiliacs, or IV drug users. I resent the accusation of bigotry, which poisons this discussion.
Now, how ’bout this. How do these contracts relate to a child being born or adopted and the parents rights over them?
Assuming for a moment that such an event is not specified in the contract … they don’t. If a single mother has a child, what contract specifies the rights she has over that child?
Do they need a new contract that involves their rights over the children?
If they want one. If not, there are existing laws that govern parental responsibilities between umarried parents. I really don’t understand how that circumstance is any different than that of parents who choose to “call themselves a flock of sparrows.” (great phrase).
How do judges in the case of a “divorce” or a voiding of the contract determine how the child fits in?
Again, unless the child fits into the contract … they don’t. It is entirely conceivable that a couple might split, using a mutually agreed-upon contract for dividing their assets, while negotiating the custody and care of their child separately. Again, there are existing laws to govern that … no marriage required.
While I like the idea of getting the state out of marriage, it’s really a paradigm shift legally for so many western judicial and civil systems. Marriage is so intertwined with every level of both the private and public sectors that changing it’s legal status in any shape or form has huge and possibly costly repercussions.
Absolutely. As a theoretical discussion, the abolition of legal marriage is appealing … but the machinery of the state can take no hard corners without coming undone. Obviously any shift in the marriage paradigm would be a long and costly process, with lots of “hard cases making bad law” along the way.
None of which means that it shouldn’t be done.
This debate is pointless unless people define what marriage is.
Marriage is just an agreement (some parts of which are enforced by law, and thus contractual; others which are just statements of intent) to love someone, look after them, and share property with them.
So, having defined marriage, let’s assess the “conservative” criticisms of homosexual marriage.
1) “I oppose homosexual marriage because it would be meaningless….When I say “meaningless,” I mean that homosexual marriage would have no contractual content….
This is nonsensical. Homosexual marriage could easily have contractual content, such as sharing of assets and income, and the (legal) obligation to support the other party materially.
2) “Essentially, if governments allow “gay marriage” they undermine marriage as a social norm for straights”
Equally, if governments disallow “gay marriage” they undermine marriage as a social norm for homosexuals.
3) “since “homosexuals don’t have children”, what is the point of letting them marry by law?”
An action does not need to have a point in order for it to be legal and legitimate.
Marriage between homosexuals is no more “pointless” than that between sterile heterosexual couples.
There are benefits of marriage that have nothing whatsoever to do with having children – such as making a legally binding agreement of mutual support.
4) “No fault divorce destroyed the institution of marriage, retroactively changing the marriage contract so that one party could end it — on terms set by a 3rd party (a Judge).
Gay marriage and polgamy are just steps in the end game”
If gay marriage had enforceable contractual vows, how would it be a step in the end game?
I agree with Francis Poretto, and disagree with Alice Bachini.
If you suppose that marriage is an evolved custom, and you observe that this custom occurs across this Earth, you must suspect that this custom performs some function.
I do not see marriage as a “right” but as an obligation (placed mostly on the male partner) to support the children that were a near-inevitable consequence of frequent sexual intercourse.
Assuming that marriage did evolve as a societal response to some need, why that particular one?
Why not the need for men to be able to claim (as property) specific women, in order to reduce the level of fighting over the right to take particular sexual partners?
Why not the need to appease the great god <insert deity name here> and avoid the catastrophe of his/her wrath?
Absent fathers impose costs on society. Societies make a public spectacle of marriage so as to be able to shame men who skip.
Some societes even kill women who procreate outside of state-sanctioned marriage by stoning them to death.
In addition, we surround the child-bearing unit with such support as tax-free inheritance and employer-paid health benefits to assure children a benign environment.
Employer-paid health benefits impose a cost on society too, especially childless society. Assuming for a second that I do not have children, why should I as an employee be forced to bear the burden (albeit indirectly) of your decision to procreate? Assuming that I have children, why should I be allowed to reach into your pocket to provide for them?
All other “benefits” of marriage (medical power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc) are available through current legal channels (mutual adoption, power of attorney). We enjoy free speech in the USA; anyone can call himself “married”. You can call yourself a flock of sparrows if you like.
Still a great phrase.
Don’t Libertarians support freedom of association and freedom of contract? It may be a mistake for your legislature to mandate employer-paid health insurance for heterosexual couples. This exception to the principle of freedom of contract we make on the basis of a cost-benefit calculation (benefit to children). To enlarge the group for whom we violate principle in the name of some odd construction of “equality”, to include people who are far less likely to have children and far more at risk of a very expensive medical condition, is to ignore the cost-benefit calculations that led to the policy in the first place.
If I followed that last sentence correctly, you are arguing that since state-sanctioned marriage is a bad idea for heterosexuals, why isn’t it a bad idea for homosexuals too? Well … it is! We are practically in agreement already.
I am not homophobic. I lived for a year with a male friend who prefers males for sexual purposes and who remains a friend. Three of my friends died of aids, and they were not Haitains, hemophiliacs, or IV drug users. I resent the accusation of bigotry, which poisons this discussion.
If you seriously believe that none of the opposition to gay marriage specifically (as opposed to state-sanctioned marriage in general) is based on homophobia or flat-out hatred of gay people, you are not living in the same world I am living in. You may not be homophobic; congratulations. Many are, and raising the issue is not out of place in this discussion.
Arrggh … careless use of markup.
Reposting the lower portion of the previous post:
Absent fathers impose costs on society. Societies make a public spectacle of marriage so as to be able to shame men who skip.
Some societes even kill women who procreate outside of state-sanctioned marriage by stoning them to death.
In addition, we surround the child-bearing unit with such support as tax-free inheritance and employer-paid health benefits to assure children a benign environment.
Employer-paid health benefits impose a cost on society too, especially childless society. Assuming for a second that I do not have children, why should I as an employee be forced to bear the burden (albeit indirectly) of your decision to procreate? Assuming that I have children, why should I be allowed to reach into your pocket to provide for them?
All other “benefits” of marriage (medical power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc) are available through current legal channels (mutual adoption, power of attorney). We enjoy free speech in the USA; anyone can call himself “married”. You can call yourself a flock of sparrows if you like.
Still a great phrase.
Don’t Libertarians support freedom of association and freedom of contract? It may be a mistake for your legislature to mandate employer-paid health insurance for heterosexual couples. This exception to the principle of freedom of contract we make on the basis of a cost-benefit calculation (benefit to children). To enlarge the group for whom we violate principle in the name of some odd construction of “equality”, to include people who are far less likely to have children and far more at risk of a very expensive medical condition, is to ignore the cost-benefit calculations that led to the policy in the first place.
If I followed that last sentence correctly, you are arguing that since state-sanctioned marriage is a bad idea for heterosexuals, why isn’t it a bad idea for homosexuals too? Well … it is! We are practically in agreement already.
I am not homophobic. I lived for a year with a male friend who prefers males for sexual purposes and who remains a friend. Three of my friends died of aids, and they were not Haitains, hemophiliacs, or IV drug users. I resent the accusation of bigotry, which poisons this discussion.
If you seriously believe that none of the opposition to gay marriage specifically (as opposed to state-sanctioned marriage in general) is based on homophobia or flat-out hatred of gay people, you are not living in the same world I am living in. You may not be homophobic; congratulations. Many are, and raising the issue is not out of place in this discussion.
Interesting, isn’t it, how quickly the meaning of words evolves?
“Tolerance” in this context ten years ago meant supporting measures to forbid discrimination against homosexuals in hiring, housing and so forth. Two years ago it meant supporting government recognition of gay civil unions. Now it means supporting gay marriage and, incidentally, not saying anything negative about homosexual behavior.
People who notice the goalposts being moved this rapidly might be forgiven for thinking they are being moved deliberately. I don’t think that is necessarily true; major changes often occur quickly in today’s world, and this may just be one of those things.
With respect to libertarians’ interest in this issue, though, it is hard not to notice that nothing about the move toward legalizing gay marriage promises any diminution of state power whatsoever. If anything, gay marriage will probably require some expansion of government activity, for example in the legal system and in modifying the assistance governments now provide to parents to ensure that it does not discriminate. Actually, much the same is true of at least one of the other favorite libertarian causes, legalizing various drugs — once legalized, drugs would have to be extensively regulated for safety, interaction with other drugs, taxation and so forth.
So are libertarians really interested in freedom and smaller government, or are they just interested in sex and drugs? Just asking the question probably marks one as a hater and bigot, and definitely as intolerant, but that’s life in the blogosphere.
For a full reply, see Confessions of a Homophobe.
That’s the second time the preview’s destroyed the link. Try again:
Confessions of a Homophobe.
You asked.
The purpose that marriage has in society is to cement the bond between two people who will have children. Look at the totality of sexual morals and taboos, as well as the institutions that have evolved to deal with it.
To society, sex presents two problems. Children and disease. This is why promiscuity if frowned upon, and why the whole “virgin till marriage, and fidelity afterwards” meme held sway for so long. It has nothing to do with love, historically, as betrothals and arraigned marriages were the norm, (and still are in some parts of the world)
This is why social institutions, such as religions and governments have created marriage in the first place. As a means to minimize the potential negative effects that children and disease pose to the population. It has nothing to do with hatred for any group, it has to do with how sexual activity affects the population.
As you point out, gays do not, cannot, have children by themselves. By making those who bring children into this world, responsible for their actions and responsible for raising that child, it is hoped that he won’t turn into a criminal, a murderer, etc. and usually this works. This risk that a gay couple poses to society is nothing compared to the risk that a hetro couple poses. And the only way that they can pose such a threat is if they bring in a third party, who will not be responsible for the consequences of their actions.
The reason why we are even discussing this is because medical technology has advanced to the point where fertility is choosable, but that technology is only 40 years old. And this is a fundamental alteration to an institution that is pretty old, and has been subject to several millenia of cultural evolution. It is a bit sudden, and no one is sure how it will pan out.
Already the sexual revolution has led to higher divorce rates, more out of wedlock births, and more promiscuity. The advances in medical technology and all its implications have still not been sorted out in a way that keeps society going and is not harmful to its population. This is simply forcing things deeper into uncharted territory.
In addition, if gays are allowed to be married, does that give them the same rights to adoption as straight couples? As long as NAMBLA has any kind of prominence in the gay rights movement, the issue of gays and children will be problematic for a lot of folks. Simply blowing it off as bigotry, or demanding that straights “get used to it” is not an effective debating tactic, and risks a worse backlash than one would obtain through more incrimental changes.
It is not punishment by the state if it treats married hetrosexuals differently than it does gay couples. (Or unmarried hetrosexual couples) No more than it is punishment if I offer someone else a job, and not you.
I hope that answers your question.
Maybe I am extremely stupid – but there are some points which don’t seem to be even be considered by most of the commentors…
FIRSTLY: when one small “political group” (and to be gay most surely is to be openly and extremely political) demands that its politics and ideologies are FORCED BY LAW on the majority of the population demanding that, what is a CHOICE of lifestyle be given legal standing that will change society and make it more “GAY” in nature… then heterosexual society has every right to feel threatened.
SECONDLY: One thing most often pushed to one side now – is the danger posed by learned behaviour…. An individual may have a basic heterosexual/homosexual nature – BUT – and its a BIG BUT…. which everyone seems to want to ignore: SEXUAL “PREFERENCE” IS CHANGEABLE BY LEARNED BEHAVIOUR!!! … exactly the same ability to change “preference” that is used so well by paedophiles to “groom” children or by other insidious individuals to get “rent boys”…
…the SPARTANS understood this very well…
They created a society based on a slave system with a homosexually based elite brought about through the sexual indoctrination of children. Normal male/female relations among the spartans were bastardised to produce a highly state controlled system of relationships in order to produce their warrior elite. To make matters worse this whole system was only able to exist with the enslavement of the Helots.
Today it is extremely un-politically correct and practically illegal (hate crime) to even suggest that sexual preference is changeable… despite HISTORY both ancient and modern showing us exactly that.
Yet here we have a homosexual political promotion group that wishes to assume all the legal trappings of heterosexual relationships and at the same time promote the teachings of homosexual sexual preference among young children – AND – at the same time they wish to make it practically impossible to raise any argument against them – by deriding any anti-“GAY” argument as a “hate crime”.
Yes – absolutely NO “reason” for heterosexuals to worry about anything there at all!!!!!!!
Heterosexuals feel threatened because “GAY” politics is using state control- and marxist ideology – not for equality purposes- but to openly PROMOTE “GAY” policies to the detriment of heterosexual people.
