Comments on: Gay Marriage: A Way Out, Part 5

By: From Same Sex to Plural Marriage: The Heretofore Elusive Slippery Slope — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:54:08 +0000

[...] what is sometimes erroneously described as marriage privatization), as described my lengthy series here. I am a freelance opinion-monger living in New York City. Cancel [...]

By: VerityJones

VerityJones — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:55:17 +0000

sorry, I wasn’t able to find much on Mass marriage impact. You can read some stuff if you google, but it seems mostly slanted one side or another.

By: VerityJones

VerityJones — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:20:29 +0000

bamazook -- I agree with you that a lot of the problems seem to be generational. It's really too bad that the nascent gay rights movement had to coincide with the sexual revolution. Attempts to live out those ideals have presented no end of real emotional, psychological and physical health costs. Many gay Baby Boomers cling to a gay identity that they equate with a lifestyle of "sexual freedom" -- and many in Gen X assumed it, too, as an extension of their own glorification of "self-expression." In turn, they still influence too many younger men, hence, rising. I'm not advocating Victorian morals, just an approach that brings in more self-discipline, responsibility, kindness and commitment to what is healthy.

As for gay adoption, I just want same-sex parents to serious examine and remedy any difficulties the same-sex parental unit may present for their children and not be defensive about it.

I'll look into some of the data on how marriage has changed in Massachusetts or the Netherlands in the next few days.

By: VerityJones

VerityJones — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:03:01 +0000

"Do you not see the irony in denying gay people the right to marry, and speaking of the institution of marriage as of crucial importance to society and culture, and then simultaneously criticizing the culture of many gay people? ...But it takes a certain level of sadism to criticize those aspects and advance them as a reason for continuing to deny gays the right to marry. (I realize you've said you are for marriage equality, but you're still advancing your criticisms of "gay culture" as plausible arguments against marriage equality)."

If the lack of access to legal marriage for gay men was responsible for the negative aspects of gay men's culture or if it had been a point in this debate, then perhaps you could feasibly accuse someone of being sadistic for using those aspects of gay culture as an argument against gay marriage or there might be some irony in the whole thing. As it is, I've never seen evidence presented for such an argument. I'd also like to point out that someone could be unintentionally cruel, and perhaps that's what you meant, but they could not be unintentionally sadistic, since by it's very definition sadism involves intention. Therefore, you'd have to prove that I had some knowledge of this correlation/causation argument for your accusation of sadism to stick. I do take exception to it, especially as I haven't actually advanced arguments against gay marriage based on criticisms of gay culture, or really at all for that matter. I did speculate on possible negative impact scenarios. I repeatedly asserted support for gay unions and gave, I thought, a persuasive reason or two for my position. When someone who supports legal unions for gays says "marriage is an important societal institution and changing it isn't to be undertaken lightly and gays shouldn't try to shut down debate and here's why" that doesn't actually hurt gays.

Yet, because I had pointed out some interesting or important information brought up by the other side about the importance of marriage and marriage stability for children's well-being, I'd essentially been called a bigot anyway. I criticized the gay rights proponents for this type of knee-jerk reaction and criticized the strategy for attaching the issue of gay marriage to civil rights movement issues, which I see as different enough to be unconvincing. I also made my criticisms of gay culture, since it is practically verboten to do so and still support gay marriage.

To summarize my main points, the debate around gay marriage could be a lot more productive if handled by people making rational arguments. I hate the Biblical justifications and I can't stand the constant manipulative refrain about gay victimhood. Since conservatives are undergoing a period of self-examination, I wanted to speak up about the nature of the arguments being made and make a point about how valid points get lost when Christian coalition types fight it out in public with unpleasant gay celebrities like Dan Savage. This is an opportunity to reaffirm marriage as an important thing at a time of historic change.

By: jjv

jjv — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:57:27 +0000

Yes, that is the ticket, because liberalism always allows freedom of contract and private arrangements to continue unmolested. These have been well-argued and interesting pieces and I like the multi-part format but when marriage is under assault as it it now this will not save it. The key asault on marriage is from the Courts, and bought and paid for Democratic legislators, not the majority. If the majority can not have what it wants, no same-sex marriage than we are not a Constitutional Republic anymore. That is worse than same-sex marriage.

By: bamazook

bamazook — Sun, 17 May 2009 04:12:17 +0000

Also one last point - kids. Again Verify, I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at definitive unbiased data. If it's true, its true. But the fact is there is no way to totally stop gay couples from adopting, nor do I think you want to stop them. I think we can all agree that SOME sort of family is better than being shuffled from home to home and/or shelters and adoption centers where they have little to no personal interaction with adults that they can look up to.

