Secular Right

“Homosexual couples don’t have children…”

Hmmmmm…. What are these two 16 and 17 year old life forms doing in our house, honey? Will you please shoo them out?

Love ya bunches!!!

You REALLY should do some basic research before you write an article. Your lack of information (easily googled information at that) would give you all the information you need to write an INFORMED article. One has to wonder if you are simply trying to attract traffic rather than honestly discuss this issue.

The first time Gay Marriage was brought up in the US was in 1970, and there is an actual Minnesota State Supreme Court decision and a dismissal of the case by the US Supreme Court, with a dismissal “for want of a substantial federal question.” in 1972.

So the idea of Same-Sex marriage has been around in a serious way for much longer than your feeble argument of “emerged from the lunatic fringe around 10 years ago”. I do believe that 1970 is in fact 39 years on the 18th of this very month.

I certainly don’t mind having this conversation, but for goodness sake. Do your research, look at the truth and quite lying in order to “prove” your case. At least step up to the plate and present the actual facts, not your misinformed and uneducated views. I have yet to see you state a fact or present a premise that has not been disproved on this very blog. Just the facts please, and less of your misinformation.

“The comment thread here has me wondering how many conservatives we actually have reading Secular Right.”

Mr. Derbyshire, the fact that such dissension in the ranks troubles you tells me that you define conservatism in a very peculiar way.

@Snippet

Yeah, being able to own property jointly and being able to make health decisions for my spouse makes me a leach. Being able to avoid probate courts if something happens to one of us makes me a leach. What are you smoking?

All apologies if you’re being sarcastic. It doesn’t read that way.

The comment thread here has me wondering how many conservatives we actually have reading Secular Right.

Shouldn’t it really have you wondering why many of those who identify as secular conservatives are either supportive of or indifferent to gay marriage? I’m not sure why being conservative means you have to be against gay marriage. Indeed, the arguments with the most traction are mostly religious (non-secular) in nature which is a turn off to secularists. Thus, it really should be of no surprise to you that self-identified secular conservatives don’t buy into it and aren’t that receptive to your arguments.

Step back a minute and look and see that many secular conservatives don’t care about this issue. They certainly aren’t excited about it or see gay marriage as a threat to their way of life. Certainly, an anti-gay marriage stance appears to be divisive and counterproductive to bringing in a new generation of conservatives. Or do we not care that there is no new generation of conservatives.

The idea of supporting state/local rights to not recognize inter-racial marriage is about as far out of the mainstream as one can imagine. I can’t think of anything else so abhorrent and anathema to modern civilized society.

To me, secular conservatism means choosing your battles. Thus, in my opinion, gay marriage is a non-winning battle. Let’s focus on abortion which has clear moral and legal avenues to victory, especially second and third trimester bans. This battle can be won state-by-state and that’s where our efforts should be.

As a nineteen yr. old Christian and college student. This whole conversation blows my mind. I’m betting that the average person commenting on this blog, which is obviously written by a middle-aged man, is over the age of 30. Let a younger person such as myself give all of you a clue. Most of the people I know, i.e. people my age consider this argument completely ridiculous. And I must say that I just don’t get what all the fuss is about. I have gay Christian friends, who are good and decent people and I just don’t see any reason why they, like myself,shouldn’t look forward to the day when they meet that special someone and finally get married. Again, the arguments are futile, because what seems soo abnormal to you guys is simply an after-thought to me and my friends. Please don’t lose any sleep over gay-marriage, it really isn’t such a big deal. really!!!!!!!

“Hospital visiting. Still not getting it. If your hospital’s rules won’t allow gay lovers to visit, agitate to get the rules changed. What does this have to do with gay marriage?”

It’s not just about visitation rules. It is also about do-not-revive, funerals, wills, and so on. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Have you even bothered to talk to gay people in person about this issue?

It just seems to me that you are afraid of The Gays. Well, too bad. We are not going away.

Are you serious? How can such an unreasonable person have so many readers? And write under the title “reality and reason”?

I’m reading several rather absurd threads of conversation here.

I’m not at all comfortable arguing about people’s civil rights based on biological, or psuedo-biological arguments. Mostly because these arguments are generally wrong. Even when people arguing these points are right about CURRENT science, science changes, and then you retrospectively look like a bigot. Google “Sarah Bartmann” for a vivid example If you read social science from even 20 years ago, it is hilariously obvious how it was shaped by its time. I suspect the same will be true of our science in 20 years. That isn’t to say its all invalid, but I’d be careful to try to extrapolate political ideas from science. When it comes to imposing analysis of people’s lifestyle decisions, I might not try it at all.

Whether people are biologically determined to be this or that, or whether they are capable of this or that is pretty much off limits if you are going to argue a case on conservative grounds anyway. The conservative position is that the law applies to everybody the same. . . whether they do or can have kids, whether you think their choices are aberrant or normal, whether you think their behavior is healthy or unhealthy, whether you think their behavior is good for society or not. . . just doesn’t matter.

You can make arguments about what we SHOULD do based on those criteria, but not about what the law should be. Not if you are conservative. You’ve ruled out social engineering as a valid criteria. I thought that the POINT of conservatism was that you were going to avoid confusing opportunities with results.

The only question is whether you think some consentual adult life partners should have certain legal protections that others do not. I think there is a perfectly fine case to be made that gay marriage would serve the better angels of social conservatism, but it ultimately doesn’t really matter.

If you are talking about the RESULTS of marriage equality or about the differing potential outcomes of gay marriages then you are not making a conservative (aka, classic liberal) argument. You just are not. You blame liberals for social engineering, and then you argue against extending legal privileges (not special privileges designed to correct some social flaw, just the same rights most people have) based on “what might happen.”

I am a married heterosexual who has no plans to reproduce. Is it your damn business why I got married or whether I plan to live out your version of an ideal marriage? What if I just think that my partner should be a member of my family? Isn’t the stability our relationship offers a social good? Aren’t we less likely to need outside help in our lives? Haven’t we connected two families into a bigger social bond? Isn’t that a good thing?

How is a gay couple different from me? Why is it your business to start putting conditions on marriage so that it fits some model of social engineering?

That just ain’t conservative. Conservatism has its limits (that’s why I don’t call myself one), but the core principle of asking for the law to stay out of people’s business is one I think we should follow whenever we can. This issue is pretty clear cut for me.

Same-sex marriages have occurred throughout history, just like interracial marriages (http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage). And also like interracial marriages, they are less common, but still have occurred. Love is not easily denied by social stigmas. Even medieval christian churches married two men (See Boswell: “Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe”.) My church wants to be allowed to marry gay couples, and it seems to me that the true conservative stance is to get government out of church affairs.

I totally agree with Jamie. I think it is beyond disturbing to talk about citizens having to prove their biological worth and make their lives conform to fit state ends. What Ivan and Derbyshire are talking about goes completely against the way Americans think, on the left and the right. I think one thing most Americans can agree on, despite our differences, is that the people don’t exist to serve state interests, in a democracy the state is there to serve our interests. Read the American constitution. The SR argument is anything but conservative. It really reminds me of what I hear in Europe from these far-right parties. It really sounds more like the BNP or Haider than any American discourse, and it creeps me out. Americans didn’t debate the Nazis, we defeated them.

Also I agree with what Kayla said. I’m in my late 20s and our generations (under 30) are really over this. We are worried about some pressing problems: the environment and poverty are two big ones. We have have been manipulated with these social issues while big business is getting away with destroying the material foundation of our economy, our planet. I think young Christians are not going to be so easily used by political parties.

And people actually read this guy for real? No wonder the conservative movement is practically dead.

Danilo :

Danilo

Also I agree with what Kayla said. I’m in my late 20s and our generations (under 30) are really over this.

Thanks for clearing that up. To think that all one had to do resolve this issue is to just “get over [it]“.

I mean, a nuanced position on all this couldn’t possibly be informed by having decades of actual adult life experience behind one.

First of all, gay couples do have children from Mary Cheney to Dan Savage. Through adoption, previous relationships, and in vitro fertilization, many gay couples have kids. If marriage exists as a social good for the benefit of those children, it’s as essential for gay couples with children to have marriage available for them as it is for hetero couples with children.