Alex Singleton said:
Could the real reason why social conservatives oppose gay marriage be much simpler? They oppose it because they hate gay people. They think it’s disgusting what these faggots do. They think the state should punish them for their depravity.
This just strikes me as more of the kind of mean spirited innuendo that riddles too much commentary.
Face it Alex, the only reason you’re a libbo is you hate poor people and don’t want to share with those less fortunate than yourself. God forbid the rich should be held accountable to the majority of us they treat like cattle.
See?
Well done Alex for pinpointing the real dirty secret of the so called ‘social conservatives’. Watch them twitching and spluttering as they swing from the rope that Alex supplied enough of for them to hang themselves. Those that seem not to be out and out bigots appear instead to just suffer from brute stupidity.
Joe,
We didn’t agree much the other day (I think about the utility of heritable IQ differences) but you hit all the right buttons this time, and you’ve said the unsayable. Well done.
It’s noticeable that the marxist dross who shout “racist” at those who challenge them are slowly losing their power to intimidate. Posters here and elsewhere still trot out the official party line, but there is a growing understanding that they are victims of the culture war for doing so.
But the homophobe slur still has the power to intimidate. It makes us defensive and self-examining. It’s an effective means of censorship. Well, so to speak, bugger the censors. We are 99% of the population and we should not be cowed
by a tiny marxist minority of queer activists.
Egalitarianism is not rooted in the psyche of man. It is unnatural. As far as this effects homosexuals it is necessary to bear in moind that, tragically, they are disabled people. They are not sexually equal. They cannot marry because marriage in a monogamous form is a sexual partnership between male and female. Its exclusivity is indispensable for the stability and continuity of our way of life. That, of course, is the real reason it is under attack in the first place and why it must be defended.
“They cannot marry because marriage in a monogamous form is a sexual partnership between male and female. Its exclusivity is indispensable for the stability and continuity of our way of life.”
This is either tautologous (“if things change they won’t be the same as they are now”) or plain wrong. If things change, so what?
The institution of marriage we have now in Britain and the US isn’t the same as it was in the past–even as 50 years ago, never mind before it became a creature of the state in the 19th century. It may be called the same thing, but its rules and dissolution are changed vastly. The legal details differ between and within even those substantially similar countries now. It certainly isn’t the same in other countries, who manage just fine with different forms of marriage. Sometimes those wacky foreigners have more than one type of marriage permitted in the same jurisdiction.
I can’t see how the sky is going to fall in for traditional families because another arrangement becomes possible. Even if it might, then that is as much an argument for banning straight sex outside a married relationship than gay sex within one.
Where are the Taliban when we need them? They knew how to protect a perfect society from deterioration by change.
Guessedworker, you’re frightened of being called a homophobe – obviously not a real man, then – and then you go on to call gay people disabled.
Come on, give us a proper argument.
Am I to presume that your agenda is eugenics or genocide?
Gay people should not suffer discrimination from the state. You can discriminate if you want to, that’s your business, not mine, but the state has no place in this. I’m willing to go along with egalitarianism not being ‘natural,’ but it’s not the business of the state to enforce any pecking order.
Yes there are gay marxist idiots. There are ten times as many straight ones. If the gay marxist idiots were arguing for the abolition of heterosexual marriage, then you’d have a point. But Paul Coulam’s right.
Gay people fall in love, screw, fall out of love, not necessarily in that order. They wreck lives, they change the world, they are valued members of the community, they are scum, just like everyone else. far better they do this in their own sphere than in the confines of a heterosexual marriage.
Guy, you ask where the Taliban are… Well as the Taliban instituted political change through enforced state control/mind control… it would appear “our Taliban” are here in the form of the “GAY” movement and its political entourage… because that is exactly what they are doing and using the exact same basic methods!
Joe,
Say who within the gay ‘movement’ – your inverted commas are in the wrong place, though I understand your insinuation – are doing what.
Mind control? WTF? Are the CIA gay?
Oh, forget it Joe, you just want to mould society under pain of imprisonment and threat of taxation. Let’s face it, you’re a socialist. Socialists don’t like letting people do freely-chosen things, and they have ulterior motives for discriminatory laws (Jews, landowners…).
You differ from a socialist only in the amount of tax you would enslave people to work to pay.
Yes, the difference between a socialist and a conservative can be expressed as a percentage.
I just want people to be allowed to do whatever consensual, freely contractual things they may choose, so long as they don’t impinge on someone else’s liberty.
I guess that makes me a libertarian.
We’re never going to agree.
But since you’re against freedom, what draws you to this site?
Abolish state recogniton of marriage, period. It’s a matter for churches (or for the personal decisions of atheists).
The institution of marriage long pre-dates the modern state, and emerged out of the desire, known for as long as human civilisation, for people to form long-standing partnerships for particular ends. One point straight away – marriage was driven by the desire for security in old age (children), the avoidance of sexually-transmitted disease and social order.
As a commenter put it above, changes in medicial science, divorce laws and an increasingly hedonistic cultural climate in the West have changed the motors behind straight marriage. Hence the focus on possible marriage for gay couples.
My own view is that the State should get out of our lives as much as possible. Much of the heat that affects this current debate would dissipate if the government got out of the marriage business. After all, without a Welfare State, 40-50 percent taxation of income and so forth, much of the original pressures on folk to marry and stay loyal for life would return.
However, I also can see the case for gay marriage in essentially conservative terms. So long as reciprocal duties are understood, the occurence of gay men honouring life-long, caring relationships must surely be supportive, rather than destructive, of the social order.
I would like to be married one day to a beautiful woman and I honestly cannot see how gay marriage would affect the institution into which I would enter one way or the other.
Surely, the libertarian view is that the presumption of proof should rest on those who would prevent consenting adults forming contracts. End of discussion.
Forgive me if this is repetition.
It is unfair to describe all those who oppose gay “marriag” as bigots. Sure, a lot probably do hate them. However, the reasons are very simple. Conservative- small c- views on morality are based on Christian morality. Without a firm basis there is no logical reason for them- they would be mere social constructs. Meaning, heteroseuxality was decided upon as “normal” so homosexuality is “abnormal”. However, conservatives follow a traditional morality- which is based on the morality of the Bible. This is where we get our basis.
Also, practically speaking, the family is of great benefit to “society”- it encourages good morals, good behaviour, hard work, citizenship (if done correctly), whereas things like single parenthood, lives of crime etc… perpetuate social ills. A stable, productive, healthy country is only possible when people are healthy, productive and moral. Gay “marriage” is just another nail in the coffin.
The Government has every right to promote morality, and give benefits to those who follow a moral life. This is merely investing in good business. This is what Lady Thatcher did. And she made this country great.
Ian, you said: “Joe, you just want to mould society under pain of imprisonment and threat of taxation. Let’s face it, you’re a socialist.”
If you fully read and understood what I said you will have realised that moulding society under pain of state punishment was the complaint I was making about “gay” politics… but you chose instead to imply the exact opposite: that my ideals include state punishment… and then to slander me using the term “socialist” and pigeonhole me by pronouncing that I am against freedom hahahaha – nice try Ian … could do better next time…
… however – Thank you for so clearly and completely twisting my words to say something that I did not – it proves EXACTLY part of the point I was making: that the “gay” political movement tries to control speech and how we think! They have been so successful in this that for the general puble to say anything deemed “anti-gay” is now practically unthinkable… even when the facts are inarguable.
Ian, I take it you understand the idea of “Fashion” don’t you… where children under peer pressure are “mind-controlled” into wearing exactly what their peers demand they wear… That , Ian is one form of the type of mind control used by Marxists and by the “Gay” movement and its political travellers.
I use the word “gay” in inverted commas because it is a word that can variously mean “happy”, “homosexual”, “openly homosexual”or part of a political movement that promotes homosexuality above everything else. I’m sure I make some mistakes in grammar- this is only a blog comment after all 🙂
Ian if you are going to destroy my argument please try to do so by using what I have written – not what you imagine I have written… you will have more success that way
Joe, I’m not part of the gay political movement. I just believe in equality in law and before the law. It’s a hard call to say whether, now, gay people should be allowed to marry or we should abolish state recognition of marriage altogether.
Yes, that’s right, I’m not part of the gay political movement, I’m not a marxist, heathite, calvinist or anything like that. So your point proves nothing about the gay political movement. I just answered name-calling with name-calling. It’s hard to resist being childish now and again.
I also believe I should be free to discriminate against anyone I choose for whatever reason, or no reason at all, in my private business.
Joe, you’re the one who started the whole Taliban line of insult, too.
You’re the one who thinks that this will make society more gay. You’re talking bollocks, mate.
And what gay policies are there that discrimnate against heterosexuals?
I really don’t think that the world is going to fall in because a few men put their dicks somewhere that gives you high blood-pressure when you think about it.
As to the inverted commas, I meant that the idea of the ‘movement’ was questionable. I’ve never known gay men be able to organise anything.
Ian writes:
I’ve never known gay men be able to organise anything.
Well Alexander the Great managed to organise the conquest of the known world, not especially libertarian of him I know.
Well, Paul, he was bisexual, I believe. Can’t remember who told me. Xenophon?
Maybe he was a bit more gay on his campaigns, at least on the march.
The organisation bit wasn’t a serious remark, btw, just a camp subtext to it which doesn’t work without gesture. Oh my God! Joe’s right! It’s the mind control! I’m being taken over!
Ian, look again at what you are writing ….
Once again in your comment you have implied that I have said things that I have not –
I made no assumption that you were either gay, gay or GAY or straight. That is your assumption. My implication was that you were working under a certain mindset. You have done nothing to change my opinion of that.
So what name calling of mine were you answering- with your name calling?
I did not “start” the whole Taliban line of insult….
I took the Taliban quip from Guy -who was using it against the argument for traditional marriage – and used it to show how it was more directly applicable to the “Gay” political movement – which I didn’t call you or anyone else here a member of , but which because of your mindset you have taken offense at. That is your mind at work – look to yourself for your own answers on why you did that.
As to your assertion that the legal institution and PROMOTION of the “Gay” lifestyle will not make society any more “gay”…. DUH!!!! Its going to make it more heterosexual then – yeahhhh !!!!!!
Ian – you have read my comments and leapt to conclusions because you believe that I have something against freedom of choice for homosexuals. I couldn’t care tuppence for who does what consensually as long as they are adults.
My concern with “Gay” politics – i.e. “Gay” lifestyle and sexual promotion and “Gay” marriage – is where it is coercively enforced on the rest of us and where it is actively promoted among children.
The promotion of a political organisation amongst children is bad at the best of times – but one that also involves the promotion of homosexual preference and also promotes destruction of the heterosexual “Family” is very definitely WRONG.
Heterosexual Marriage provides the core for a stable base in which to raise children with direct access to male and female gender and all that entails.
Children’s sexual preferences are maleable… all you have to do to increase the homosexual political core is to increase the number of children taught a homosexual preference. The SPARTANS created a whole society this way. Yet this is ignored – in fact – when it is brought up everyone seeks to deny it. WHY? – because anything that might offend the sensibilities of the “GAY” political spectrum is now seen as a crime.
Take a look at MARXIST and other totalitarian ideologies…. have a look at how they use children to further its ideology… then take another look at political homosexuality.
If you are happy that your children are being taught that homosexuality is not only RIGHT but preferable + a good way to REBEL against STRAIGHT parents…. that is your entitlement.
I am not happy with that any more than I am happy that they be taught to be MARXIST.
If you think that is bollocks – that is your entitlement but if you are going to argue about it… then as I said before – argue with me on what I have said… and provide demonstrable proof for doing so…. If you have a good argument I will be more than happy to learn from you – but to call my comment “bollocks” without backing up your own ideas with demonstrable facts is just HECKLING in the old Marxist tradition, and therefore not worth me bothering further with.
Ian,
You asked for “a real argument” but you didn’t think very hard about the sociobiological one I made, did you?
Here it is another way.
Nature has no investment in homosexuals. It does not depend on homosexuals in any conceivable way. Nature depends upon and invests in child-bearing couples. In Europe those couples developed the institution of marriage – not, incidentally, for any of three reasons given by Johnathan Pearce but by the requirement for high childcare values as a survival strategy in food-scarce northern climes. Marriage is central to our psychological health and wellbeing.
The question then is: will it be compromised if an egalitarian homosexual agenda is forced upon it? Well, it should be immediately obvious that the force of its significance lies in its exclusivity. If marriage is reduced to just another lifestyle choice -as many libertarians as well as gay right activists seem to think it is already – so its bounty will be further ignored.
I would like to think that intelligent homosexuals were capable of grasping the need for an unselfish and respectful attitude towards marriage. But I have only heard the opposite from you.