Again I agree (I don't think we are too far apart on our thinking) that handing out lists of bars to students is a bit too much, if that is true. AIDS education obviously has progress to be made as well. Condoms are a HUGE part of that, in my view. As I've mentioned kids (and adults) will be sexual creatures, homo and hetero.

There was one last point, that I feel I should respond to. That is how has marriage changed in MA in the last 5 years, and how has it changed things? Or overseas in Netherlands or closer to home in Canada? Are there more or less or the same amount of divorces or marriages? Has birth rates or adoption rates changed? Are the rate of AIDS higher, lower, the same? What percentage of couples marrying are gay? Is bullying higher or lower, what about teen suicide or homelessness? Which of these answers would change our minds either way on the issue.

I don't know, I've not seen any data on this and don't know if it exists, but these are all important things to look at. Partly, I think that the religious right would have pulled and let us know any data that would confirm their side, so I don't know that there IS any (or much) unfavorable data out there. I'd love to see any data, favorable or otherwise, if you know of any.

And I appreciate the conversation. I think it is very important for each side to understand the other. Religious right and liberal homosexual left may never see eye to eye but if they can understand where each other is coming from, there may be some compromises that can be found, and at least we can all be more civil and spew forth less hate and lies toward and about one another. That is my ultimate hope.

By: bamazook

bamazook — Sun, 17 May 2009 04:10:11 +0000

Verify:
"What I'd like to see happen is for people to stop criticizing gays based on what the Bible says and focus on criticizing unhealthy aspects of gay culture to get them to change."

I couldn't agree with you more! As danbmil99 restates, the gay culture is not exactly something to be proud of. I doubt anyone who participates in that stereotypical world would write home to mom about it. But we now have the ability to try and head that off. Right now heteros have a societal pressure to settle down, get married. As more homos have that option, there will be more pressure to abandon that old lifestyle. I'll further say that I think that lifestyle is a bit of an older thing. I know several younger (my age - 20s, 30s) gays and gay couples who are happily monogamous or long to find and settle down with the perfect mate. I think that was more of a 70s and 80s thing. Not to say that it isn't around still. But I think that this is a world that HAD to spring up, because there was no where for our community to go to be with others like themselves (or to find sexual partners, without being thrown in jail). It kind of devolved into sexual partner roulette because there was no point to settle down with someone. You didn't want to be known as one of "those gays." (I'll also note that I don't know if lesbians have this same world that they created and lived in, or at least not as prevalently)

Further, I never meant to portray that I think any aspect of this shouldn't be discussed. In a civil, educated, and respectful manner, it is our right and duty as a democratic republic to do just that. What I mean by "the time for Civil Unions is over," is that we now have more states with what I call inclusive marriage than civil unions (for the record I'd be plenty happy with civil unions with full rights and responsibilities, state and fed). But I also think that Civil Unions ultimately dead-end into marriage. Just wait for a court to overturn it based on separate but equal..this is why CT has marriage and CA did, for a couple months. (and if the legislature doesn't take care of it first, as they may, the NJ courts will too, would be my guess anyway). On this I agree with the religious conservatives civil unions lead to gays marrying. It's hard to justify giving someone rights that are equal but separate. If they are worth having the rights why do they have to be separate? Right now, it;s because civil unions are just easier to pass. New York could have civil unions if it wanted. They are holding our for marriage. This is why I say the time for civil unions are over.

Again because we have 5 (soon to be 6 ?NH?) states with marriage, they will not easily give that up to go "back" to cu's, and if you think the fight in CA is over, you are only kidding yourself. There will be some tricky politicking in DC to make this all work on the federal level, in any case. I don't blame Obama for trying to stay out of this mess, and conserve political capital. Although I can't say that it makes me happy that he's sitting back on this, I'll gladly take neutral over sworn enemy any day.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:13:45 +0000

bamazook: your point about adoption is right-on. As someone who is pretty liberal on social issues, I didn't truly accept the idea of gay marriage until I met a household with kids, and saw that it was pretty damn normal. I think much prejudice comes from lack of interaction.

On the other hand, what verity says is in my experience objectively true: gay culture has been exceedingly focused on a lifestyle of rampant promiscuity. To deny that is sort of like denying that there is a fatherhood problem among poor urban blacks. Most black leaders are now willing to admit this, whereas before it might have been grounds for calling you a racist.