Gay people do have children and will have children, and if you think those children are as important as the children of straight couples you should support giving their families the same protections the children of other families get. Not giving them these protections won’t cause their parents to become straight, or not to have the children in the first place; it’ll only leave those children more vulnerable to whatever horrors await children not protected by the institution of marriage. If this is the entire point of marriage, as some are claiming, there is no one more or less deserving of marriage than gays with children. If marriage is really not about the couples, but about the children they have, consideration of what genders make up the couple ought to be secondary.

Of course, marriage has never been solely about raising children. It’s been about gender-based segregation of tasks, about political alliances (do you think Mohammad had children with every one of his wives?), about financial considerations, about dowries and bride-prices, ending family feuds, ceremonial declarations of love, and the desire for security. In American law, secular marriage brings with it a host of legal benefits unrelated to children. Infertile couples and couples beyond the age where having children is possible have always been permitted to get married simply because many people don’t want or can’t afford to live alone.

And yes, of course it’s possible to create laws prohibiting infertile couples from marrying, but to my knowledge no one has ever done so because everyone has always known that marriage is not solely about raising children. Claiming that children are the only social good that marriage creates is not only ignorant, is a disingenuous fiction created solely to create a secular case against gay marriage. I’m assuming bad faith before I believe that someone really thinks getting a vasectomy is “abusing the institution” of marriage. If it was, then yes, it’s perfectly possible to agitate to pass a law against it, and a logically consistent, secular argument against gay marriage requires that you do so. If you permit my 90 year old grandmother to marry her boyfriend but don’t permit her to marry her girlfriend and claim your argument against the latter is based on the secular idea that the government need only recognize marriage for the sake of child-rearing, you’re not being logically consistent. Of course, if you were really consistent in your arguments, you’d insist that Mary Cheney have the right to marry her partner as well, for the sake of her kid.

If you believed that denying marriage rights to gays with children would encourage them to seek out heterosexual relationships, you might have a claim to logic – but I can’t imagine anyone believes that is realistically going to happen.

Secondly, does Derbyshire really believe that the fervor people feel against anti-miscegenation laws is a result of “hysterical race panic” or am I misinterpreting him? I would assume he meant rather that the fervor people feel *for* anti-miscegenation laws was “hysterical race panic,” but he’s claiming that such laws are a perfectly reasonable thing for a local government to enact. I think the passion people feel against anti-miscegenation laws has nothing to do with race, as such, and everything to do with a passion for personal liberty. Forcing an interracial couple to move until they find a community that recognizes their marriage is an undue burden. There is no compelling state interest for forbidding interracial marriage – as is true with homosexual marriage.

I think anyone with a passion for liberty would agree that when it is not a compelling state interest for limiting one’s freedom of choice, that choice should not be limited by law. The opposite argument – that there should be a compelling state interest before the government should *grant* a right – shows a disdain for the concept of liberty that strikes me as un-American to the core. Freedom should always be the default assumption.

By the way, I’m still waiting for one of you wise-ass know-it-all youngsters ( remember when Ed Sullivan always used to say that ) to attempt to describe a mental and pyschological profile of a gay virgin. Would they qualify for “gay rights”, and if so, how would you tell they did?

A comment and a question on Derb’s penultimate paragraph. First, you can fail to “get the hysterical race panic that’s consumed so much rational thought in the modern West” and still think that communities shouldn’t prohibit inter-racial marriage. Just like one might not get the hysterical panic over teaching intelligent design in schools (say) and still think it shouldn’t be taught.

Second, why do you think it’s morally acceptable (or reasonable) for communities to prohibit inter-racial marriage? The only thing approaching justification you give for that position is your judgment that people who get rabidly worked up (into a “race panic”) about anti-miscegenation laws are off balance. But, as I’ve suggested, the idiocy of a point of view’s advocates does not imply that the point of view is false.

Here’s one reason to think that, in certain circumstances, anti-miscegenation laws are okay. If a State’s permitting interracial marriage would inspire its citizens to lawlessness or rebellion, then the costs of permitting miscegenation may outweigh the benefits.

This, however, is perfectly compatible with thinking that there are benefits to allowing interracial marriages – e.g. you allow two people who love each other (and want to commit to a long-term relationship) to do so (and thereby to obtain the various legal rights that the State gives to people in those relationships) – that make it so that, in other circumstances, interracial marriages ought to be permitted. (Of course, mutatis mutandis, this same rationale implies that gay marriage ought to be permitted in certain circumstances, as well.)

Ivan, I can tell you all about being a gay virgin. But you have to believe in the concept of sexual orientation. Your mistake is to see gayness as a behavior-based distinction. You are not straight until you become gay, you are “undetermined” until you reach adolescence. Let’s take just the case of gay males. Gays are romantically and sexually attracted to other guys and pretty much indifferent to females from adolescence. So if you are a virgin you feel this attraction and want to act on it – and socially you experience the immense difference of not having a girlfriend, not understanding why your peers are interested in girls, enduring the questions and harrassment from friends and family – AND coming out. Lots of gays come out to their friends and family before every having any sexual experiences. One of my gay friends is in his late 20s and still a virgin, God knows why. Regardless of whether you are a virgin or have a boyfriend or are a slut, you have the same biological and social experience of being a gay man. So yes you still qualify even as a gay virgin – most of the school and workplace discrimination derives from not having a girlfriend and not being interested in girls rather than the actual positive presence of another male in your life. Does that make sense?

Jaimie,

I was not being sarcastic. I do seriously wonder if what we call “marriage” should not in fact be reserved for child-rearers, straight or gay.

It was just a suggestion.

Anyway, it seems as though the legal system could find a million legitimate ways to allow individuals to give other individuals permission to make certain legal decisions without calling it marriage.

“The idea of gay marriage emerged from the lunatic fringe around 10 years ago, I think.”

Any thinking person who hasn’t had his head in a hole for the last few years would stop right there.

Same with the I-just-don’-t-get-the-hospital-argument position. What thinking person who has considered the pros and cons of SSM hasn’t been provided with examples of gay people being barred from seeing a dying partner? Do folks just choose to not remember the examples? If you don’t get it after one or two or thirteen or twenty-six examples, you’re either experiencing willful ignorance or you’re as dumb as a post.

Or you’re a “conservative”, which when it comes to gay rights, is a combination of the two possibilities.

@Ivan

What “gay rights” are you talking about? It sounds like you believe that, by pretending to be gay, I would suddenly have all of these special privileges showered upon me. You know, because gay people have it so easy.

When someone talks about “gay rights,” they are only defending the idea that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else, the same rights that you already enjoy. They are not talking about setting up a privileged class where we all bend knee to our new gay overlords.

If you are referring to “hate crimes” laws (the necessity for and usefulness of these laws can be debated among reasonable people), you don’t understand how hate crimes laws work. The law uses the intent of the aggressor, not the status of the victim. In other words, if someone assaulted you because they thought you, a straight man (I assume), was gay, they could be charged under a hate crimes law (that is, if gay people were protected under these laws. Currently, they are not.)

If your argument is that all people should have the exact same rights regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., then I’m with you one hundred percent.

@Ronan

Your presumption that if same-sex marriage is legalized, then it would shortly thereafter become illegal to say things critical about gay people is the definition of a slippery slope argument and must have been made without really looking at the country in which we live. For the love of Pete, we allow KKK and neo-Nazi rallies in this country, but somehow you’re going to get thrown in the slammer because you tell a friend you don’t like “the gays”?

Lastly, I find it interesting that on a conservative blog, supposed conservatives are asking for more government interference in people’s lives-marriage restricted to only child-bearing couples, marriage as a tool for the advancement of society/the state, biology/genetics as means to determine social and legal rights, as well as one’s importance to the state. I have to be honest, that sounds a lot more like authoritarianism than conservatism. The fact that you’d need a “liberal”(me) to point this out to you makes it clear that these labels are useless, and don’t mean what you think they mean. And the fact that this article begins with a litmus test just makes me angry. Heaven forbid that you get exposed to ideas other than your own, or that individuals might come to conclusions, based on thoughtful deliberation, that contradict the consensus of their “betters”. (I have to say though that overall I appreciate the civility and intelligence seen in the comments section.)