Guy,
Your response to my comments above show that intelligent as you are – and I often admire your contributions on other matters – you start your adumbrations about yesterday morning at five past eight. Because Nature is in us and IS us you need to think back a further 100,000 years or so. Yes, yes, changes come and go and the world goes on, but our natures are eternal. We can make society free but we can never be free of ourselves. As true slaves to our sociobiology we need our folkways as much as anything you can name.
I ask you to understand that the incrementalism of the assault on marriage is very hard to oppose in each detail. But the totality is killing. So, decide your stance on the basis of where we were forty years ago and where we will be in, say, ten or twenty years time. Which do you think is healthier for men and women and, especially, children? And how important, compared to that, is social liberty?
Guessedworked writes:
‘Nature depends upon and invests in child-bearing couples.’
Nature has no dependents nor does it invest in anything, this is just anthropomorpic fantasy.
‘In Europe those couples developed the institution of marriage – by the requirement for high childcare values as a survival strategy in food-scarce northern climes.’
There seems to be plenty of food in the shops these days.
‘Marriage is central to our psychological health and wellbeing.’
Interesting use of a non-sequitur here Guessedworked.
Really if this is the best that you gay baiters can come up with by way of argument we’ll have managed to recruit all of your children to the dark side by the end of the week.
Guessedworker,
I have very great respect for marriage, straight couples who struggle through bad patches to bring up their children. Nothing I have said goes against that. I have not said whether or not I’m gay – that’s supremely irrelevant (indeed, I’ve heard arguments from gay men against gay marriage).
I have shown my support of traditional marriage from the outset (4th or 5th post).
Where have I shown selfishness or disrespect, such as you accuse me of? What am I trying to grasp?
No one is talking about forcing an egalitarian homosexual agenda on anyone. The issue is one of allowing state recognition of gay marriage (civil unions).
STATE recognition. I am happy for society as a whole to think higher of straight marriage than of gay or childless marriage. I am happy for society, on the whole, to think bad of sex before marriage. But no preference or opinion or discrimination should be enshrined in law and bolstered by taxation. People can pay for what they value themselves.
Joe,
describe my mindset, then I’ll know what position you’re arguing from. I am very far from being a marxist, and I don’t want the state to enforce ANY agenda, whether it’s marriage or gayness or the need to drink water and exercise and not smoke and not drink (alcohol) to excess. That has been my position throughout this thread.
If you want to think I’m a proselytiser for any cause, then fine, I know nothing I can do will change that opinion.
The issues raised in the degeneration of this thread are quite different from the issue raised by Alex Singleton at the beginning.
Paul Coulam says: “ if this is the best that you gay baiters can come up with by way of argument we’ll have managed to recruit all of your children to the dark side by the end of the week. “
Yoda says: “stick light-saber in wrong hole and more than smell of crispy bacon, discover -you will”
Ian, your mindset in this thread has been one of assuming that any criticism of anything to do with homosexuality is a violation of libertarian ideals. Even your last sentence tries to make out that this argument is “degenerate” !!!
Do your really find something degenerate in questioning the reality of political debate… what political reasoning makes you think this is so?
What your intent was may have been very different than what you actually wrote… but that was the very reason for my original comment. People are so used to “protecting” homosexuality from whatever is perceived to be an attack on it that they no longer listen to valid argument.
Proselytising for a cause is not the case… the problem is in the use of language. It has become unacceptable for any language that is not pro-homosexuality to be treated as just and valid.
The joining of two same sex partners in an institutionalised marriage is obviously different to that of a traditional marriage in which two individuals of different sexes are joined to form a family… yet anyone who points out the differences is derided! The differences are obvious yet great ideological and linguistic distortions are being made to make them appear identical….. so why is does this happen?
We are told that is in the purpose of equality?????
To make two different things appera to be the same – is a GENERALISATION…. its a falsehood – in short it is a LIE…. to make the two different things look the same is to ACT out a game!
What purpose is there in this game?
Originally we were told that “homophobia” was institutionalised in the STATE! Now we have a case where homosexuality is being INSTITUTIONALISED WITHIN the STATE.. and argument against this is being stifled and derided!!!
What -no libertarian alarm bells ringing anywhere?
It’s good to read so many happy lab rats, discussing their varied plans to reshape society. Confident. Radical. Based only on theory.
No need for testing, experimentation, confirmation, discovery of actual impacts.
I see little humility about the dangers and unexpected outcomes likely from rapid tinkering with basic social institutions.
Don’t worry about these details. A greatly expanded government will absorb powers from the family and clean up any unpleasant impacts from your dreams.
Pls excuse the retching of your unwilling fellow lab rats, as we contimplate the future.
Ian, your mindset in this thread has been one of assuming that any criticism of anything to do with homosexuality is a violation of libertarian ideals. Even your last sentence tries to make out that this argument is “degenerate” !!!
Joe, this is not the case.
I’ve said discrimination is fine in the conduct of private business. I’ve not tried to stifle debate. The degeneration is one of argument, or rather a diversion from Alex’s post.
I consider myself free to discriminate against gay people, married people, Jews, blacks, anyone in my own affairs and trade. I consider myself free to say they are vicious people. But I do not consider that I have the liberty to impose statutory discrimination against them.
Nor have I said that a gay marriage or civil union is a virtue, or a dog preaching on its hind legs, for that matter.
The state should butt out. Religion and society, mores, are what give marriage its special place in human relationships. That is a matter for a man or woman and their God or tradition, morals, expectations etc. I do not believe that religious institutions which have a problem with gay weddings should be compelled to conduct them.
That is my mindset. You may wish to think I’m a PC thug always on the lookout for ‘hate crimes.’ But I am not.
Joe, of course I would not be happy if people were teaching my children homosexuality was preferable. I don’t think anyone is, though. My children’s growing up would be their own choice, with counsel from me.
Children are taught to eat their greens, too. But they follow their own tastes.
Listen, all this talk about nature is totally misguided.
Europeans did not invent marriage as a form of child production or whatever, they didn’t invent marriage at all. Marriage- between a man and a woman- as defined in the West- comes from Genesis, the Bible, the Christian Bible.
The only way you can argue heterosexual marriage is natural is also the only way you can argue that human rights are inherent- i.e. given to us by a Higher Being (the Christian God). Otherwise, they are social constructs. As much as I love the old fashoned phrenology and nature “sciences” they don’t hold water.
The practice of homosexuality is immoral, and it is immoral because the Bible tells us so. This is why conservatives oppose it. If only we lived in America it would all be very clear. Marriage, as defined by the Bible, is a man and a woman. Also, with the basis of the argument being the practice of homosexuality is wrong, anything- marriage, adoption by gays- that endorses this lifestyle is also wrong.
Furthermore, I am curious as to the original post’s query about why social conservatives oppose gay marriage. I would have thought the fact they’re social COSERVATIVES speaks for itself. I do hope he hasn’t confused conservative with Conservative. Tut tut.
I would be interested in pointers to anyone making the argument that “homosexual marriage means that government spending has to go up”. I might have seen one here or there, but I don’t recall it, and I would love to be able to refer to it with authority.
Billy (if yer still reading the thread…):
I posted about an article by Maggie Gallagher on NRO a few weeks back. She makes that arguement.
Okay Paul, here’s my bigoted, gay baiting, hate filled poisonous vile homophobic screed about why I am against gay marriage.
Societal institutions evolve for a purpose. Over time, we figure out what works and what doesn’t. We’ve evolved the nuclear family – man, woman, child – because it meets a variety of needs. It wasn’t a top-down event imposed by the Supreme Court or the EU. Women had a need for security and assistance in raising the child, men had a need to reproduce, and an urge toward insuring that their genese were carried on, and not the genes of some cuckolding lothario. So we developed this social pact. Much of our society is now organized around it, and when we damage the fundamental pact — as in the case of welfare incentivizing single parenthood, illegitimacy and children as a cash crop — we reap a terrible harvest. The decimated inner cities of the U.S. are proof of what happens when we delegitimize marriage and the nuclear family.
It’s like most social institutions. They evolve more or less unconsciously, as group behavior, and then when they are in place, a bunch of philosophes come along and trash them, arguing that the philosophical trend of the moment just doesn’t have room for such antiquated traditions.
Re-juggling the basic social unit to meet the passing fancies of the opinion elite is nothing short than social experimentation on a grand scale. As long as we are chucking out the basic organizing principles of society, is there anything else you’d like to get rid of?
Hey, I have an idea. Since the state knows more about child psychology than any one set of parents, let’s have the state raise kids. Surely they’ll do a better job of it than the parents could… we’ll call the state “Romania.”
And how ’bout letting the government run the economy. Why the latest in scientific, rationalist philosophy from Messrs. Marx and Trotsky indicates that the economy is scientific, and science tells us we can organize most efficiently if we have central planning. We’ll call our new economic entity “USSR.”
In fact, the very latest in Eugenics and race theory says that people will get along better if they are separated by type, by race and inclination; and if they have lots of room to live. And they will be healthier if the children are raised as vegans, and if the state takes a strong role in acculturating the young kids. But such a state must be very careful to root out the subversives. We’ll call the new state organized along Margaret Sanger’s lines, “The Third Reich.”
My point being that both our social evolution and our traditional values are underpinnings of stability in society. All these faddish ideas, once thought to be perfectly sound by modern man, led to disastrous results.
Keep kicking out the underpinnings, re-organizing society based on faddish top-down notions, and let’s see where it leads us in 20 or 40 years.
And oh by the way, what’s to say 5 or 10 people shouldn’t get married, not to mention horses and humans, or any other combinations? Why the hell shouldn’t you be able to marry exactly who or what you want to? Please elucidate a clear legal and theoretical rationale that will (1) explain how the state could offer gay marriage without offering plural marriage, or indeed “interspecies marriage”; and (2) Please offer a rationale that will hold up on a permanent basis. After all, I presume you think it would be wildly unreasonable to allow plural marriage and/or interspecies marriage.
As one poster pointed out, 10 years ago it was tolerate gays, two years ago it was civil unions, today it’s gay marriage, and by the way, don’t say anything bad about it or we will vilify you… what’s next, mandatory sodomy in 6 months?
No, really, you are progressive, tell me where exactly we are supposed to progress to on this gay rights issue. Where exactly shall we stop, so that we might go there immediately, then go no further?
Ian, What your mindset is – is clearly different to the stance you took when posting. The first two posts in response to my original comment showed that you had emotionally jumped to conclusions based on words you imagined I had written – not the words I actually wrote.
I’m glad you noticed my reuse of the word “degenerate”… I was trying to show you exactly how the stifling of debate can work… it is so easy; all you have to do is IMPLY…. therefore your opponent becomes guilty through implication and finds themselves having to defend what may be perfectly good argument.
That is exactly what is happening with the all debate on homosexuality… anyone who dares criticise any pro-homosexuality legislation is immediately made guilty of “hate-crime” by implication!
As for the “promotion” of homosexuality… Most of its promotion works by degrading,deriding or relabelling as irrelevant (etc…) all the old heterosexual references and institutions… e.g. family/marriage/childhood etc… and replacing them with genderless “equivalents” in which homosexuality is made to look fun, *natural*, appealing.
Some of it is subtle -some of it is quite blatant… but it isn’t coming from public need or want it is being driven by political lobby groups through the MEDIA and STATE legislation.
As for children following their own tastes – I’m sorry but you are quite wrong – children follow what they have been taught directly or indirectly by their family, the state, or as is most often the case now…. by their peers via the media!
As one poster pointed out, 10 years ago it was tolerate gays, two years ago it was civil unions, today it’s gay marriage, and by the way, don’t say anything bad about it or we will vilify you… what’s next, mandatory sodomy in 6 months?
No, really, you are progressive, tell me where exactly we are supposed to progress to on this gay rights issue. Where exactly shall we stop, so that we might go there immediately, then go no further?
An analogy:
<Begin>
As one poster pointed out, 10 years ago it was tolerate blacks, two years ago it was civil unions, today it’s interracial marriage, and by the way, don’t say anything bad about it or we will vilify you… what’s next, mandatory miscegenation in 6 months?
No, really, you are progressive, tell me where exactly we are supposed to progress to on this civil rights issue. Where exactly shall we stop, so that we might go there immediately, then go no further?
<End>
The point: equating the ending of discriminatory practices against a group as being equivalent to promoting that group above others is absurd. Rather than ask: why should the gay lifestyle be encouraged? you should ask: why should the heterosexual lifestyle be mandated?
This still doesn’t change my base position, though: end preferential treatment and legal recognition of marriage for everyone and the issue vanishes anyway. Very simple, very fair.
