Am I wrong/ignorant for not wanting to read Stan Kurtz rip apart gay marriage?

[Leaper]

I have a bit of a moral dilemma. I was considering putting this on GD, but considering the nature of possible replies, decided to put it here (partly because, well, no matter what answers I get, I still reserve the right to, in the end, find the opinions I’m referring to odious).

I am a supporter of gay marriage. I am also a citizen of the SDMB, dedicated to fighting ignorance. I know that one of the best ways to remain ignorant is to never challenge your own opinions, and to keep exclusive intellectual company with those who agree with you. So I try to get out there and read the opinions of more conservative sources through such things as blogs. I generally find them informative and well-spoken, although I can’t deny that there are definitely times when my blood’s boiled.

Now, the National Review’s Stanley Kurtz has just testified to the Federal government about how Scandanavia proves that gay marriage destroys the entire concept of marriage. He is planning to rebut various counterarguments, and further elucidate his own next week. This is one of those blood boiling moments. It makes me want to avoid the Corner all next week just so I don’t have to subject myself to the anger/anguish.

However, I look back on that first paragraph of mine, and I wonder: am I being too harsh on the guy? Am I only advancing my own ignorance by not paying attention to what he has to say?

I’m kinda torn here. Advice, folks?

[Captain_Carrot]

It sounds like you hear plenty of conservative opinions on gay marriage already. While it might be educational to read Kurtz’s article, I don’t think it is necessary for you to read every single anti-gay marriage argument by everyone.

'Sides, one can only encounter so much filth in a set amount of time.

[tdn]

Well, there’s an old saying: “A closed mind is an empty mind.” There’s another old saying: “Garbage in, garbage out.”

Glad I could be of help.

Although I will say this about Kurtz – he’s managed to perform quite a feat. He has an empty mind full of garbage.

[II_Gyan_II]

IMHO, if one is really secure in one’s opinions and not afraid of changing them, then you ought to read dissenting views. You’ll either find already rejected arguments, invalid reasoning, compelling arguments or combinations thereof.

[Lilairen]

@Leaper

I’m kinda torn here. Advice, folks?

Go ahead and read him.

Then go ahead and read some of the rebuttals.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1443 would do for the rebuttal role.

[Jurhael]

Blah. For me it’s not about being “secure in my opinions”, it’s about keeping my sanity.

If your instinct is telling you to RUN THE FUCK AWAY, then you should do so.
That’s easy for me to say though since I’m usually not interested in full on debates with issues that will guarentee to set myself and others on FIRE.

But, if it’s your intent to debate these issues, then it’s in your best interest to “know your enemy”.

[kevja]

Jurhael summed it up nicely.

If you feel strongly abour the subject, and want to fight ignorance, you really should know what the other side is saying.

Go ahead and read it, already.

[JamesCarroll]

You know the funniest thing about “gay” marriage is that everyone has totally lost the point.

Ask yourself this: Why do gays feel its so important that they can get married? Is it that they declare their love for one another to the world? That they ask whatever God they believe in (or don’t believe in) to bless their union? Is it the party and all the kick ass gifts they get? Can’t be. They can do all that stuff now.

What gay marriage folk WANT are the same rights and priviledges that straight married folk do. They want the Social Security, the hospital visitation, the automatic inheritance, and so forth. And its here where they show their hypocracy.

People who support gay rights aren’t supporting human rights, they’re supporting THEIR rights, the rest of the world be damned. They want to be another “protected class” in marriage, the same wat that they have become a “protected class” in employment and housing. “Fuck the rest of the world, give me mine” is their mantra.

[county]

Well, unless you are a child, if you go around listening to other viewpoints AND then changing your opinion you are a moron who didn’t really have an informed opinion in the first place. I know people whose opinion is a reflection of the last person they talked to and I have a name for them, morons.

For instance, most of my views are extremely liberal, extremely, but I don’t have an opinion on “gay marriage” at this point. See, I don’t have to have an opinion on everything. Eventually I will decide and when I do, it will be an informed opinion and I seriously doubt it will be changed. Although I will certainly listen to other viewpoints, if I feel like it.

[Miller]

@JamesCarroll

What gay marriage folk WANT are the same rights and priviledges that straight married folk do. They want the Social Security, the hospital visitation, the automatic inheritance, and so forth. And its here where they show their hypocracy.

People who support gay rights aren’t supporting human rights, they’re supporting THEIR rights, the rest of the world be damned. They want to be another “protected class” in marriage, the same wat that they have become a “protected class” in employment and housing. “Fuck the rest of the world, give me mine” is their mantra.

Uh… how is asking for the same rights as straight folk asking to be a “protected class”? Where’s the hypocrisy in that? And how does crusading for gay marriage equate with “fuck the rest of the world”? And since when have gays been a protected class in employment and housing? AFAIK, most states do not grant any protection against being fired or denied housing because of sexual orientation.

Seriously, nothing you said in that post makes any sense at all. I’m not flaming you here (although I’m sure that will come later). I genuinely have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

[Typo_Negative]

@JamesCarroll

People who support gay rights aren’t supporting human rights, they’re supporting THEIR rights, the rest of the world be damned. They want to be another “protected class” in marriage, the same wat that they have become a “protected class” in employment and housing. “Fuck the rest of the world, give me mine” is their mantra.

And what the hell are you supporting? “Fuck these cretins who want the same rights that I enjoy!!”