Conservatives go on and on about the universal value and meaning of marriage. It’s all about the value of two people committing to take responsibility to care for each other and any children they may be raising together. How can conservatives say marriage is such a vital institution, but only for the majority that is straight? To say that marriage must exclude a significant minority in order to be pure seems to undercut the claim that it is universal and fundamental–unless of course one thinks that the purpose of marriage is to assert heterosexuality.

And that is of course how most ’secular’ arguments go–heterosexuality is inherently superior to homosexuality because it more conducive to raising babies. I would be more willing to accept the argument that marriage must remain the exclusive domain of heterosexuals if we did in fact treat the ability to procreate as the be all end all determination of a valid marriage. But the reality is, neither our culture nor our law works that way. The fact is there are far more straight married childless couples in this country than there are gay couples (with children or no).

Pat Buchanan, the great defender of morality, is himself a married, but childless man. Do we automatically consider his marriage less valid and worthy of respect than marriages that produce children? I’m sure some people might think that personally, but our law does not, nor do most people who recognize the power of two people committing to each other for life, which is the bond of marriage.

So what is this hang up then over recognizing gay marriages then? I truly do believe it is entirely focused on proscribing homosexuality. But why? Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that occurs in a small minority of the population across times and cultures, there is no need to promote or proscribe it because it will happen regardless. I know some conservatives get sooo offended by being called homophobic, but I’m sorry, that’s the only word to describe the fear surrounding the idea of accepting a small minority as full equals in our society.

@Susan

Oh, well, you once knew a gay couple whose rights weren’t infringed upon, so that means it’s probably not a big deal. Problem solved, everyone! Let Andrew Sullivan he can stop writing about the injustice, Susan has finally settled the issue.

Another thing: Derb’s trivialization of hospital visitation rights is both callous and so naive. Many commenters have already pointed out the cruelty of making gay couples jump through hoops to prove that they are in fact a couple responsible for making medical decisions for each other, so I won’t discuss that further.

Derb ignores the other 1,400+ federal rights and privileges, identified by the GAO, denied to gay couples, even those legally married in MA, CT, CA, IA, and VT.

On a personal level for me, the denial of marriage rights to gay couples means that my father and his long time partner must deal with the constant anxiety that they will be separated. My father’s partner is a foreign national. If my father and his partner could legally marry, his partner would be granted a green card and he would be allowed to stay in the US and work towards citizenship. But since their relationship is not recognized, there have been several stressful times when we thought my father’s partner would have to go back to his (very homophobic) home country if he could not get his student and H-1B visas renewed.

On an even more personal level, I am also gay, and in a very committed relationship, wanting to get married in the next few years. Both me and my finance have promising careers ahead of us in the international relations field. Serving as foreign service officers in the State Department has been a long time ambition and dream for me. However, I’m turned away from that career path , because the government won’t recognize my relationship. As such, I have no hope of the government trying to place my eventual wife overseas with me, or getting any of the other essential benefits the Department provides to legal spouses such as emergency evacuation and language training.

Beyond all of that though, legal marriage is not merely a bundle of legal privileges. It is a uniquely recognized legal status. It is the only way two unrelated people can declare, with the force of the law, that they are a single entity. When two (until most recently, only opposite-sex) people decide to commit to each other, and take care of each other for life, our government generally respects that decision and treats the two individuals as a single unit as such, granting them special legal rights and recognitions. Gay people are currently denied any status of the sort. It only hurts those gay people and their families, and I can see no way that that helps the broader population.

The gay marriage debate is just a proxy for discussion about gays and their role in society, don’t you think? This is not REALLY about marriage.

Fact is, the moment we get full marriage equality, we become full members of society, and the war will officially be over. V-G Day. Case closed. Gays are here to stay. So it’s no wonder anti-gay conservatives are fighting so vehemently.

The question surely is whether there is a coherent secular conservative case against gay marriage which stands independently of the personal prejudices of individual secular conservatives? On the basis of what I’ve read here, including Mr Derbyshire’s contributions, one would have to answer: No.

The matter is clearly urgent at a time when the Republican Party is lurching through the sort of prolonged identity crisis visited upon all political movements that have faced a comprehensive defeat. What is the future of conservatism if it continues be bound by the straitjacket of God, guns and gays in order to appease its “base”? Gay marriage is clearly a big issue for the religious right. Let them run with it, but that doesn’t mean it should form part of the mainstream conservative platform, anymore than, say, school prayer or the grandiose delusions of the neocons have an automatic place at the table.

“after a same-sex couple has been together 5 or 10 years.”

So I quess a weekend marrige trip to Las Vegas is out of the question.

‘Do you believe there is such a things as a gay virgin? If so, pause for a minute to think what sort of person that would be, mentally and psychologically. Is it someone who can contemplate a sex act with a same sex person , though so far unconsummated, without revulsion? If yes, then all I can say is “Wow.”.”

This has to be officially the silliest thing I’ve heard all year!

James :

James

@Ivan
What “gay rights” are you talking about? It sounds like you believe that, by pretending to be gay, I would suddenly have all of these special privileges showered upon me. You know, because gay people have it so easy.

I’m just trying to make the point that whatever it is that we mean when we use the word label, “gay”, it is NOTHING like Gender or Race.

In the world of identity politics (which I abhor of course) were there to be any kind of set-asides or a “we need more of ‘x’” situations”, as there often are, I, as a straight White male, could go up to the counter and say “I’d like the special consideration that is currently in effect for females, please.” One look at me and I’d get a “No.”. So I instead say, then “I’d like the special consideration that is currently in effect for minorities, please.” Again a “No.” Ok, then, “I’d like the special consideration that is currently in effect for gays, please”.

Well, what now? Full stop. What to do? Do I get it? How? What do I have to do or say or prove? Seems not to be a thing like Gender or Race, doesn’t it? Seems like to get the special consideration, I have to at least assert that I like to have sex with my same Gender, and I guess they ultimately just have to take my word for it.

Kind of ridiculous, if you think about it without being influenced by the overwhelming PC world all of you youngsters were simply born into, and know no other. If I had to try to place it, category/concept-wise, seems to me “gay” is more a certain type of sexual fetish, and a very strong one, though still a deviation from the species-continuing ‘norm’. True, it is a fairly common fetish, and whatever genes contribute to the “orientation” must be quite common too, as they have to be passed on to the next generations by those who don’t have the orientation. Thus, geneticists have an obligation to explain why it keeps existing, recreated with every new generation. It must have some “fitness” purpose, or at least no great penalty. I think I recall Schopenhauer having some interetsing things to say in this regard, though he wrote in the time before Darwin.

In an event, it is a fundamentally different thing than Race and Gender, and it has NO business joining those as a status for special calling out and consideration, whether for “rights” or “protections” or whatever.

Or so it continues to seem to me.

But as always, I remain open to logical and reasonable counter-arguments. I’ve changed my mind, based on real evidence, several times in my adult like, and will likely do so again and again, as data comes in.

This discussion is why I am very careful not to scream, “Bigot!,” and wince when SSM advocates use that term. My own loving and supportive brothers don’t understand why my partner of 24 years and I would want to get married. When one of them had to be rushed to the hospital, his wife of 2 weeks was immediately treated as the spouse and signed him in. Our relatives just assume we would be treated no differently.

Do the Derbyshires have to travel with their marriage license on a day trip to Manhattan? We, on the other hand, have a folder of legal papers. From experience with out of town hospitals, my partner and I do not travel outside our county without the folder. With my partner’s heart condition, an emergency run to the hospital is always a possibility. In that time of panic, I have to remember to have the folder. I’m already agitated, and Mr. Derbyshire wants me to organize a protest? All my brothers’ spouses would have to do is state, “I’m his wife.” No one would even check an ID.