I think it works another way: the option of marriage may have an impact on gay culture. One can easily imagine that the bathhouse/bar culture arose partly due to the fact that gays were derided and oppressed for so long. One can only hope.

In any case, the percentages of behavior we approve or disapprove of is irrelevant. Society is clearly better off if a same-sex couple settles down and raises a family, rather than spending their lives cruising for the next hookup. That goes equally for straights of course.

I don't like to see government involved in this sphere of life at all, but I agree that it's too late to turn things back, so the best thing is to accept it and move on. Good luck with the evangelicals on that score though.

By: esurience

esurience — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:42:35 +0000

VerityJones: Do you not see the irony in denying gay people the right to marry, and speaking of the institution of marriage as of crucial importance to society and culture, and then simultaneously criticizing the culture of many gay people? If you believe that certain changes to marriage would harm society as a whole, and if you believe that marriage is the foundation of civilization, what do you think DENYING marriage to a whole community of people does to that community? Almost all gay people have been denied the very prospect of marriage ever since we became aware of our sexual attraction, and been acutely cognizant of this fact. Society tells us that our love is less worthy than our heterosexual peers, that we shouldn’t aspire to commitment or monogamy or lifelong partnership.It’s fine to criticize certain aspects of gay culture. I am critical of them as well. But it takes a certain level of sadism to criticize those aspects and advance them as a reason for continuing to deny gays the right to marry. (I realize you’ve said you are for marriage equality, but you’re still advancing your criticisms of “gay culture” as plausible arguments against marriage equality).

By: VerityJones

VerityJones — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:05:45 +0000

"Verity says of heterosexual teens' interaction with their homosexual friends that they have to step around the piles of porno ... listen to them brag and criticize old queens and everyone else for their looks.

As a social and economical moderate, Protestant, white, homosexual male, in a monogamous 3 year relationship (my first homosexual relationship): I have roommated with many heterosexual males throughout college. Plentiful porn, bragging about sexual partners (both number of partners and drugs they used to seduce), and talking about a chicks T&A and how they bounce when she runs, how ugly or pretty EVERYONE.

You make some good points about the universality of crude, immature behavior, but I was discussing my personal experience with gay male friends who ranged from ages 23 to 44. The porno mags featuring teenage boys were piled on the floor of a gay couple in their 30s. I would find it equally weird to find magazines of girls that young piled on the floor of anybody else's bathroom.

Promiscuity is a problem in both straight and gay culture, as you point out. But gays are very willing to point out that young straights are promiscuous, then turn around and deny that most gay men are promiscuous. I beg to differ. Gay stranger sex and non-monogamous relationships, I think, remain hugely popular in gay culture.

I base my critique of gay male culture, not only on my personal experiences, but on what I've read of gay writers and what I've seen at the major gay cultural events called Gay Pride. This is a party which celebrates gay profligacy and presents it as a norm to be proud of. Similarly, when I posted my comments here, I thought, "Well, what about straight swingers?" But the fact is swingers are a small subset of straight culture and do not represent it. In American gay male culture, like it or not, the non-swingers are the small subset.

In pointing this out, I'm not suggesting that gays should be deprived of rights because some of them or many of them are badly behaved. But my post was in response to the issue of gay rights proponents want to forcing "tolerance education" in school. There is a problem with this, because you can't just teach "gay is okay" while deflecting any criticism of gay (male) culture. If you teach kids "gay is okay," this makes it seem that gay culture in general is okay when clearly it isn't. Being gay is about same-sex attraction and love, but it is also about joining a peer group, a social cohort, and the behaviors of that cohort.

As an example of tolerance educatin and gay outreach to gay teenagers in Massachusetts has included lists of gay bars to go to and some instructions about various sex acts, but failed to underscore rising rates of HIV in the 18-25 age group (as reported by the CDC) or warnings about the negative emotional/psychological effects of being a very young man in a gay meat market. If gay rights proponents really cared about gay youth, they would try to protect them from meat markets in the first place.

I hesitate to criticize gay male cultural norms that I have witnessed over the years on a conservative website and possibly fuel unreasonable prejudices, but at the same time, neither black culture or feminist ideas are immune from criticism even on the Left, yet it seems to me that gays demand to be immune from this legitimate criticism.

What I'd like to see happen is for people to stop criticizing gays based on what the Bible says and focus on criticizing unhealthy aspects of gay culture to get them to change. It goes hand in hand with mitigating the straight "hook up culture," which is doubtless equally unhealthy for similar reasons. For gays, part of being accepted by society means being criticized by it. You can't get your rights and sort out your problems privately. They will be discussed by everybody and denying them hurts your credibility.