Charles Hueter :
Thank you, sir. I got the link. I was just about to give up reading through this when I saw your post.
‘Preciate it. Onward.
And oh by the way, what’s to say 5 or 10 people shouldn’t get married, not to mention horses and humans, or any other combinations? Why the hell shouldn’t you be able to marry exactly who or what you want to? Please elucidate a clear legal and theoretical rationale that will (1) explain how the state could offer gay marriage without offering plural marriage, or indeed “interspecies marriage”; and (2) Please offer a rationale that will hold up on a permanent basis. After all, I presume you think it would be wildly unreasonable to allow plural marriage and/or interspecies marriage.
(1) Plural marriage should indeed be allowed .. though (as with other marriages) not recognized by the state at all. If 17 consenting adults want to live in the same house, have sex in various combinations, and raise kids communally, why is that any of your business or mine? Note that horses and other dumb animals can’t give consent. Same for children and perhaps for the legally retarded, although certainly there are some hard cases in there.
(2) See previous point. Your assumption is wrong about plural marriage, right about “interspecies” marriage, although if intelligent aliens come to Earth I don’t see why a human and an alien shouldn’t be allowed to “marry” if they wish.
“Note that horses and other dumb animals can’t give consent.”
That consent argument is a canard. Of course animals can’t consent, but we don’t care. Animals are chattel and we can dispose of them as we like. There’s no need to get consent from the pig before we eat a ham sandwich. Oooh, sorry, forgot. If you live in the EU, the pigs have rights…
And for what it’s worth Bombadil, we discriminate against lots of groups; discrimination in and of itself is not a bad thing. For example, all the people who rob banks, for instance, are locked up in prison. All the dumb people – except the ones born into wealthy families – are denied a college education. All the poor people are denied ownership of Rolls Royce Silver Shadows. And fat and slow people will never play football for England. Well, except Paul Gascoine.
The fact that some groups are denied some things, and other groups aren’t, doesn’t make the process of discrimination – distinguishing between things or people – a bad thing. In fact, some discrimination is really positive. We normally don’t allow cretins with shaky nerves to become heart surgeons. Nor do we allow people with narcolepsy to pilot commercial jets.
Assuming that making some distinctions between groups is a positive thing, the question is where to discriminate, and why. The question of denial of marriage to same sex couples, like denial of marriage to groups – say all Birmingham City supporters, for instance – can’t be answered with a pat “discrimination is bad” argument, as you attempt.
Further, your switching gay rights with miscegenation in my reference to the 10/2/present question is junk logic, premised on the idea that gay marriage is in substance the same thing as the marriage between a man and a woman.
If marriage is just the linking of any two things recognized as entities by the law or church, why can’t Bill Gates ditch his wife, and marry the Intel Corporation, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, etc. After all, companies are recognized at people by the law.
Really, if you still think your argument was valid, let’s take it a step further, and just substitute miscegenation with another law restraining behavior. We can even use a real life example involving Professor Peter Singer, a bioethicist from Princeton University:
10 years ago, Peter Singer argued for recognizing animal rights.
2 years ago, he argued in favor of tolerating relations with animals.
Now he’s arguing that his dog ought to marry a deaconess and be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. (Evidently a possibility…)
So does that make bestiality the same as interracial marriage? After all, I can argue for or against it using the same logic as you brought up in your miscegenation argument.
Better bring your “A” game next time.
And please, do tell, where exactly is the progressive march, removing the official state preference for the traditional family, going to end. At what point will we have progressed enough?
Marriage is not a social construct. I’m sorry, but whether you’re religious or not doesn’t matter- we have marriage because of Christianity.
Assuming that making some distinctions between groups is a positive thing, the question is where to discriminate, and why. The question of denial of marriage to same sex couples, like denial of marriage to groups – say all Birmingham City supporters, for instance – can’t be answered with a pat “discrimination is bad” argument, as you attempt.
Sure it can. Fat people don’t play football – but there is no law forbidding them from trying out for the team. Cretins with shaky nerves are perfectly welcome to try to become heart surgeons. But gay people are not welcome to try to have a stable, healthy marriage – because they are prevented by law. Better bring your “A” game next time.
Further, your switching gay rights with miscegenation in my reference to the 10/2/present question is junk logic, premised on the idea that gay marriage is in substance the same thing as the marriage between a man and a woman.
Junk logic? Sounds like you dismissed the argument without trying to address the point: why are they different? Sounds just like assuming that a marriage between two white people is the same thing as a marriage between a white person and a black person. Better bring your “A” game next time.
10 years ago, Peter Singer argued for recognizing animal rights.
2 years ago, he argued in favor of tolerating relations with animals.
Now he’s arguing that his dog ought to marry a deaconess and be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. (Evidently a possibility…)
Animals can’t give consent. We eat them – but we don’t people to torture them for sport. Whether or not we should is another argument. Your support (or lack thereof) for relations with animals will hinge upon that point.
As for a dog being appointed ArchBishop of Canterbury – if the decision-makers in the church feel that is appropriate … great. Might make services very entertaining.
Note that there are no laws forbidding dogs from being Archbishops … better bring your “A” game next time.
The point: you want to use laws to elevate your lifestyle above others (by funding it with tax dollars, for example). I want to eliminate all such funding for lifestyle choices. Clear?
Better bring your “A” game next time.
And please, do tell, where exactly is the progressive march, removing the official state preference for the traditional family, going to end. At what point will we have progressed enough?
When the state no longer seeks to interfere, by hook or crook, by forbidding or promoting, with the freely made personal choices between consenting adults.
That means no subsidies for “preferred” lifestyles. No laws against sodomy. No laws against plural marriage.
When there are no laws addressing the subject of marriage at all, then we will have gone far enough.
Since people here bring up plural marriage, has anyone on this thread read this article at the American Spectator suggesting that Utah polygamists will be able to use gay marriage as a lever to legalise their polygynous marriage tradition?
Bill wrote – “If marriage is just the linking of any two things recognized as entities by the law or church, why can’t Bill Gates ditch his wife, and marry the Intel Corporation, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, etc”
Indeed – why can’t he?
You (and Joe and Alexander, along with virtually all social conservatives) are simply making a semantic error. “Marriage”, the contract binding under law, is not the same as “Marriage”, the social/religious convention or statement of intent.
The first is simply a contractual agreement to share property and offer mutual support. Everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference, has the right to enter into binding contracts with other people. Thus it is wrong to deny “legal marriage” to homosexuals, unless you think it is legitimate to prevent homosexuals signing legally enforceable contracts with each other (in which case you must also ban homosexual business partnerships, property ownership, and so on).
Marriage, the social/religious convention, is not a matter for the law. People are quite entitled to frown on or refuse to recognise social constructs such as “gay marriage”. A voluntary organisation such as a church can quite legitimately “ban” (i.e. refuse to recognise, or reject membership for those who do recognise) homosexual marriage (or women membership, or anything else they choose), but they have no authority whatsoever over non-members.
Thus when homosexuals sign legally binding agreements to share property and offer mutual support, social conservatives are quite free to say “Ah, but they’re just helping each other – they’re not really married, because marriage can only occur between a man and a woman”. They are quite entitled to hold this view and assert it strongly. But they are *not* entitled to then deny the legal rights that each homosexual partner has, as a result of signing the agreement.
Advocates for recognition of homosexual “marriage” are really only advocating the right to enforce voluntarily agreed contracts between gay men. It is only because of an arbitrary linguistic/historical convention, that the word “marriage” has been used to describe such contracts.
If you still disagree with the idea that homosexuals are entitled to form binding contracts, then by all means put your reasons. But if you think they do have this right, then any further attempt to deny the right to homosexual “marriage”, in the purely legal/contractual sense, is logically impossible. One then falls back to the idea of “refusing to recognise”, in the social sense – in which case not a single libertarian will disagree with you.
“Advocates for recognition of homosexual “marriage” are really only advocating the right to enforce voluntarily agreed contracts between gay men”
…and women, of course. (anyone know how to edit these posts?)
Cobden Bright-
I understand your point. However, the seperation of marriage in the religious sense and marriage as a purely contractual agreement is surely a modern construct. Marriage, traditionally, was always the religious sense, and should reamain so.
I would argue against even legal unions because, as I stated earlier, it is the Government, or State- however you wish to phrase it- endorsing an act that is inherently detrimental to “society”- and most particularly to the family. Marriage, in the religious sense, should be promoted as the ideal. However, why endorse something less than the ideal? No-one makes people engage in an active homosexual relationship- I know people are born gay, but they still have a choice. If they choose this lifestyle then that is up to them, but this lifestyle should not be defended by the Law.
As was mentioned in another post, when does the “progress” end? If you allow one thing, then at some point down the line you’ll allow the next step and so forth. A morally healthy country is good for business, it is productive, successful. Iniquity breeds iniquity and is bad for business. Therefore, the Government should invest in the family, and discourage counterproductive actions.
The Spectator article refers not to gay marriage but to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Lawrence case, in which it overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law. Briefly, it expands on the reasoning in Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence that states constitutionally barred from passing laws based on community disapproval of the particular practice (sodomy) the Court ruled on in Lawrence would be barred as well from passing or enforcing laws similarly based affecting a variety of other practices. Polygamy is certainly one.
Note that what is involved here are the legal consequences of the Court’s reasoning, not a movement that is seeking to promote public acceptance first of gay marriange, then of plural marriage and God knows what else. Actually the constituency for throwing out laws against plural marriages is entirely separate from that for gay marriages, for obvious reasons. However the Court’s reasoning in Lawrence does in fact appear to have implications stretching far beyond state sodomy laws.
The idea that marriage is, or can be in western society, a purely private arrangement, is notional at best. At worst…well, I’d like some of what you’re smoking.
Marriage is an act that takes place in society. As much as you can reason things out, and reduce people and their actions to aggregate numbers and discrete actions, society is like an organism, and you can’t run about lopping off bits here and there without effecting the other bit.
The idea of privatising marriage entirely at this stage is nuts. Sorry, it’s loony.
We’ve developed a system of property rights that hinges in large part on stable family systems. If you privatize the family system… well, then you throw property disputes concurrent with marriage, divorce, and testacy into the canonical courts.
You dislike the church state confluence now? Wait ’til the Pope decides who can keep the house and get custody of the kids.
The opposite problem is much more likely, however.
Canadian politicians are seriously voicing the opinion that the Pope is guilty of hate crimes for criticizing gay marriage. In fact, one of the criticisms of the recent gay marriage decision in Canada is that by implication, the churches must now perform gay marriage or be guilty of bias crimes against gays. Ooooops.
If we were operating in a vacuum, there’d be all sorts of fun things to do. We could have a straight continent for all the straight people who are anarcho-capitalists who hate gays. We could have a gay collectivist country for gay socialists who hate straights. Hell, we could have a country where free beer was handed out in place of free health care. The point being as long as we are going to agitate for ideal solutions, we might as well go for broke.
Sadly, the real world doesn’t work that way, and it can’t be re-jiggered. We have the institutions we have because they have been proven to work, and we can’t just discard them on the whims of the moment.
And for what it’s worth, you can keep spitting out the term “conservative” as a curse word. But if you read Hayek, you realize that his libertarian argument – like Friedman’s – is profoundly conservative. The libertarianism I believe in doesn’t give me the right to do whatever the hell I want, it gives me the right to do most of the things I want, so long as they don’t harm my neighbors, or the accreted social structure on which my (and my neighbors’) stability rests. In fact, my argument immediately above about the accretion of social habits, and the destructiveness of discarding them based on the latest social fad, is cribbed pretty much straight from Road to Serfdom and Constitution of Liberty.
And Cobden, I’m fine with something like civil unions – a contractual basis for men, or women, to form a relationship that has the benefits and burdens of marriage. But to drop the status of the basic building block of our society to the legal status of a subway ticket would be to ignore the realities of our social structure. We do that at our peril.
Bill, perhaps I missed it (this is a HUGE comments thread), but is it not possible for the very social system you wish to uphold to be unable to successfully adapt to man-man and woman-woman marriages? “…we figure out what works,” right? Once a culture advances past the stage of needing it’s people to reproduce repetitively in order to sustain family units (think large families in agrarian countries), the idea that non-tradional families destroy society seems far-fetched. Prosperous nations don’t need traditional family units to survive. As I see it, the period we live in now is transitionary…and we’ll pull through it like humans have always done in the past.
Single moms get the hang of raising children and pass the knowledge down the line. Social support groups form almost spontaneously to help those in need. People learn from their mistakes. The process doesn’t just get stuck in “broken family > crime > government subsidy,” it moves along and changes.