Many complain about the ‘Death Tax.’ That tax is minimal compared to the ‘Gay and Lesbian Partner Death Tax,’ just ask Ms. Liebowitz what happened when Ms. Sontag died. The argument is often made all gay and lesbian couples have to do is have the legal papers to eliminate these inconveniences. Those legal agreements can be challenged by any of the spouse’s immediate relatives, and questioned by the IRS, banks, almost any institution and anyone who is actually bigoted. Just imagine the legality of a married heterosexual couple’s relationship being questioned in such a way. And often.

Our relationship will survive the thousands of legal paper cuts, we’re just tired of all the Band-Aids that just don’t do the job.

Whatever, Dr. Karamazov. I’ll call you “Dr” now because you seem to have deemed yourself an expert in human psychology. Your diagnosis that sexual orientation does not exist and that homosexual orientation is a “fetish” is an important discovery for science. I suggest that you contact the World Health Organization and American Psychological Association, show them your data, and explain to them why the global scientific consensus about sexual orientation is all wrong.

Sexual orientation is very much like race and gender, because it is an innate characteristic. It is fundamentally different from race in that it is not an ethnicity, not passed down and shared by all generations. Sexual orientations are not behavior-based categories.

I appreciate that you are decades older than me, but have you been in a coma for much of that time? My boyfriend’s quasi-illiterate 80 year old grandmother who believes in magic seems to be more up to date than you on the science of sexual orientation.

According to Wikipedia a fetish is “the sexual arousal brought on by objects, situations or body parts not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature. The sexual acts of fetishes are characteristically depersonalized and objectified, even when they involve a partner.”
A fetish is by definition not an attraction to a person.

It should be pointed out that origins and expression of sexual orientation are essentially irrelevant to this discussion, since all that is being said is that the gender basis of marriage be removed. Why someone wants to marry a person of the same sex has no bearing on whether they should have a right to do so, just as the multitudinous motivations of nominally heterosexual couples in marrying are irrelevant to their right to do so.

However, let me add, Ivan, that just because sexual preference is clearly not a “choice”, doesn’t mean it is simply inscribed in the genome either — though it may have some genetic components. It is likely that development factors (eg birth order, maternal hormone levels) may also play a part, not to mention the role of social factors in “actuating” same-sex preference. Anyone who claims to know how this all fits together is a charlatan (or a popular science writer).

@Ivan

I understand that your argument is that it would be difficult to “prove” that a person is gay. What I’m having difficulty understanding is what special considerations, rights, or protections this “proof” would ascribe to our hypothetical gay person. I assume you are talking about more than free entry to a bar or dance club on “Gay Night” but can’t for the life of me figure out what all these great benefits would be.

I would also like to point out that at no time have you ever had to “prove” you were straight in order to enjoy the particular rights and protections that straight people enjoy, as in the special consideration to love who you want without fear of societal repercussion, the right to marry that person, the right to have all the legal protections that marriage allows. And this is really what we are talking about here. In a country based on laws, based on the idea that all people should have equal protection under the law, there is no secular argument against gay marriage. Again, no one (at least in this particular discussion) is talking about setting up a privileged class. Supporters of same-sex marriage are looking at the fact that a certain class (heterosexuals) have rights/special considerations/protections that another class (homosexuals) does not.

I, too, am a straight, white male, and I must point out that you, as a straight, white male, get special considerations every day of your life. You don’t think about it because you are the majority. You think it’s just the way things are. It’s the default position for our society. Now, I don’t know your particular circumstance so I can’t say how well that has worked out for you, but it is the baseline determination. Straight white males get a level of deference in this culture. Anyone who says different is just not paying attention. And from my point of view, all of this railing against minorities (I’m generalizing, not directing this statement at you, Ivan) seems a little like the straight, white male just doesn’t want to share his position at the top of the pyramid. The straight, white male thinks minorities have no reason to complain because the straight, white male has never lived life as a minority. And yet, the straight, white male is constantly complaining about his lot in life. (Again, a generalization).

One other thing, and this is bit nit-picky, I’ll admit, but I believe you have a misunderstanding of the word gender. Gender is defined as the socially constructed roles/behavior that society considers appropriate for men or women (so it might be difficult to “prove” your gender if you were a man who acted in a feminine manner, or vice versa). The physiological/biological difference between men and women is “sex.”

JohnC :

JohnC

However, let me add, Ivan, that just because sexual preference is clearly not a “choice”, doesn’t mean it is simply inscribed in the genome either —

Well, there is almost always a nurture component to things. I didn’t mention it because it is so obvious, and because it is something that can be changed.

Also, I hope you agree that one needs to be careful ( as many are not) when using the word “choice”, since I agree we often have no choice as to what inclinations pop into our heads, but we almost always have a choice as to whether or not we act on them.

And also, I’m not going to get into a Webster’s pissing contest on the exact proper use of the term “fetish”. I meant it as anything that is different from the biological procreation sex act, which is male/female and with the proper orifices. I guess I could have used the word “deviant”, but didn’t because it has moral connotations, which I did not want to imply. “Fetish” sounded right to me, but perhaps I don’t understand the word as commonly used.

Funny to be splitting hairs over this, since we are all allowing the word “gay” to be appropriated for a sexual preference, when its meaning is more in line with “happy”. Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

I know some gay virgins, and I am a 19 yr old female heterosexual virgin. I know that I’m heterosexual because I’m attracted to guys, and my gay virgin friends know they’re gay ’cause they’re attracted to guys too (they’re males). I don’t see what’s soo hard to understand. BY the way they wouldn’t qualify for gay rights, they would qualify for equal rights. The equal right to marry someone they’re romantically attached to/involved with. @Ivan Karamazov

I’d prefer not to live in such a community — given my domestic circumstances, in fact, I wouldn’t be able to! — but this doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable or immoral restriction for a state or country to impose on its citizens.

There’s something disturbing, almost nauseating about GOVERNMENT with its monopoly on law and force to be impose such a rule. However, I wonder whether it would be morally okay for voluntary communities by contract to enforce such rules. Though I want folks to be free to leave and enter such communities. That’s the libertarian answer. Though I know racially restrictive covenants present hard cases. I support the S. Ct. decision that overturned racially restrictive covenants because they were part of the Jim Crow state apparatus that needed to be crushed.

But, starting over, if a bunch of white Supremacists wanted to move to Idaho and set up their white only communities by private contract (not by state monopoly), I think there’s a good case for saying, “let them.” This is what the Founder of Dominos Pizza is trying to do in Fla. setting up a Roman Catholic town by private contract.

I would never want to live in these places (like Derb. I wouldn’t be permitted; I too am in an interracial relationship but a same sex one). I’d rather live in socially liberal suburbia or perhaps a bohemian part of a big city ones that embraces “cultural diversity,” within the confines of middle class civility.

I, too, am a straight, white male, and I must point out that you, as a straight, white male, get special considerations every day of your life. You don’t think about it because you are the majority. You think it’s just the way things are. It’s the default position for our society. Now, I don’t know your particular circumstance so I can’t say how well that has worked out for you, but it is the baseline determination. Straight white males get a level of deference in this culture. Anyone who says different is just not paying attention. And from my point of view, all of this railing against minorities (I’m generalizing, not directing this statement at you, Ivan) seems a little like the straight, white male just doesn’t want to share his position at the top of the pyramid.

Well I am a white male (I think; I’m 1/4 lebanese; I’m not sure if that disqualifies me; my mother who is 1/2 lebanese was called the “n” word at times by some racists). The problem I have with this is yes, there certainly is that crop of white males at the top of the pyramid — the men who run Wall Street, for instance. The the typical “straight white male” is a fire fighter or plumber; they are NOT privileged.

BTW: Some of these white nationalists drop out and form their own communities anything; I don’t think they can enforce their racism by private contract. But all I know is I sure as Hell don’t want anything to do with these people and hope they all move away from my more tolerant, diverse and pluralistic society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaJtoN7SWBk

Discrimination is all about perception. Gays (unlike visible minorities) can often get pass as straight to avoid discrimination in daily transactions or on the street. It becomes harder to pass as straight with colleagues, classmates, friends, and family who start to know more about you.

You are still a victim of discrimination if you are perceived as a member of a minority even if you are not actually one. I was once almost the victim of a hate crime in Italy. While ordering pizza at a counter in Italy once some drunk Italian guys heard me talking in Italian with a foreign accent and came over and said to me in Italian ‘get outta here you f**king Albanian, why don’t you go back to Albania”. I said “Leave me alone! And I’m from the US!” They were really embarrassed. But if they had just beat me up for being Albanian I would have been legally the victim hate crime.

of a hate crime.. typo

You are still a victim of discrimination if you are perceived as a member of a minority even if you are not actually one. I was once almost the victim of a hate crime in Italy. While ordering pizza at a counter in Italy once some drunk Italian guys heard me talking in Italian with a foreign accent and came over and said to me in Italian ‘get outta here you f**king Albanian, why don’t you go back to Albania”.

A lot of these so called “ex-gays” who are now conservative Christians are on the forfront arguing against hate crimes laws. What they fail to appreciate is that they get the special protect when those laws protect being perceived as homosexual. Most gay bashers aren’t like “I think you had anal sex the other day, let’s get ‘em.” They are more like “you look like a nelly fag, let’s get ‘em.” And almost all of the “ex-gays” have the exact same feminine mannerisms that they had when they were practicing homosexuals. If they are gay bashed, they get the extra protection.

I’m not saying that I support these laws (I don’t). But, if one accepts the legitimacy of hate crimes laws to begin with, there is good reason for “ex-gays” to support them as they will benefit from the extra protection.

@Ivan Karamazov
What sexual acts a couple performs in the marital bed is a topic that has been off the table of government attention since the SCOTUS struck down sodomy laws in 2003, remembering that the statutes in the majority of affected States also applied to heterosexual married couples. It therefore has nothing to do with the debate on same sex marriage, despite the odd fixation you appear to have about whether or not sex is procreative, and what orifices are utilised.

“I can’t see the parallel with inter-racial marriage, which has been proscribed by law only spottily through history.”

That’s funny, I can see the parallel. When my parents wed, their marriage was not legal in several states. They see the parallel too. Spottily enforced or not, it was still wrong. Jeez, Derb, I’m amazed at the contortions and other points you’re willing to accept (state or community sanctioned racial discrimination is OK???) simply to buttress your opposition to gay marriage.

“The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.”

And, for the record, when were anti-miscegrentation laws scrapped? In 1967, with the Loving v Virginia case which also cited the 14th Amendment. Wacky, radical change, eh?

I’m not saying that I support these laws (I don’t). But, if one accepts the legitimacy of hate crimes laws to begin with, there is good reason for “ex-gays” to support them as they will benefit from the extra protection.

I would be curious if you support the current hate crimes legislation that does NOT include sexual orientation? The current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity, 18 U.S.C. § 245

I only ask because so many have said that sexual orientation and gender identity, real OR perceived, should not be covered as it is not similar to race or color or national origin because gay people can “pass”. The only thing they do not note is that religion, which is a choice and not immutable to any individual as race is, is a covered class in current law. I would have to ask those who oppose the adding of gender identity and orientation why the religious should be covered, but not those whom the religious attack as unwarranted of protections?

If the sexual orientation/identity should not be covered, should we then remove religion as well since it is a personal choice as to what religion one chooses to participate in?

The above comment was supposed to be in reply to Jon Rowe. Sorry, I am a little new to code.

Oh, and to Ivan. For goodness sake, get a dictionary and look up the word virgin. Better yet, here’s the number one definition”

vir⋅gin
   /ˈvɜrdʒɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vur-jin] –noun
1. a person who has never had sexual intercourse.

Please note, one is either a virgin or one is not a virgin, it does not matter what your sexual orientation is. Gay or straight, if you haven’t had sexual intercourse then you are a virgin. That would include heterosexual or homosexual sexual intercourse. And I guess that would also mean that there are MILLIONS of sexualy active people who are still considered to be “Virgins” because they have not had actual intercourse of either kind. Ask any of those abstinence only folks, they think anal sex is not sex and that they are still virgins after having anal sex with their heterosexual partners. That or Oral sex.

For someone who comments so frequently, you seem to not have a very good grasp of basic language skills. You use words incorrectly then get mad because people point it out to you. Your idea of what a word means (IE: fetish) does not negate the actual true meaning of that word.

RK Wright,

I thought I was clear. I am not for ANY hate crimes laws. But if we have to have them, sexual orientation MUST be on the list with race or religion or else hate crimes laws are a complete joke.

@John Roe

I think you misunderstand my point. When I talk about white males being at the top of a pyramid 1)I am generalizing. Obviously, I realize that not every white male is a member of the “privileged classes.” 2) I’m also not talking about money or power. Those fire fighters and plumbers you mention are not rich, nor do they wield much power. They do however have special consideration given to them because of their status as straight, white males. The fact that we as straight, white males never think of ourselves as being part of any class says as much. I’m not looking for us to start navel-gazing and offering constant apologies, but I do think it behooves us to realize our status.

Maybe the better way to envision what I’m trying to say is to look at the Wall Street class or the firefighter class and think about the dynamic within those particular classes. Or think about how your life might be different if you weren’t white or straight. I realize that I am oversimplifying and that each individual’s life is their own, but it seems very clear to me that straight, white males receive plenty of special considerations. This is not to say that we all victimize others or are even aware of this status in our daily lives. It’s so ingrained in our society, we don’t really think about it or notice it. But it is there, and to think otherwise seems to be a form of denial.

As for hate crime laws, I’m a bit on the fence. A violent crime is a violent crime, and it can be extremely difficult to discern a person’s thought process leading to that crime. On top of that, I tend to fall on the side that laws don’t stop most crimes from happening, they just give us the ability to punish those who commit those crimes. By this reasoning, hate crime laws don’t really afford anyone “protection”, they only allow (force) us to punish people more severely for their intent. At the same time, I feel that is naive to pretend that the “protected” groups aren’t singled out, and shining light on this is often the best way to cleanse it from our society (as best we can. Clearly, it will never be destroyed completely).

Lastly, in an earlier post, I stated that homosexuals are not covered by hate crime laws. I should have said they are not covered by federal hate crime laws. There are multiple states that do include them in the statutes.

RK Wright,

I think you are right. We knew Clay Aiken was gay before he knew he was gay. He started out as an effeminiate conservative Christian who wouldn’t permit folks to cuss around him. He was as gay then as he is now. The difference now being he acts on it.

“Or think about how your life might be different if you weren’t white or straight.”

I am not straight. I think I may be white but as noted I am 1/4 lebanese.

“But it is there, and to think otherwise seems to be a form of denial.”

This is just an assertion. There is a lot of serious debate among scholars whether institutional racism has any real teeth. Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, John McWorter, Bill Cosby, Juan Williams are all black, and cast doubt on the notion. That we elected Obama seriously casts doubt on the notion that America is an institutionally racist nation.

The idea behind hate crimes legislation is not and should not be to criminalize thoughts. Rather it treats crimes like assault, murder and property destruction differently when they are committed just because the victim is the member of a religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, national, gender group, etc. If someone burns some trash in the yard of a black family then it is a property crime. But if they burn a cross it is a different kind of crime. It’s not aimed just at that family, the idea is to send a threat to all black people in that neighborhood that they need to leave or they will face violence. Another word for hate crimes is “ethnic intimidation”.

If a straight person is stabbed in the street by thugs, I don’t think other straight people will be terrorized and view that street as a “no-go” area for straights. But if a Jew stabbed is stabbed in a Muslim suburb of Paris, maybe all Jews will be afraid to go to that suburb.

Psychological effects of hate crimes (from Wikipedia):
* effects on people – psychological and affective disturbances; repercussion on the victim’s identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by the degree of violence of a hate crime, usually stronger than that of a common one.

* effect on the targeted group – generalized terror in the group from which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability over the other members, who could be the next victims.

* effect on other vulnerable groups – ominous effects over minoritarian groups or over groups that identify themselves with the targeted one, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.