It seems much of your arguement hinges on this and I cannot understand how such doom-and-gloom can be assumed to occur. Especially when your position states we must treat some people differently in a legal sense simply because they love the same sex.
There is a societal problem with plural marriage, especially in a species that reproduces an even 50-50 gender distribution.
Suppose there is a place where the men are allowed to marry, say 4 wives. Yet the population is half and half, male and female. That means that for every guy who marries four women, (with all the attendent headaches that can cause) there are 3 other men who will not marry. Toss in strong prohibition on homosexuality, and you have a powder keg waiting to go off.
The Alpha male is in constant danger of being bumped off by the beta males, who have the same sexual and reproductive urges as everyone else. There are three of them, and only one Alpha.
Ah, but this particular Alpha is a smart guy. He finds a way to talk the other three into killing themselves. Blames their frustration not on the fact that his wealth has attracted his wives, but that some scapegoat is the cause for the beta’s ills. That the betas should kill these scapegoats, and if they die in the process, they will be revered as martyrs and even, as an added incentive, makes up some fable about such martyrs getting 72 virgins (or raisins) in the afterlife for killing “infidels”
I know it sounds far fetched, but think for a moment. Pair bonding does provide a benefit to society, since everyone gets laid, more co-operation is achievable. Societies can form, with all the inherent benefits to the individual members of that society.
The real problem here is that societies and their institutions have evolved unconsciously. We are little aware of why things are the way they are, why the rules and taboos are such, and don’t find out until the situation changes to threaten the evolved institutions.
The sexual revolution is only 40 years old, brought about by medical technology which made recreative sex free of either disease or fertility a viable option. Prior to that, it wasn’t (and the perception still outstrips the reality, as the AIDS epidemic has shown.) Marriage and sexual mores and taboos did not result because of sex, but because of the consequences of sex, both to the individual and society. And if you want to change those taboos, those mores and that institution, you better take a long hard, cold look at the potential side effects of your actions.
And it still is not bigotry to point out the potential negative consequences to either society or the individual of those changes.
Charles Hueter you ask of Omnibus Bill: It seems much of your arguement hinges on this and I cannot understand how such doom-and-gloom can be assumed to occur. Especially when your position states we must treat some people differently in a legal sense simply because they love the same sex.
The fact is – this legislation has far reaching knock-on effects that do not stop at just treating people the same in any legal sense.
By widening the idea of legal bindings of the “traditional marriage” to include new forms of marriage you dilute the core idea of marriage itself.
In our current society this seems such a *happy*, *feelgood* thing at first glance because its wrapped up in “equality/anti-discrimination” language, BUT – we have already seen the effects (the doom and gloom) of legislation which dilutes the idea of family and advocates non-marriage… it brings about less successful family structures and causes much greater problems for the children and parents and society at large.
Enacting further legislation that gives our children, our families and our society at large less basic security and more problems is what – WISE?
I cannot see any wit or wisdom in that.
Oh it might feel good to be able to say “our society discriminates against no-one” …. but it would be a lie because the only society in which that ideal can actually exist is in a society of one.
When you widen the idea of marriage –
-How long before you reach this step… (I know this has already been tried in the courts).. “marriage by association”… anyone who has an affair claiming marriage rights on the grounds that they were acting like a married couple. Have an affair then sue for a share of the other party’s house!!!
What is going on with this legislation is the dissolution of marriage…. and that is a bad thing because it adversely affects us all … it makes relationships less stable – destabilises the upbringing of children and destabilises society.
Maybe your idea of liberty is a less stable society for some chaotic end goal of your own imagining- if so please don’t be surprised that I disagree on its benefits… it doesn’t make me a gay hating bastard. The way I see it – Unstable societies usually create enough of their own hate filled people without me contributing… and by destabilising society you are starting a revolution that will sweep around until it eventually comes back to bite you.
Charles H,
There is transition at work in society, I agree. Society never stands still. But that sort of lightweight stuff ticks away on the second hand of the clock. Human reproduction and the settlement between the sexes to maximise its success moves with the hour hand. It is Darwinian, our genetic inheritance and that inheritance IS marriage and a high child care value.
Your somewhat touching belief that single mum’s and these hideous-sounding, social worker infested, spontaneously arising support group’s can offer an alternative – or anything beyond childhood psychosis – leaves me wondering what you really know about life.
Cobden Bright
You argue well for contractual obligations. These should be open to everyone who happens to co-habit, sexually or not. There is, therefore, no particular case for a homosexual contract that does not apply equally to maiden aunts. But is that enough for the gay marriage lobby or does it really crave the status of heterosexual marriage, ie absolute equality? If not, then it should argue with due chivalry for the maiden aunt’s!
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to fathom out who’s said what where, especially in brief periods snatched from work.
But I am understanding more where the social conservatives are coming from, and it reminds me a little of various Renaissance views of the ‘natural order.’
I still fail to see why state recognition of contractual agreements between two men or two women would damage society, though.
I’m not sure what to make of Alexander’s point about marrriage being Christian. Where does that leave Muslims, Jews, atheists, half-hearted believers who get married in Church because it’s the ‘done thing’?
I would suggest that there is a great deal of homophobia in the sense of fear of gayness. I am against the state practising ‘positive’ discrimination, I am against the patronising of minority groups, and I am aware there is a lot of whining and bleating. But it does not seem to me that there is a gay menace at the door.
For every instance of a white, straight, male, middle-class, leftie local-authority type making some half-educated and unintelligent pronouncement, there are many instances of inequality to gay people touching matters of inheritance, immigration, welfare – eurgh! – and so forth.
As I say, I’m aware of idiocies that happen in the state sector, but I do think that much of the apprehension displayed is overblown.
I don’t understand why social conservatives aren’t more alarmed by bastardy, the high rate of divorce, the inability of people to bring up their kids properly… things straight people do for themselves without any help from the state and without the involvement of gay people.
Perhaps they are more alarmed. But I think the present state of marriage as a whole is a bigger threat to the social institution than anything gay that happens outside that sphere.
As to stifling dissent, I can see that this would apply to matters of race. We have reached the point where a lot of people are touchy-feely about sexual orientation, but the touchy-feelies say nothing when other minorities express their distaste. Labour MPs say things about gay people that would have them disciplined were they about black people.
I’ve had my eyes open this week, but the only gay thing I’ve come across is Adam off The Archers.
Social conservatives might take solace in the fact that the law still discriminates against homosexuality in many ways aside from marriage.
Ian,
Social conservatives are hardly Rousseau-types, if that’s what you are saying. We assuredly differ, though, and I can’t claim to speak for anyone but myself. However, I do not think my fellow fogeys are fearful of homosexuals or homosexuality. It isn’t the issue. Marriage is the issue.
You are right about the terrible harm social liberalism has done over the last forty years. Social conservatives want to repair it all. I am convinced that the resistance to that comes not from minorities (who differ among themselves and do not have one voice), nor even from the eponymous, marxist-oriented activists, but from the very victims of social liberalism. I believe that they perceive themselves to have been disadvantaged, even damaged, by their personal experiences. Accordingly, they suffer a compensatory and defensive reaction to any careless, conservative assertion to that effect. We are talking about real lives here. It takes personal courage for such people to face the evidence of their own hearts.
Presently, social conservatives have much principle but little real influence – an uncomfortable position. But we will cleave to our truth and await the day when more people can hear it.
Ian, you say: I don’t understand why social conservatives aren’t more alarmed by bastardy, the high rate of divorce, the inability of people to bring up their kids properly… things straight people do for themselves without any help from the state and without the involvement of gay people.
The fear is not of homosexuals per se – but of pro”GAY” and marxist politics… which uses extremist tactics of bringing about change through media indoctrination, villification of opposing views, the indoctrination of children and advocates dissolution of heterosexual family life (which holds our society together) by stealthy incremental “equality and anti-discrimination” legislation, etc…
Its all good and honourable saying “don’t discriminate against homosexuals”… but when you ask us not to discriminate against political groups who are actively trying to destroy the bedrock on which our society is based – that is a step too far.
Ian, oops – I deleted part of my last comment by mistake…
beneath the quote I took from you it should have said:
The concerns you speak of are the brought about through the lessening of the concept of marriage and through recent legislation… this future legislation widening of the legal concept of marriage is more of the same and will worsen the very problems you highlight.
Joe,
Homosexuals are not a ‘political group who are actively trying to destroy the bedrock on which our society is based’
Are you even capable of seeing the world as it actually is or is your mind totally given over to paranoid fantasies of immanent apocalypse?
Paul Coulam, weyhey would you believe it.. we actually agree on something: Homosexuals are not a political group!!!
– so why do you need to twist my words to make it appear that I said they are?… I made the point very clearly in several comments that I was talking about pro”Gay”political and marxist lobbyists … not homosexuals as a whole.
The pro”Gay” politicos etc…would have us believe that they do speak for all homosexuals – and they also would have us believe that all morality and goodness flows from their ideology.
Because I differ from this perspective, and dare to point out that in reality that they have formulated and helped force legislative mistakes on us in the past and are continuing to do so through various forms, doesn’t makes me paranoid, a fantasist nor a doom sayer of apocalypse… the closest term I can think of for that is REALIST.
Legislation and indoctrination that have had a cumulative detrimental effect on society in the past and present will continue to have a detrimental effect in future… I think that has something to do with Logic and REALITY! Note: no mention of “apocalypse”, no “paranoia”, no fantasy… just plain simple reasoning.
As for my capabilities of seeing the world…. it was you who incorrectly saw what I had written. You made an assumption based on your own imaginings. Then you attacked me because of your imaginings…
“paranoia” is the word that does spring to mind for actions based on those sort of thoughts- your thoughts- your actions… may I humbly suggest that it is your paranoia!
Joe,
You really must remember what you have written previously, this is an exact quotation of yours from earlier in this thread:
“when one small “political group” (and to be gay most surely is to be openly and extremely political)”
Why don’t you just ‘fess up and admit that you are a disgusting bigoted homophobe like Alex Singleton suggested.
Paul, If you really must – you can go back through my posts and you will find that I earlier explained my use of inverted comma’s to try and differentiate between gay, gay and “Gay” (political) etc… and I also previously apologised for any errors where I may have left these made grammer mistakes that cause confusion over this.
As for me being phobic…. absolutely – I am an IDIOTOPHOBE completely and utterly…with regards to politics- any individual or group acting idiotically tends to piss me off. The slow destruction of marriage and the family is idiotic because it eats away at our society. I make no excuse for being phobic about idiot political groups and individuals who do stupid things like that.
To cast me as a “homophobe” is a different matter… that is villification in the Marxist heckling mode where the heckler cannot find an appropriate argument with which to reply and so resorts to name calling etc…
Paul – if your ideals have true worth then you can do better than that. If not then its time to reconsider your ideology.
Joe, my idea of liberty includes being free to live with and love those we wish to. You argue that there is a collective danger to all of us if this occurs. This is where I disagree, because not once have I ever felt threatened by the erosion of traditional marriage. Perhaps you do, but your fears are not worth justifying the continued second-quality status homosexuals are stuck with by imposing limits on their freedom.
I’m talking about “official marriage” of course, and I don’t understand why some people feel so compelled to have their relationships vetted by the state (yes, I want marriage privatized).
It’s almost like you’re making the arguement others use to (among other things) prohibit public smoking: this activity directly and indirectly hurts others so therefore it should be restricted. It’s the assumption and prescription of collective guilt and I can’t agree with that.
Guessedworker, I had hoped for a better response than questioning my exposure to the world. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear about the automatic social response to people in need of help. I don’t support having government social workers run around solving relationship problems. Think of the work NGOs, churches, and non-profits do. Those are the kinds of social reflexes I’m talking about, educating and supporting people who have screwed up or fallen on hard times.
Cultural and biological evolution take place on two different scales of time, yes. What I am saying is that humans no longer feel the intense classical Darwinian pressures to survive on a basic level. We still have to find a way to support ourselves, but I posit that the industrial world has moved past the need to rely on man-woman relationships to ensure success. I say the hour hand has clicked past another mark.
Charles, If you wish to conceive of all homosexuals as victims then I doubt if anything I can say will change your mind… If the “equality” you seek for homosexuals means that you are for widening the legal idea of traditional marriage – then we will remain at odds because we have different priorities.