The last point is interesting. If the hate crime is motivated by an ideology such as extreme nationalism, ALL groups hated by nationalists may feel threatened when one group is attacked. After a Kurdish journalist was killed in Turkey by nationalists, the gay magazine from Turkey put his picture on the cover of their magazine. Their reason was “the people who hate the Kurdish don’t like us, either”

The people killed on Sept 11 were killed because they were Americans, not because those 3,000 people were hated by Al-Qaeda. It made us all think: who is next? That is why hate crimes are a sort of terrorist act.

I’m against the hate crime logic being applied to interpersonal crimes that are not public: i.e. a heterosexual man stabbing a transexual woman he wanted to sleep with at her home upon realizing she was biologically male

Danilo – I’m against the hate crime logic being applied to interpersonal crimes that are not public: i.e. a heterosexual man stabbing a transexual woman he wanted to sleep with at her home upon realizing she was biologically male

Why should the crime be treated any different because of where it is committed? And one could assume that your quote is in regards to the recent Hate Crime Conviction in the murder of Angie Zapata a transwoman born male murdered in her home…Why would it be different it is a crime that was intended to send a signal to a certain segment of the population (the murder even commented in jail that “Gay things must die”), so why should that not be treated the same as any other hate crime? The intent behind the crime is the same regardless of where the actual assault took place. Your logic on this sounds as if you would also agree that you shouldn’t prosecute assault charges if they take place in a non public setting. I guess we’d have many more criminals on the street if that were the case.

Because my definition of a hate crime is “small-scale terrorism”. To be considered a hate crime IMO it has to be a threatening message to more members of the targeted group than just the victim. Now I’m not familiar with all the details of the Zapata case so I can’t comment. But you can have a biased motive without committing a hate crime. If a man beats up his wife when she talks back to him, he is partially motivated by his degrading view of women. But is it meant to terrorize women as a group? Will other women in the neighborhood ‘get the message’ that they are in danger? There is a psychological mechanism called “attributional ambiguity” where a member of a dominant group who normally represses his feelings of prejudice feels authorized to express them when a member of the group he dislikes does something objectively wrong, provoking a disproportionate reaction. For example an Arab immigrant may be riding the bus without a ticket. The bus driver might discover the violation and then yell something like “you goddamn f**king bedouin” (This is another example I’ve witnessed in Italy – I don’t mean to ruin your image of the country). The “gay panic” defense is another example. A heterosexual man who would not normally go out and stab an innocent gay walking out of a gay bar might physically attack a gay man with extreme cruelty because “the gay guy came onto me”. The same man would never have stabbed, say, a drunk old woman who came onto him. The disproportionate reaction is due to the latent homophobia.

Is attributional ambiguity also a hate crime? I would say it is a separate concept. The scope of these crimes is limited to the one victim, like any classic violent crime. Criminalizing attributional ambiguity is closer to criminalizing private feelings IMO. I would venture that they could be treated like any other assault / murder.

@Jon Rowe,

Again, I think you are missing the point. I’m not talking about institutional racism, although I suppose that plays a part. More, I’m talking about our inherent cultural biases.

My request that people think about what their life might be like if they weren’t straight and white was not directed at you specifically. It was just meant to be a way for people to step outside themselves for a moment. I’m not suggesting that straight, white males act with deference to all those who are not (it seems to me that this sort of patronizing attitude tends to be insulting), but it surely doesn’t hurt to try to understand what people who are different from you have to go through.
Also, my point about straight, white males should be taken with the understanding that this is about how you are perceived by the people around you, not how you perceive the world.

I’m also not sure how our electing a black man in the 232nd year of our country disproves institutional racism. Have we made significant progress? Yes. But the fact that you see it as completely normal that we only had straight, white males as President until now proves my point about “special considerations.”

I am unsure as to your point about Thomas Sowell et. al. Please elaborate. I’ll be honest, I’m not familiar enough with the work of these men to feel comfortable commenting about it. I trust, however, that you are not saying that because there are successful black men, racism does not exist.

Lastly, I am not an expert in this field. These are my opinions based on casual study and observation and deliberation, as well as at least a little bit of gut instinct. But when I see politicians talk about the “real America”, they always seem to be pointing to some monochromatic small-town in the Midwest (a place much like where I grew up), and all the implications therein seem clear to me.

@Danilo

Thank you for clearing up some points about hate crimes. I was trying to get to that idea about the effect that hate crimes have on vulnerable groups, but basically stumbled my way through. You were much more eloquent and thorough.

RK Wright :

RK Wright

Oh, and to Ivan. For goodness sake, get a dictionary and look up the word virgin. Better yet, here’s the number one definition”
vir⋅gin
   /ˈvɜrdʒɪn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vur-jin] –noun
1. a person who has never had sexual intercourse.
Please note, one is either a virgin or one is not a virgin, it does not matter what your sexual orientation is. Gay or straight, if you haven’t had sexual intercourse then you are a virgin. That would include heterosexual or homosexual sexual intercourse. And I guess that would also mean that there are MILLIONS of sexualy active people who are still considered to be “Virgins” because they have not had actual intercourse of either kind. Ask any of those abstinence only folks, they think anal sex is not sex and that they are still virgins after having anal sex with their heterosexual partners. That or Oral sex.
For someone who comments so frequently, you seem to not have a very good grasp of basic language skills. You use words incorrectly then get mad because people point it out to you. Your idea of what a word means (IE: fetish) does not negate the actual true meaning of that word.

Thanks for making my point about ‘virgin’, though you made it accidentially since you obviously didn’t get it.

According to you, since there are only virgins, generic, and not gay virgins, then, following your logic, one only becomes officially gay when one does the deed. That is what I wanted to establish. The nebulousness ( look it up ) of the concept “gay”. Not at all grounded, like Race or Gender.

So, of course I knew the meaning of the word ‘virgin’, and I was also correct in my use of the word ‘fetish’, one definiton of which ( and the one I meant ), is “excessive or irrational devotion to some activity”.

Gays are certainly THAT, no. Excessive. Fabulous. See any San Fran Gay Parade. It’s not just who you have sex with, it’s a whole rich lifestyle. Excessive . . . devotion to some activity. Fetish.

So, you are wrong and I am right.

@Ivan Karamazov: “According to you, since there are only virgins, generic, and not gay virgins, then, following your logic, one only becomes officially gay when one does the deed.”

Huh??? I don’t follow this reasoning even the slightest bit. I had known I was gay, and identified myself as such unambiguously, long before I ever had sex. What RK Wright argued is that sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether or not one is a virgin. This has nothing to do how ambiguous the concept of homosexuality is.

I also take incredible offense at your blanket assumption that all gays are excessively devoted to sex. Many, including myself, do not just sleep with anyone at any opportunity. And many straight men go to incredible lengths to have sex as frequently (and as creatively, ahem) as they can. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that.

If your opinions of LGBT folk are based only on what you see in SF gay pride parades, then obviously you don’t have a clear or accurate idea of what we, in all our diversity, are really like.

Yes, Ivan, I watch TV too. I learned that all gays walk around with a pink boa during gay pride, all Arabs are terrorists, all blacks live in the ghetto, all Mexicans walk around with sombreros and a chihuahua.

That’s why the world we live in is so simple.

Carlo :

Carlo

I also take incredible offense at your blanket assumption that all gays are excessively devoted to sex.

Well then, I guess I should take incredible offense at your misrepresenting my statement.

I didn’t say “excessively devoted to sex”. I specifically said “a whole rich lifestyle.” Surely you don’t deny that there is a whole gay lifestyle? Gay fashion, gay manner of speech, excessive interest in certain Hollywood stars ( e.g. Garland ), etc.

I am pointing out that being gay is not just like being heterosexual, just with the one difference of a gender change for sex partner. It is a WHOLE big other thing, no? Not for every one, of course, but surely for many of those who are pushing for gay marriage.

Ivan K,

I think you are confusing subculture with lifestyle. Yes, there is a gay subculture in which homosexuals have various degrees of involement. Some of them, like for instance, the late Allan Bloom, was not involved in the subculture at all and had a strong distaste for it.

We all agree that race is unchosen and immutable; likewise there is a distinctly black subculture as well.

Bruce Bawer has an interesting article on gay cultural contributions. It may well be that there is something far more profound in the gay psyche than Judy Garland camp and being fashion queens.

http://www.indegayforum.com/news/show/26610.html

It’s also confining, for there’s no part of the cultural landscape without a gay element. Even if gays constitute as much as fifteen percent of the population, the gay contribution to Western art, architecture, music, and literature far exceeds what it should be statistically. If you accept the right-wing claim that only one in a hundred people is gay, then the gay contribution is truly extraordinary. Think about it: A group comprising one percent of the population producing Erasmus, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Marlowe, Bacon, Hölderlin, Hans Christian Andersen, Tchaikovsky, Proust … the list goes on and on to include three of the four major nineteenth-century American novelists, one (perhaps both) of the two great nineteenth-century American poets, and two of the three most noted mid-twentieth-century American dramatists.

Even if Bawer overstates his case, anyone familar with high culture can’t deny in a “I can see it with my own two eyes” sense the disproportionate homosexual contribution. Make a list of the say, 50 most notable classical music composer-conductors of the past 100 years and check off who we know is homosexual if you want some statistical verification for the hypo.

James,

The point that Sowell et al. make is not that racism doesn’t exist, but since Jim Crow was crushed it really doesn’t have as much institutional teeth as you might think. And that’s because market oriented economies are pretty good at offering solutions to those who might be aggrieved victims of racism. For instance, if a black guy is more qualified and gets turned down for a job a competitor across the street, by hiring him, makes his business more efficient. There was a time when Jews were turned away from law firms. Not a smart move for the anti-Semites. So they started their own Jewish firms which today are some of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.

I don’t know enough about the issue to make a judgment call; but the Sowell hypo is the real problems blacks and other minority groups continue to face is less a function of white privilege and institutional racism and rather of more complex issues like fatherlessness that leads to poverty, lack of adequate educational opportunities and other things.

Ivan-

You are intentionally being obtuse, and everyone can see it. Carlos surely understood my point, as did everyone else as well, I am sure. My point was and is that you do not have to do anything of a sexual nature to “BE” gay. Sexual orientation and identity do NOT depend on having sexual intercourse.

Following YOUR logic would mean that every person has no sexual orientation until and unless they participate in sexual intercourse with another human being. To follow your logic another step, one would only be able to claim their sexuality based on the last individual they had sex with, meaning there would be no bi-sexual individuals.

Sorry you have such difficulty with logic.

@Snippet

That implies a “social engineering” mentality towards extending legal rights, which, as I argued in an earlier post, is NOT a conservative position. Conservatism is skeptical of the government’s ability to engineer behavior, which I why I believe a principled conservatism has an important place in any reasonable conversation about public policy.

Whatever merit the idea of limiting marriage to child-raising couples has (none, I think), it is not a conservative idea. Or if it is, it is a culturally conservative religious idea. This blog is supposedly supposed to venue for more skeptical, non-religious conservationism, which I interpret to be libertarianism or Burkean conservatism. Your idea makes no sense in those contexts.

I would fall into the category of people who would lose some of their legal rights if you “musing” were made into law. Do you think it would be fair for me to lose the legal protections and social recognition of marriage or not?

Yes or no? Well, what is it? When you put the question in such stark terms, it is revealed for the absurd idea that it is.

And besides, do we need to offer people special privileges for breeding? That’s one thing we do without much encouragement. Hell, we think about it all the time even when we don’t do it.

Marriage means something other than what you are saying it means. It is a structure for raising kinds, but it’s not JUST a structure for raising kids. Should marriages end when the kids finish college?

And that’s an important link in the argument against banning gay people from marrying. Biology isn’t the issue. If gay people can’t marry because they are not biologically able to reproduce, neither should infertile couples or couples who just don’t like kids. (To your credit, you said you’d give the same privileges to gay couples adopted.)

Biological potential or social results have NOTHING to do with whether the law should apply evenly to different categories of people. That is a conservative principle that I have a lot of sympathy for.

Some of the arguments being made here have are “out of bounds” within conservativism.

While I’m checking in here, I want to say that I have tremendous sympathy with Danilo’s attitude toward Hate crimes legislation. Terroristic actions taken out against specific groups of people are a different kind of crime and should be treated differently. Crimes that are partially motivated by prejudice should not. If someone assaults a gay person that came onto him that’s assault. It should be taken seriously, but it shouldn’t be legally different from beating up a guy who slept with your wife (to throw out a stereotypical reason for attacking a straight guy!). If a group of guys makes it a habit to search out gay people of the streets and attack them so those “fags” will know their place. . . well that’s a different category of crime. It deserves something more than the penalty you’d get for other kinds of violence.

I don’t know how those laws work in practice. It seems like the burden of proof there should be pretty high. By standards, the kids who killed Mathew Sheppard probably did not commit a hate crime. But since they committed several very serious felonies including kidnapping and first degree murder, it doesn’t matter that much. That’s plenty to get you life in prison. From what I know of the way hate crimes laws sometimes work, I’m a bit wary of them.

The hate crimes thing is a pretty good demonstration of the kinds of standards I think are appropriate to this debate. Should the law apply equally or not? That’s the only issue here. All the gibberish here about traditional this and that or biological this and that have very little to do with the law.

Is homosexuality a biological category? Sometimes. I’m not sure that’s good grounds for making a political judgment though. Is it a social reality? Yes. Is it fair to acknowledge this reality with legal recognition. Yep. In my book it is.

Ivan, some of your comments here are bordering on being straightforward message board “flaming.” Most of the folks here arguing the opposite side of this issue from me appear to be doing so in good faith. You appear to be arguing on the grounds of absurd semantic nonsense. You have made arguments based on an obsolete definition of the word “fetish,” on the bad behavior you say some gay dudes exhibit on T.V., and on whether one’s gender exists before one gets laid. I will swear on a stack of my Dad’s Playboy’s that I was straight long before I was gettin’ any.

@Ivan Karamazov:

All right, perhaps I did misunderstand you. But if so you’re entirely to blame. Your original use of the word fetish was preceded by the word sexual, and you later defined it as “anything that is different from the biological procreation sex act, which is male/female and with the proper orifices.” So you’ll pardon me if I made the mistake of thinking that you were referring to sex.

In any case, the point still stands. You’re making sweeping, blanket assertions about what is actually a very diverse group of people. I’d be interested to hear a clear description from you as to what this gay lifestyle really is. Does it encompass a fondness for musicals? Fine food? Fashion? An attraction to certain cultural icons? Which ones: Judy Garland? David Beckham? Jake Gyllenhaal? Hillary Clinton? Superman? Or do you refer to sexual subcultures, and if so which ones? Leather? Bears? S&M? Twinks? (And we haven’t even touched on what lesbians supposedly like).

Granted, there are such things as stereotypes of gays, and admittedly they often have a strong basis in reality. But it’s ridiculous to paint so broad a brush that you would assume there were a single “gay lifestyle” to which the LGBT community broadly subscribes. And it’s equally ridiculous to assume that ALL of us (or indeed, even a majority of us) participate in any or all of these lifestyles. A lot of us actually prefer to live rather un-flamboyant (and even boring) lives as bankers, plumbers, scientists, etc, instead of as fashion designers and interior decorators; and would rather watch Star Wars than Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. And finally, you seem to be forgetting that a great many straight people thoroughly enjoy many of the same things that we gay folk do: go to any fashion show or Celine Dion concert (or indeed, any gay bar) and there will often be straight folks there too.

And besides, by your standards one could just as easily describe a “straight lifestyle”, at least by American standards. There are many cultural signifiers that supposedly (and just as unfairly) signal masculine heterosexuality: beer, football, Hummers, power tools, poor fashion sense, and an unwillingness to articulate ones feelings, among others. Hell, you could even think of the Superbowl as an annual nationwide celebration of heterosexuality. To many of us gay folk, all of that straight culture IS “a WHOLE big other thing.” But we wouldn’t consider it to be a “fetish.”