My priority lies with protecting the basic structure on which our society is built… I base my ideas on the understanding that previous legislation (combined with the associated “equality” indoctrination etc) has already weakened the concept of marriage – which in turn heavily adds to the breakdown of family life on which our society is based- thus it affects our society (all of us) detrimentally. The further legislation and indoctrination of which we are discussing seems specifically designed to weaken the original concept of marriage and family life even further. I cannot imagine any way that this will improve our society or daily life IN THE LONG TERM. I really think that by following the agenda on which this legislation was conceived you are shooting yourself in the foot. But that is only my opinion and you obviously disagree.
It is not a matter like public smoking… where people can leave the room if they don’t like it… we are an integral part of society.
Nor has it anything to do with guilt.
It is a case of drawing up limits of how much freedom we can allow each other in order to protect the freedoms we enjoy. History shows that if we allow marxist style control freaks too much freedom we end up as slaves. So sadly some ideals get necessarily restricted- not just homosexual marriages.. this affects everyone.
Consider this: I would have absolutely no problem with same sex marriages… IF there were no political groups intent on subverting and destroying traditional heterosexual marriage, family life, in their course of trying to control society as they and only they see fit. It is only the fact that these political organisations are in existance and that they have been and are still actively subverting our society that there is a need to oppose their ideologies and actions.
They are not content with equality they want control… (as only they know best -dont you know) Their existance is what creates my resistance!
Of course if you can prove to me that I am wrong about these groups objectives or the effect it will have on marriage and the family – then I am all ears (eyes?)
Ian: Lets be blunt about this. Gays want gay marriage to avoid getting killed. They want people to stop treating them like immoral dangers and the such, and think that if they have the identical contract that straights do, folks will confuse them for straights. And that will lessen the acts of violence, intolerance and discrimination.
But it is not the same. As much as it may pain some, marriage has nothing to do with love, or really sex. The reason why religions and governments encourage marriage has to do with children. How those children will turn out, and whether they will grow up to be a detriment to society, a threat to the lives and freedoms of others, or not.
Gays and gay sex are not a threat. Dismissing or seeking some psychological excuse to ignore the potential consequences does not change the reality of the situation.
And many social conservatives are worried about the terrible state that marriage is in these days, worried about bastardry, adultery, and the rest. And are trying to push that back in both small ways and large. But then some want to make marriage more inclusive, for reasons that have nothing to do with the function it serves in society.
There is the issue of children involved, which is central to all this. Does gay marriage automatically allow gay parents to adopt? When you put gays and children together in the same issue, and you couple it with the argument that “gays can’t help it”, you are going to alienate a large segment of the voting populace.
While you may be talking about the desires, what other are hearing and care about is the action. There are still plenty of folks who are uncomfortable with that confluence and feel the gay community has not done enough to repudiate organizations like NAMBLA. The relative silence is troubling.
There is a middle ground, that you don’t talk about. Civil unions. An institution that would allow many of the same benefits as marriage, without calling it that. Thereby maintaining the special function that marriage has in society, without expanding it to the point where it becomes meaningless and ineffective. Now, would a civil union suffice to counteract the discrimination and intolerance gays suffer? I think it will be a step in the right direction. I also think that trying to go for gay marriage and pretending the issues are the same, would result in a backlash that would be worse than what goes on now.
And calling them who point this out bigots, or scared is not effective. It comes across as infantile, and ruins support for your cause. Instead of seeking motives in the tea leaves, read what they write, and respond to the issues at hand. Anything else is simply wasted effort, even counterproductive to your goals.
Ben, although I’ve followed others in using the word ‘marriage’ and not every time distinguished it from ‘civil union,’ until someone about twenty posts up clarified the matter for everyone, I think you’ll find that I have spoken favourably of (traditiona;, heterosexual) marriage and I have not insisted that religions extend this privilege to gay people.
I don’t think you should be too hard on me for this. After all, we speak of childless couples as married, we talk about people marrying godlessly in registry offices: so we fail to distinguish between ‘civil union’ and ‘religious sacrament’ all the time.
And no, gay ‘marriage’ wouldn’t automatically allow gay people to adopt. After all, it doesn’t automatically allow straight people to adopt, does it?
I haven’t called anyone a bigot. Sure, I called someone a socialist, and he insinuated I was part of a marxist cabal, but these are both untrue. I’m trying to understand what motivates the presumption that gay people getting recognition for their partnerships will somehow make what straight people do go to the dogs.
As I recall, the authoritative religious statement of marriage in this country says more about devotion mirroring the love of Christ for his Church than it does about children. That is the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer. The marriage vows themselves do not make a commitment to go forth and multiply.
Perhaps recognising civil unions for gay people would sharpen the social conservative distinction between partnership and marriage.
Oh, and I believe the gay community in general does repudiate NAMBLA. From what I remember reading some years ago, the problem was a ‘community-leadership-type-global-group’ called ILGA, which recognised it, though there was a lot of opposition to it. NAMBLA may no longer be in ILGA.
But ILGA no more speaks for the gay community than Rowan Williams speaks for Anglicans or the hook-handed mullah speaks for the Muslim community in this country.
The problem with such ‘community organisations’ is that they’re so PC they fall over themselves. I’m sure ILGA would have Amnesty International and Greenpeace as affiliates if they were put to the ballot.
I don’t know any gay people who believe that concern about global warming has anything to do with their sexuality.
I’d suggest the reason the relative silence is troubling to you is because most gay people have never heard of NAMBLA. Why should they have? I bet most of them have never heard of ILGA, either.
The “authoritative religious statement of marriage in this country” only works if you recognise the authority of that church “Established by Law and Religion.” I was affecting to be more social conservative than the social conservatives, who may, for all I know, belong to schismatic and heretical sects outside the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church.
And no, I’m not taking the piss. I love the language of the 1662, its obsession with Anabaptists, its cadences and so on. Whatever CofE clergy may say, 1662 is still the authoritative document.
The Thirty-Nine Articles do at least say – I quote from memory – “It is lawful for good Christian Men, at the Discretion of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and to serve in the wars.”
Personally, I’d be worried about encouraging marriage in churches or mosques or whatever which preached that it was always wrong to remove tyrants by force. There would then be no society left to defend or socially to engineer or to let develop as its individual members saw fit in non-coercive and freely-chosen contracts.
You will understand that I’m talking traditional, heterosexual marriage here, not civil unions.
As much as it may pain Ben, marriage in the CofE does have more to do with devotion and fidelity, through times of prosperity and times of persecution, a temporal reflection of the love of Christ for his Church. Marriage is a noble sacrament in the Church’s teaching.
I understand the Bible celebrates the love of David and Jonathan. Not marriage, but there was a kind of civil union thang going on there in so far as David’s courtiers recognised the place Jonathan had in David’s heart.
The Bible is quite big on love. David and Jonathan, the Song of Solomon, the love of Christ for his Church, the love of Christ for his Apostles, for Mary Magdalen…. It knocks all the “begats” into a cocked hat.
The more I think about it, the more I think it is rather vulgar and unchristian to hijack marriage as a baby-making machine.
It is about love, pure and simple.
Ian, If you live by the creed of love then you are correct in one way “It is about love, pure and simple.”
But Love is not just about sexuality…
There are much greater aspects of Love- for example: the recognition and acceptance of all of creation as a part and parcel of your own existance.
Within that part of existance which we call humanity is a subset which we could call “Society”… again within society there are many subsets one small one of which would be “Homosexuality” and an even smaller subset within Homosexuality would be the group of “Homosexual couples” an even smaller group within that subset would be the group of “homosexual couples who wish to ACT as though they are a Heterosexual couples
Fair enough no problem so far… If those couples wish to ACT like a heterosexual married couple I have no problem with that.
But unfortunately for this last subset there are associated problems that reflect and affect badly on their cherished ideals. These problems all come together when the DEMAND is made that they actually ARE legally recognised as Heterosexual couples!
For a whole host of reasons – the idea of Marriage is now under attack and now here is this legislation trying to legally force on the whole population a new definition to try to make one of society’s main bonding structures less cohesive.
So if we are acting through Love – what do we do…
I’m sorry Ian – but as I see it Society is more important and because it contains ALL the people… and the onus is on us to try and love them ALL to the best of our ability- not just a chosen few.
Looking at this through the creed of love – to enforce legislation to make a very small percentage of Society feel happier but which in all probability does more damage than good to the WHOLE of society, and even carries with it the possibility that it could cause a backlash that damages homosexual standing within society- at this time in our history, when homosexuals have gained so much equality it seems a very ill thought out thing to do.
Consider this: I would have absolutely no problem with same sex marriages… IF there were no political groups intent on subverting and destroying traditional heterosexual marriage, family life, in their course of trying to control society as they and only they see fit. It is only the fact that these political organisations are in existance and that they have been and are still actively subverting our society that there is a need to oppose their ideologies and actions.
They are not content with equality they want control… (as only they know best -dont you know) Their existance is what creates my resistance!
Joe, this is the “collective guilt” thing I was talking about. Perhaps a better term is collective punishment. You see entities engaged in activities contrary to your values and therefore want them stopped. However, since they are part of a larger group (straights and gay supporters of homosexual marriage), you would deny the entire group that freedom.
I’ve got to admit, your worry seems too conspiratorial for me. Can you point me to or name the organizations and people deliberately seeking the destruction of traditional marriage and family life as a result of attempting to impose control on society? That’s what it seems you fear, and if it is the case that there are neo-Marxist homosexual tyrants out there, I’d certainly want to know about them. I don’t support any activity or group of people that attack freedom like that.
In a sense, yes, I believe homosexuals are “victims” of a immorally discriminatory legal code. Humans must be treated equally under the law, especially if our law is going to extend into human affairs beyond obvious crimes such as murder, theft, and fraud.
I disagree that the traditional family and social structure is needed anymore in today’s wealthy nations, so I don’t see much point in attempting to conserve it through law.
Charles, I’m sorry – no feelings of guilt or punishment, collective or otherwise, are entertained in my head with regard to this. That must be growing out of your idea of my idea.
My (sad but totally unguilty) feelings with regard to this come from trying to divide the best of what is available to create the most conducive environment for “improvement”(dare I use that word?) with regard to everyones ability to help themselves.
If you know of a better way to put limits where limits must be put, while at the same time avoiding destroying the foundations of society while building for the future- let me know.
You have every right to regard homosexuals as victims – but realise that is a product of your opinion and also is a massive generalisation. I say this from the standpoint of knowing homosexuals, living within what I would describe as the “overtly conservative” small town societies I often inhabit, who would definitely not agree with your ideas – so please don’t expect me to generalise in it with you.
As for the conspiratorial – maybe it is very conspiratorial, maybe it isn’t, maybe that is a product of the form of writing I’ve used for these comments… What matters is that I’ve based my ideas on the logic formed from the facts that are freely available – not from the emotions raised by judging people as good or bad because their sexual preference or ability to produce children within a partnership might be different to mine.
With regard to “neo-Marxist homosexual tyrants” …{Grrrrreat wording Charles – I love it.. Thats a name to keep}… as for me naming groups like that (the NMHT – yeaaahhhh brilliant) which are provably anti-family… why not just choose any far left wing group or think tank… most of them vary from “quite” to very anti-family… though to my knowledge I’m not sure that the words “anti-family” are used as headlines in their literature. The destruction/dissolution/removal of marriage is most definitely anti-family … and suchlike things are indirectly supported by many left wing groups and have been openly supported by several on this list -including those (hey you too! )who claim to stand up for liberty(!!!!! – I take it that is “individual” liberty with no room for “family liberty” at all?)
Maybe you don’t realise how the raising of children in ordered family enviroments is the proven best structure for their growth and security … and maybe you don’t see how the the family structure, based on “traditional marriage”, still provides the largest base system from which are drawn the people on whom our business, education and welfare systems exist… maybe you don’t WANT to see it.
Whatever reasons you personally have for disliking even hating it are your “personal” reasons… they are not my reasons for opposing you and liking it.
I don’t know where you got the idea that “humans” must be treated equally under the law… that is pure fiction… for example children and adults are different and must be treated very differently as must mentally ill patients. The law is drawn up to suit specific circumstances and then nuances of law develop as cases come to court or are directed through parliament. But none of us are treated equally nor should we be – we are all different.
We as individuals are not perfect – some of us try to do our best – some of us don’t give a shit. Life is not fair. The best we can do is even it up and give everyone the best opportunity to make the best of what they’ve got.
You may not think my ideas are the best – but then I don’t like your’s …I think they will hurt not just me and those I call family but also you yourself and whoever you call family.
But as beings go I am pretty stupid… its probably best if you forget everything I say and just keep your eyes open and THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Have a good weekend 🙂
Couple points.
It’s easy for Brits to say gay isn’t political. Here in the states, we have same sex couples who live together. No big deal.
We also have the gay lobby, which is, well, shrill, overemotional and stalinist in its tactics.