@Jon Rowe,

Thank you for taking the time to explain that to me. I think it is definitely a valid point. It makes no sense for companies to turn away qualified applicants. I would tend to agree that institutional racism is becoming a thing of the past. (Of course, that’s just the opinion of a straight, white guy .) I don’t think it’s completely gone yet, and may never be, but we have come a long way in 50 years.

My original point was not to say that straight, white males have it much easier or that institutional racism/sexism/homophobia is the sole thing keeping those groups down and definitely not that straight, white males are the sole cause of these issues. I was initially responding to Ivan’s idea that because it is so hard to “prove” one is gay, it would be impossible to extend “gay rights” to anyone (I hope I’m getting his point across clearly. If you’ve read his posts, I think you’ll know what I’m getting at). He seems to be very concerned that gay people might end up with more rights/protections/special considerations than him, and I was trying to point out that he has plenty of special considerations already (and that “gay rights” does not mean setting up special rights just for gay people). For example, he’s never had to “prove” he was straight in order to marry the person he loves. I certainly wasn’t intending to stray so far off-topic, but I appreciate the discussion nonetheless.

Back to the topic at hand-I’ll say it again, there is no legal argument against same-sex marriage. There are moral arguments against it. I utterly disagree with those arguments, and think there are just as many moral argument FOR same-sex marriage. And obviously, there are religious arguments, but we’re here because we’ve set that aside. But where is the legal argument?

A pragmatic and secular conservative argument against support of gay marriage is that it will adversely impact support of unrelated secular and libertarian policies. Does anyone here have any idea what would happen to, say GOP membership, if the GOP were to expressly support or at least not expressly reject gay marriage? Currently a very large portion of any vote that supports smaller government comes from a coalition of libertarian conservatives and religious/social conservatives. It seems to me that many of the participants in this discussion want to exclude the religious and social conservatives. Do you, who feel this way, believe there are an adequate number of libertarians and secular conservatives to influence policy without the numbers provided by social and religious conservatives? If not do you believe that by rejecting religious and social conservatives we will be able to recruit members from other sources how will that happen, and how many do you believe can be recruited.

meanmathteacher, I think the republican party could indeed find new recruits out there if they gave up the social issues, and I think they could find a majority. There are many people who, if not for the social issues that affect them directly (or their loved ones) who would be republicans. I am one of those people. I am fiscally conservative, wish for less government intrusion, and am for more personal responsibility. I would have been a republican if not for the social issues views, and many of the independents I know would have been so as well.

That’s the rub. You either have to abandon, or at least marginalize to a great extent, the current base, and lay the foundation for a different type of republican party. The current Party is far from the greatness it once held as the Party Of Lincoln.

@meanmathteacher
There is a growing recognition that the current coalition, historically built from southern Dixie-crats from the 1960s and the religious right from the 80s, is no longer politically or demographically viable for the Republican Party going forward. It is becoming clearer to many people that broadening the GOP base will require a substantial renegotiation of its stance on social issues, at the very least.

This will likely be a painful and messy process, not least because the religious right has such a substantial grip within the party. But it will happen, and opposition to SSM, which is clearly a losing proposition among younger voters, is likely to become increasingly muted over the next few years.

I am doubtful as to whether the Republican party can be separated from social issues and religion at this point. I see them on a suicidal trajectory toward ideological purity. Religion has become the foundation of the party. Republican intellectuals are being purged and their influence is declining. It is becoming increasingly a party of rural, religious populism (Sarah Palin, Piyush Jindal, who performed an exorcism). The businessmen are not coming back soon. The Democrats on the other hand have drifted to the center and are now favored by many of the traditional constituencies of the old Republican party. One could imagine splitting the Democratic party into two parties: a centre-right fiscal conservative party called the “Democratic Party” with a platform like the Tories (UK, Canada) and a center-left Progressive Party. The Republicans would remain as a minor theocratic party focused on social issues.

Just imagining…

Danilo-

Maybe a third party, via the Independents, will actually emerge, thus burying the republican party. The latest polls show that more people identify as independents than either of the two major parties. This could be good for all concerned as both parties are sucky in their own way.

just hoping…

The first and second points use the idea that historically it has never been acceptable or even concieved, so why should it now. Homosexuals have existed throughout history and are greatly over-represented in almost every monastic lifestyle/profession in history: clergy, military, sailors, etc. This gave them the ability to live in a male dominated sphere that freed them from expectations of marriage, and is a major reason why this issue was avoided over time.

Interracial relations is approached differently in history because it leads to children. Gay marriage was not necessary, because historically marriage was for the purpose of having children, and marriage did not convey substantial civil rights and privilages as it does now. The fact that there is no historical precedent because “nobody wanted to” (which i find doubtful) does not negate the relevence of it today.

Hospital visitations are commonly ok, but sometimes not. Medical decisions are more of an issue (pulling the plug for example). Also, theres immigration of partners, tax benefits, divorce rights and procedure, inheritance, partner benefits, and more. Hospital visitation is not even in the top 5.

I fail to see how the slippery slope can be avoided. If “one man and one woman” is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, then “two and only two” cannot fail to be the same. The fact that Canada is not viewing Mormon polygamy at this time with favor is irrelevant, as bigotry and animus against Mormons is acceptable within the elites of that country. True, at this time, the liberal elites do not have any particular desire to promote polymarriage, but if Moslems are adopted as their next special case, then watch the barrier to polygamy fall in short order. An even easier route will be the formation of homosexual triad marriages, which while rarer do exist, and surely all the same protestations in favor of homosexual two-person marriage apply to more than two. Surely anyone who won’t let three lesbians marry can only be motivated by bigotry and hatred, after all.

In the previous thread someone posted that the slippery slope argument is bigotry, and two sentences later stated that there was nothing wrong with incest so long as both are consenting adults. This kind of ironic self-contradiction often can be seen in this debate, because one decides that marriage is whatever some judges, or a legislature say it is, then there is no logical or legal reason to deny it to any pressure group at all. The next group to be heard from may well be the pedophiles who will insist that the 10-12 year old person really is capable of giving informed consent…

So what we are heading for is an ever-increasing number of forms of marriage, with the ever increasing set of rules, regulations and law to go with them. This means an every expanding government to administer all these issues. I recall during the 1970’s there were liberals who insisted that making unilateral, no-reason divorce legal was find with them because “it won’t affect my marriage”. This has proven to be wrong, if for no other reason than the creation of the institution of “Family Court”, which operates under rules more like the Star Chamber than any regular court of law. Every woman and every man has had their marriage weakened since the 1970’s, because they cannot assume it will continue; since at any time she can take the children and obtain a protective order, or he can do the same, even the most trusting of husbands and wives likely experiences twinge from time to time. Anyone who has watched a friend or acquaintance go through the meat grinder of divorce court knows what I am saying is true.

Homosexual marriage will expand further the power of the state, of necessity. It will demand total societal acceptance of homosexuality as a norm, and that must lead in time to affirmative action in order to ensure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. This will lead to the situation Ivan may have been describing: once affirmative action must be taken to ensure proper participation of homosexuals in all areas of society, how does one prove status?

Furthermore, any criticism of homosexuality must be stamped out as well as heteronormativity, because that’s discriminatory as well. When the same process is used to force acceptance of polymarriage, criticism of that will have to go as well. Ditto for incestual marriage and pedo-marriage. The thuggish behavior of the California anti-amendment-8 forces in posting every name and address of every donor to Yes on 8 shows us the future; conform to whatever the elites have chosen for society, or risk physical attack upon your person and danger to your family. So wave bye-bye to what’s left of freedom of speech, in time.

In 20 years or so, we shall have a society in which all manner of sexual and nonsexual arrangements will be government sanctioned as “marriage”, along with a plethora of enforcement tools to prevent anyone from taking exception to the new status quo, and of course an ever-expanding body of law to deal with the ever-expanding body of rights. In time, the only liberties left will be sexual in nature.

This hardly seems a conservative result.