A few months back, prior to our big Supreme Court decision, Senator Rick Santorum, a conservative, said that he hoped the Supreme Court didn’t adopt the rationale urged by the gay rights groups in a case involving the Texas anti-sodomy law. He explained that if that broad-based rationale was adopted – that moral judgments and judgments based on tradition cannot form the basis for state action – then there is nothing that could allow the state to prevent polygamy, polyamorous marriage, bestiality, and a whole range of odious behaviors.
For his troubles, Santorum was labeled a bigot, a loony, an extremist, and paranoid. The Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights umbrella group, did most of the labeling.
After the Supreme Court decision, Human Rights Campaign immediately began banging the drum for gay marriage, and the polyamorists and Utah bigamists hitched their wagons to HRC’s campaign.
This week, when the Episcopal Church in America voted in an openly gay bishop, HRC provided spokespersons to major news outlets. The most memorable of these press appearances was by the Counsel (senior attorney) for HRC, who appeared on CNN. While touting the Episcopal Church’s action, she stated this: “While I’m not a member of the Episcopal Church, or any other church for that matter, I am a lifelong lesbian and I believe it’s about time these churches brought their policies in line with what they ought to be.”
We will get to see how that “what they ought to be” shakes out in Canada, where the hate crimes law adopted at the urging of the gay lobby in that country prohibits discrimination against gays by any organization – that includes churches for whom sodomy is anathema.
Somehow, I don’t think the whole push by the lobbying groups is about tolerance, or equal co-existence. It’s about using the mechanism of the state to stomp out anyone who disapproves. The maneuvers the gay lobby is pulling in Canada are nothing short of revoking individual freedom of conscience for Canadian Christians, Jews and Moslems. And that’s stalinism.
Meanwhile, HRC is pushing an anti-discrimination bill modeled on Canada’s in the U.S. Congress. It doesn’t take a fortune teller to see where this is going.
So yes, the argument against gay marriage from conservatives boils down to three things.
First, many have religious, or traditional religious-based moral objections to it. This is irrelevant to many commenters here.
Second, it’s not like society is evolving a new form of relationship – it’s being thrust on society by an aggressive lobby, through top-down legislation and court cases.
Third, when a tiger smiles,you need to question the motivation of the tiger. The gay lobby in the U.S. – except for the small Log Cabin Republican group – embodies the worst of revolutionary marxist, Frankfurt school (Gramsci, Marcuse) radicalism, and they are interested in destroying a lot of classically liberal and traditional structures in the U.S. When they couch the pro-gay marriage argument in terms of anti-discrimination laws, it sounds nice, but given social conservatives’ (and Hayekian libertarians’) other misgivings, perhaps it’s understandable that we are worried about the tiger’s smile.
This is one of the best comment threads, by the way, that I have ever seen anywhere in Blogdom… Thanks all, for the content of your arguments.
Omnibus Bill, I can understand your disgust at the shrill and overemotional antics of the gay lobby which seeks to impose its will on everyone else.
But what about the straight lobby?
People like Fred Phelps and his entourage, who picket the funerals of gay men who’ve died of AIDS and shout abuse and wave confrontational placards.
At a funeral, for crying out loud? To my mind, far more disruptive of the social order than anything broached here.
Or the British MPs like the one who opposed equalisation of the age of consent but was quite happy to visit underage Thai ‘masseuses.’
Or the low synecdoche of saying ‘buggery’ every time ‘gay sex’ is meant?
Or the snide insinuation that gay means child-abuser? After all, enough children are raped and beaten and mind-controlled within their families by married men.
And there’ve plenty of straight non-Christians campaigning for women priests, saying the Church should do this, do that. Analogously, many straight non-members of private golf clubs dictating club rules to admit women.
I don’t mean to cause a breach of the peace towards the end of a discussion that is resuming civility, but I’d suggest that it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. Yes, there’s a shrill element in the ‘gay lobby,’ but there are plenty more gay outfits conducting their campaigns with decency and diplomacy. And there is a lot of vituperative homophobia out there.
And for every person like the late Dame Janet [?surname] with a beligerent attitude towards gay people as gay people, never mind as donkey-jacketed activists, there are many people who are wary of the whole gay issue but express their reservations with tact and the will to understand further.
But then, only the most strident people get noticed. There are perhaps thousands of imams in this country preaching something indistinguishable from the platitudes on Thought for the Day, but who hears them?
I’d suggest, too, that the Conservative Party in the UK has to carry some of the blame. If it hadn’t had a large share of utter shits, it wouldn’t have driven so many people into the arms of Labour and worse.
Labour, in turn, doesn’t know jack shit about equality, which it uses as a specious term to cover the redress of perceived wrongs in society by favouring one group over another, regardless of the individuals who make up that group.
Gay people may well be born gay, but they sure as hell aren’t born marxist. But the Left holds out false hopes to them, and there they are. Friends who used to be sound are suddenly recycling things and signing petitions.
I’m not saying the Tories should embrace gay partnerships. That’s up to them: I’m not a member. But I think if some of its representatives had been a damn sight less condemnatory and meddlesome, it wouldn’t have lost so many gay people who were prepared to take the rough of a reactionary attitude to sexuality with the smooth of a radical approach to economic policy.
Ivan Massow, self-made man, would be an egregious example of someone who left the Tory fold for such reasons. I have not bought the Telegraph since it twisted the knife in Michael Portillo’s back – the only leadership candidate Labour members thought would turn round Tory fortunes. Portillo didn’t even have a particularly radical agenda: we understand he had a gay affair at college, and he made no captital of it. But the history was enough to do for him.
The Tories made a mountain out of ‘promoting homosexuality’ by local authorities. How do you promote homosexuality? Do you give out a free blowjob with every planning application? For every copy of Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin, the book that spurred the whole thing, there were dozens of copies of Janet and John books. The book may well have been of help to children in such households, and I’d think the other children could come across the odd ‘weird’ book without getting their heads screwed. After all, Dr Seuss did me no harm. Neither did certain of Virgil’s Eclogues, or Tibullus, or the story of Patroclus or Nisus and Euryalus.
But the Ancients were pretty sound. I don’t approve of christiani ad leones, but you have to admire a system that allowed an Emperor to make his horse consul. And parcere subiectis et debellare superbos isn’t a bad basis for foreign policy. They understood family and hospitality as well as anyone. Pity about the slavery.
But back to less glorious times, take the whole ‘single parent’ thing, where single parents were castigated en masse. Two good friends of mine were brought up in single-parent families: they were in their infancy when their mothers were widowed. They did not remarry. The poor kids had to come to terms – at a vulnerable age – with the loss of a parent, and all they heard was how bad single mothers were.
I think out of the two main parties in Britain, the Tories should be inherently more alive to gay issues. It is the party that gave us the first Jewish Prime Minister, and the only woman. It really ought to be an ‘inclusive’ party, not in the touchy-feely sense, but meaning that it reaches out to all people to give them back more control over their own lives and remove the burdens of the state that hold them back. Everyone who runs a business or gets a grip on their own life shouldn’t even give Labour a thought. Fat chance as things stand.
After all, what’s promoted the gay ‘community,’ opportunities for gay people, recognition, tolerance and all the rest?
Good old capitalism, that’s what. Gay people didn’t first get together in state-run groups. They got together in bars and other businesses whose owners were prepared to take a risk. That’s why Stonewall is the name of a bar and not a community centre that meets alternate Thursdays in a town hall except during Ramadan and Winterval. The commercial gay ‘scene’ has done more for gay people than any government. Just look at any marxist country. Cuba? No, the marxist state persecutes gays there. Red China?
And why ‘marxist’ for the gay lobby? Haven’t you ever heard a Socialist Worker say homosexuality was a bourgeois perversion? Wasn’t Engels keen on the family? Just my impression: I haven’t sullied my mind with marxist literature. Sophocles – who would have been horrified at Phelps’ violation of a burial – can tell me more about the world than Marx and Engels ever could.
Those who deal by collectives will fall by collectives.
Ah, consensus, you elusive tart.
God, the Romans!
You could do what you liked so long as you paid your taxes. And those taxes went on fun things like circuses and extended foreign holidays, not dreary things socialists deem worthy – like the working families tax credit.
They did a hell of a lot for world trade and for capitalism (many Romans worked their butts off in hovels at humble trades and ended up buried in huge mausoleums), and their civil service was amazingly efficient.
And you could eat dormice without animal-rights campaigners getting up in arms.
I’m sure they’d let you carry a gun: you could carry a gladius.
And though they raised debauchery to a fine art, they still valued familia, patria and thought constantly of virtus.
And no one could hold a candle to their filthy verse until Rochester.
It is clear from the specious arguements of the ‘social conservatives’ that all their lengthy rambling about social cataclysm is merely self-deluding rationalization to cover up the fact that they hate and fear gay people. They are simply unable to view gay people as fully human and as deserving of respect as everyone else. Their implausible pretense that they are in someway under threat from an insidious gay conspiracy is just cover for the truth that they are, in fact, the oppressors.
Paul – Your indictment fools itself “ It is clear from the specious arguements of the ‘social conservatives’ ”
How can anything be CLEAR from a specious argument?
I think I catch your drift though – you seem to reflecting on your own mindset: Look – when I change “gay” for “heterosexual” how well your argument applies to your own writings:
“all their lengthy rambling is merely self-deluding rationalization to cover up the fact that they hate and fear HETEROSEXUAL people. They are simply unable to view HETEROSEXUAL people as fully human and as deserving of respect as everyone else. Their implausible pretense that they are in someway under threat from a HETEROSEXUAL conspiracy is just cover for the truth ”
The truth is Paul that you have decided that “GAY” is the ONLY way and you refuse to accept that anyone elses argument has any validity – Those are very tinted glasses to look at the world through.
Joe,
You really are ridiculous. You counter my charge by moving from the specious to the preposterous. Do you really think that I hate and fear heterosexual people? I am very happy for heterosexual people to do just as they please, including getting married and having and raising children. I just wish that some of them would be as benignly disposed towards gay people. You will note that I have not advocated _anything_ in this thread nor have I engaged in any lenghty rambling. I have simply pointed out, with admirable brevity, a truth that must by now be glaringly obvious to all who have read this thread, that Alex was right when he said that social conservatives are motivated not by a love of society but by a tawdry and primitive hatred of gay people.
With every comment you post Joe you reveal more of your wretched, black and corroded soul.
Joe,
You use the phrase, “reflecting on your own mindset”, and I think this is very typical of homosexuals and many, many unfortunately or unjustly wounded people. You and I have to bear in mind how society places a blue chip approval rating on solid, complete and contented people. They, by and large, are not the minorities in our midst. Nor are they those who have been deprived of a whole childhood by the social revolution enacted, mostly, since 1963. They are people like us who have survived pretty much whole, and who quite naturally gravitate towards a conservative view of society’s virtues.
The core of the debate, therefore, is not one of policy or ambition for policy. It is the cleaving between those who can still sense right in the deep cultural sway of our lives and those who, for whatever reason, thrash around for some sense of direction but, being lost, do only harm to themselves and the rest of us. A striking example of this is the complete failure of Paul Coolam, for example, to recognise that the precious institution of marriage is the issue at stake here and not conservative heterosexual attitudes to homosexuality.
I don’t know how you get people like Paul to understand themselves or the higher realm of ideas beyond their own mindset. Perhaps the gap is too great, though I doubt it. If one thinks back to WW2, tyhere was no shortage of self-sacrifice and nobility of mind among homosexuals. There is nothing in homosexuality that prohibits action – and sometimes inaction – for the greater good. It’s just that we don’t seem to hear from these men and women.
Well, social conservatives are likely to lose the marriage debate. It will be regorated to just another lifestyle choice and much harm it will do us as a result.
Now, Paul,. if you have read this – do you understand the conservative mind a little better. I hope so.
Guessedworker,
The ‘precious institution of marriage’ was damaged when it was hijacked by the state. Cobden Bright and Bombadil have explained excellently how marriage can once again be freed from it’s current state of statist perversion.
In fact the actual point of the original post was a speculation on the real motives of social conservatives, everything written by social conservatives on this thread has simply shown that Alex’s analysis was accurate.
In making some sounds about the ‘nobility’ of some homosexuals of whom you feign approval in the second world war you are once again trying to blow smoke in people’s eyes in the hope that they will not see right through you and look upon the stinking, vile hatred that truly lies within.
Homosexuals do not need to seek the worthless approval of those who would oppress them.
Guessedworker, in part I agree with you but I don’t think generalising about everyone based on one persons ramblings is a good idea. Even within groups whose ideology is twisted to extremes every member is an individual and just by talking and interacting with them they eventually realise that we are not so very horrible and that they themselves are not the group. All it takes is one small insight for them to realise they dont KNOW everything- when they realise that then they start to think for themselves. Although we can occasionally have fun taking the piss too 😉
Paul, hello again- and salutations to “The Admirable Brevity” …. apologies for displaying my “wretched, black and corroded soul” … maybe by me throwing it about in the light of day the rough will be knocked of it and the sun will bleach it clean again 🙂
Something PREPOSTEROUSLY RIDICULOUS for you to consider: If Alex is correct – you are a small group within society and it would be so much easier (for us “oppressors”)to eradicate you- but instead “we” …
-enact equality legislation in your favour -yep oppression by forced equality…. hmmmm
– promote homosexual teachings in schools to children below the age of consent… oooh oppression by indoctrinating our children with one sided propaganda that is ANTI- “US”!!!
– rewrite the meaning of words to favour your ideology… hey we’re changing the very meaning of words so that they mean what you want them to mean and so they confuse what we mean but you understand them so thats ok… it is isnt it?????
– enact changes in law to favour your demands at our expense… Yes the best way to hate people is by doing things to HURT ourselves!!! DUH – didn’t you know that!!!!!!
Hey I thought it was you that was supposed to be being oppressed!!!!
Of course it is – how ridiculously preposterously stupid of me!!!
PAUSE FOR ENLIGHTENMENT
Joe,
What tenth rate minds do you imagine you are going to impress with this latest mixture of fantasy and paranoia.
Cobden Bright, Bombadil and others have explained to you over and over again with brilliant lucidity how marriage can be freed from the state and it’s benefits made available to all. I lay no particular stress on the word marriage/ civil unions or whatever – a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Yet you and your fellow ‘social conservatives’ cannot help but regale us with an endless diatribe of apocalyptic doom-mongering and bitter homophobic innuendo dressed up in the clothes of social concern like some shabby tart.
I refuse to be beguiled by this whore in lady’s clothing you keep parading before us like a desperate pimp anxious for his crack money.
Your social concern is a sham, your arguements are threadbare and nothing lies inside you but a festering hatred I understand why you do not like it that I see you for what you are.
Paul,
You are filled with so much aggression it is almost impossible to exchange views with you. I can assure you that you have a weak grasp, at best, of social conservatism. All I can do is to keep repeating to you – and Alex, who is wrong too – that marriage is a cultural artifact long in the making and flowing from our very psychology. It is such because children are most healthily raised thereby. Accordingly, it has been nurtured down the millenia, latterly enjoying the protection of religious and, then, state authorities. If privatised into basic contract law it’s unique force, already cut to the quick by modern mores, easy divorce etc, will be diluted. There is a clear risk that marriage as a private choice will simply not fulfill its social purpose because its meaning is gone.
Joe has said several times that there are politically motivated people at work in the “identity industry” who actively pursue this goal so as to damage the majority. That’s true. But one recognises, of course, that most who follow the liberal agenda are sincere. I happen to think that they have no consequentiality. And that’s what I’m accusing you of. If you can get past your rabid dog mode we could debate actually the institution of marriage.
Paul – when you set out to destroy someones arguement – it helps if you can show that you’ve understood their actual argument… attacking the person with namecalling shows your argument lacks the strength to stand up to scrutiny.
Repeating over and over that my argument is sham doesn’t make it so… that doesn’t even work on yourself -no matter how often you tell yourself that I am hate-filled and homophobic …it does not make me so. Its only a smoke screen for you to hide behind.
Show me how good your argument is by truly “fisking” my argument… let me see how well you can think for yourself – let me see that you are capable of thinking your own argument out for no-one but YOU… otherwise its just piss in the wind.
I guess where my core objection comes in is thus: the social conservatives believe that in this case, the collective welfare is more important than the individual’s. Assuming their conservatism extends into fiscal matters, they usually don’t accept this arguement all the time: witness their opposition to government-backed entitlements, ironclad public schooling, global warming, etc.
However, it is also the same rationale used to justify practically every form of socialist tampering and meddling I can think of. While they may not argue exactly on individual vs. collective grounds, that is what the issue truely rests on.
Joe, you are quite right in saying there are many organizations out there who push gay rights as well as distinctly socialist goals. It is truthful to say the methods some of these groups would (and do…) use to promote their agendas are authoritarian. Additionally, it is also fair to say the desired results of some groups pushing gay rights would result in socialist tyranny. But you can’t use these facts as a way to imply or state gay rights are something to avoid. Those groups are merely hijacking an issue that a great deal of their cultural base believes needs addressing. The best way to defang these groups is to hijack the issue away from them and propose the proper way to addressing homosexual rights…and that would be removing the state from consensual relationships altogether.
I stand by my comment about equality under the law.
Paul, you’d gotten depressingly firey and antagonistic. I have to agree with Joe in part. Chill. 🙂
Ian, you have some nerve. I use buggery because the term “sodomy”, at least in my portion of the western hemisphere, describes pretty much everything that Cotton Mather wouldn’t sanction, including a lot of same sex relations. Must I refer to acts of coitus respectfully now — would the phrase “the holy sacrament of gay sodomy” be respectful enough, or does that have some sarcastic overtone to it that would also offend? Exactly how should one speak so as to avoid offending, and do you believe we need a law to make it so?
Dropping the sarcasm, I think you’re a real shite to lump me in with the marginalized wanker, Fred Phelps, and accuse me of a “snide insinuation that gay means child-abuser”. He’s not taken seriously except by a small lunatic fringe – to point at him as a voice of conservatism would be like pointing at John Wayne Gacy and calling him a spokesman for gays.
I looked at my posts above, and I never made any insinuation equating gays with child molesters. Why don’t you just cry “hatecrime” a few times and be done with it? Or drop an email to the good folks who run Samizdata, and ask them to ban me because my thoughts offend you? It would shut me up, and that is the goal.
As for the marxist comments, yes, in the U.S., the gay lobby – as distinct from individual gays – is a core constituency within the hard left. They aren’t libertarians, they aren’t friends of liberty, they are as stalinist, humorless and overly-sensitive as any Soviet apparatchik, only moreso. They don’t want to liberate marriage from the state, or extend the benefits of marriage to gays per se, they want to tear down the existing social structure. They are no different from the post-colonial theorists who now dominate liberal arts studies in academia, or the folks running the hard left political activist groups like ANSWER. Go read some Marcuse, and then read what the legal scholars and political activists in the gay rights movement in the U.S. are saying, and compare.
And Paul, as for your festering hatred comment, I don’t know whether you are a tit, or an ass, but I’m pretty sure you’re one or the other.
This may reek of “but some of my best friends are…” but my sister is a lesbian, I accept that, we get along fine, and have a good relationship. At present, my wife and I are hosting a British friend who is gay; she is staying with us on her vacation. We attended the church ceremony a few years back when she and her life partner had their partnership blessed. And one of my regulary drinking / football buddies is gay gay gay gay gay. Yes, he is into buggery, he is not offended by the term, and neither of us really gives a damn who the other sleeps with. I don’t condemn, I don’t delve into the details, and I don’t care what my sister and my friends get up to, but I do have a problem with any political movement that I think threatens important social institutions.
I’ve sort of kept these details out because I was pretty curious where the argument would go, and how long it would take folks to invoke the equivalent of Godwin’s law. Thanks, you’ve confirmed my suspicions.
Omnibus Bill, I’m from a different part of the Western hemisphere, and buggery is really anal sex, what one letter to the Telegraph described as “using the main sewer of the human body as a sexual playground,” a phrase which still brings a smile to my face. Given that anal sex is only one part of gay sex, and not a necessary one, and the one least for the faint-of-heart, I called it a “low synecdoche.” I use the word myself, from time to time, but in public debate, I think a more clinical and neutral word is the proper one. We can still think that the concepts represented by neutral words are beautiful or depraved, but it is perhaps better not to prejudice the issue. But thank you for pointing out the different semantic burdens the word carries between our two countries.
I think you’re a real shite
Fair do’s. At least I know where you stand.
Fred Phelps [is] not taken seriously except by a small lunatic fringe – to point at him as a voice of conservatism would be like pointing at John Wayne Gacy and calling him a spokesman for gays.
Indeed. My point entirely.
I was not accusing you of anything, merely canvassing your opinion – or anyone else’s – on extremism tainting the other side of the debate in the world at large. That is the usual meaning of “what about?” Maybe it doesn’t translate to the colonies. 8^)
Why don’t you just cry “hatecrime” a few times and be done with it?
I abhor the idea of “hate crimes.” All crimes are committed out of hate. The only decency in a notion of “hate crime” is that someone who deliberately scrawls racist graffiti over the property of a non-white resident should probably get a stiffer sentence than someone who’s drunk and scrawls football graffiti over the house of someone completely at random. But this is reflected in allowing judges to set anything between a minimum and maximum sentence anyway. “Hate crime” is about groups and collectives, not about individuals.
Or [ask] the good folks who run Samizdata […] to ban me.
This site is private property. They could ban me simply because they take offence at anyone mentioning Virgil, and I’d have to accept that. They could ban me because I have an ‘a’ in my name, and you don’t, even if you insisted on posting thirty-page abusive and ungrammatical essays in Swahili about stamp-collecting, and there’d be absolutely nothing I could do about it. But I take my chances…
Once it had been made clear that the debate was about marriage rather than civil partnership (which I had not appreciated first off), I have attempted to understand what marriage means to social conservatives. Hence my suggestion to look at how seventeenth-century England saw marriage in one of its greatest works of religion and literature, the Book of Common Prayer. What that marvellously learned book says is still orthodox Christianity in England. I thought it a reasonable base to start from.
I called Joe a socialist, he called me a marxist. We got off on the wrong foot but, though he has not addressed all my points and I have not addressed his, I am understanding his position more, and I hope he is fathoming mine out, too.
I am sorry you do not seem to wish to do so.
Charles, yes you are correct to say “the social conservatives believe that in this case, the collective welfare is more important than the individual’s.” but that misses out the fact that there are a whole shower of other people from most shades of the political spectrum who understand how *sometimes* the collective welfare is more important than the individual’s welfare as well as the vice versa. Consider all the wonderful people who knowingly sacrificed themselves for the welfare of others during WW2 …. or for a more modern concept of it consider the death of Mr Spock in Star Trek: “The needs of the many outway the needs of the few”…. and then the reverse occurence of his rebirth when “the many” in the shape of Capt.Kirk&co risk everything to rescue Spock.
Different situations are not the same- though there may be similarities they remain different and therefore require different approaches. Thats why we cross the road with our eyes open.
In a hypothetical situation maybe “Gay” Marriage could be worked into society without problem… but this isn’t hypothetical… this is reality – and the reality here is that a section of society is using this ideology and the twisted idea that (two different things are the same) to get society to destroy itself by harming itself from the inside out.
Our collective security is derived from the civil limits we abide by. Removing the limits removes the collective security – when security lessens fear and hatred increase. With societys grip loosened on the situation- groups and individuals start taking things into their own hands…each pushing the limits to get all they can for themselves- and I am sure you are well aware of just how nasty groups and individuals can be when their modus operandi are greed, hate and fear.
Have you noticed with this thread is how easy it is to take on the mantle of the group persona and to stop thinking for ourselves. When we do that we become trapped and cant think so easily for ourselves as we become stuck in the rigid framework of the group idea. To overcome that group idea I try to avoid the idea of thinking of anyone as “Gay” or “Heterosexual” or even “stupid”… when I label someone else I’m also binding my own thinking. (I have called peoples tactics “Marxist” etc – but only their tactics not them personally)I have tried to keep away from that – apart from in fun- so I hope my ideas are shaped more by reality than by the binds and imaginings of any group idea that I may hold… that doesn’t mean that I can’t agree or disagree with any group or opposing group.
I still don’t see how you imagine that people are treated equally under the law….. I think you might be mistaking the idea of the onus that is placed on us to treat people as fairly(equally?) as possible – but in order to do that we must necessarily make things inequal… and it is only an onus not a Law, because in reality everyone cannot have everything so there obvious are limits to this.
Ominous Bill,
Your sister and your friend may be willing to put up with your repellant homophobic attitudes, perhaps they pity you. I do not.
When freeing the slaves was proposed, ‘social conservatives’ objected, when emancipating women was proposed, ‘social conservatives’ objected, when liberating homosexuals was proposed, ‘social conservatives’ objected.
Spare us the ‘selfless’ concern of the social conservatives. Those of us filled with righteous anger will despise you until the end of time.