[Blalron]

@JamesCarroll

What gay marriage folk WANT are the same rights and priviledges that straight married folk do. They want the Social Security, the hospital visitation, the automatic inheritance, and so forth. And its here where they show their hypocracy.

People who support gay rights aren’t supporting human rights, they’re supporting THEIR rights, the rest of the world be damned.

How is the rest of the world damned by this? And why are you angry at them for wanting the same rights as everybody else?

They want to be another “protected class” in marriage, the same wat that they have become a “protected class” in employment and housing. “Fuck the rest of the world, give me mine” is their mantra.

They want to be protected by the law? They don’t want to be fired from their job or evicted from their apartments soley because of the fact that they are gay? Selfish bastards!

[JamesCarroll]

@Miller

Uh… how is asking for the same rights as straight folk asking to be a “protected class”? Where’s the hypocrisy in that? And how does crusading for gay marriage equate with “fuck the rest of the world”? And since when have gays been a protected class in employment and housing? AFAIK, most states do not grant any protection against being fired or denied housing because of sexual orientation.

Seriously, nothing you said in that post makes any sense at all. I’m not flaming you here (although I’m sure that will come later). I genuinely have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

And to others…

Its hypocritical because they don’t seem to care much about anyone else but themselves. Granted I might have said selfish instead, but …

I’m single. Do I get special visitation rights? Do I get to choose who my Social Security goes to? Where does my stuff go if I die?
But what about transgender folk? Bob was pre-op, but Marla was post op. Are they a gay couple or straight? Who’s to decide?
And what about the Mormons who want to have many wives? Shoudln’t they be given the same rights that you champion?

There’s the hypocarcy. There’s the “special class”-ness (pardon the abuse).
You see? Gay marriage folk should not be asking “Why don’t we get the same rights as them”, but “Why do they get special rights at all?”

Afterall, its love that makes a family, right?

If you eliminated the AUTOMATIC entitlements that marriage brings then there would be no problem.

[BytopianDream]

His ideas that cohabiting leads to more couples dissolving their relationships with or without children are true according to the sociology “Family and Society” course and its book. His argument that gay marriage leads to more family break ups does not follow though.

Most of what I read last semester about the current rate of divorce leads one to believe that several factors unrelated to any GBLT issues are at work.

1. Women can make decent income and don’t need men’s income.
2. More open divorce laws which allow easier divorces.
3. Men’s income potential stagnating from the 1960s.
4. Falling birth rates which leads to smaller families (which might mean a. No children families have less of “for the children” incentive to stay together, b. The youngest child reaches an age where the parents decide the children can cope with divorce, c. It is less financially necessary to have a cohesive family for smaller families.)
5. The rise in cohabiting results in more couple dissolution because of less: a. legal, b. financial, c. societal pressures for a couple to stay together.

The arguments above seem more likely a cause for more cohabiting and more divorce in Scandinavia than “those evil homersexuals did it.”

Of course, I only read the guys blurbs about what he was going to say. His arguments might be more indepth than that.

[Lilairen]

@Miller

Uh… how is asking for the same rights as straight folk asking to be a “protected class”?

Hell, how about the straight folk who are out there fighting for gays to have the same rights that they have? It’s not like they’re uncommon.

[Miller]

@JamesCarroll

And to others…

Its hypocritical because they don’t seem to care much about anyone else but themselves. Granted I might have said selfish instead, but …

Yeah, you might have, because they are two totally different words with entirely different meanings.

I’m single. Do I get special visitation rights?

Yes.

Do I get to choose who my Social Security goes to?

Yes.

Where does my stuff go if I die?

To your next of kin. Which is probably your parents, assuming you haven’t specified otherwise in your will. The same applies to all of your above “complaints.” (Except, perhaps, Social Security, the mechanics of which I am not familiar with). All marriage does is automatically designate your spouse as your next of kin, as opposed to your closest living blood relative.

But what about transgender folk? Bob was pre-op, but Marla was post op. Are they a gay couple or straight? Who’s to decide?

Well, that’s an entirely different issue, as the transgendered are not by definition homosexual, although they tend to be lumped together because they are, for the most part, hated by the same groups of people. If Bob is a ftm transsexual, and Marla is a mtf transexual, I’d say they are a straight couple, and ought to be allowed to marry under the current legal definition of marriage. Which, by and large, they are not currently able to do. And, of course, if SSM were legalized, this wouldn’t be any sort of an issue at all. It wouldn’t matter if they were considered a gay or a straight couple, they’d be allowed to marry either way. This is yet another excellent reason to change the legal definition of marriage to make it non-gender specific.

Incidentally, what does that have to do with SSM being either “hypocratic” or “selfish”?

And what about the Mormons who want to have many wives? Shoudln’t they be given the same rights that you champion?

Yes, they should. Although, oddly enough, the Mormons would disagree with me: the Church of Latter Day Saints has been firmly set against polygamy for more than a century now.

There’s the hypocarcy. There’s the “special class”-ness (pardon the abuse). You see? Gay marriage folk should not be asking “Why don’t we get the same rights as them”, but “Why do they get special rights at all?”

That’s not actually hypocrisy. That’s nothing like hypocrisy. Do you even know what hypocrisy means? Well, since you earlier indicated that you thought it was a synonym for “selfish,” I guess you don’t.

Afterall, its love that makes a family, right?

If you eliminated the AUTOMATIC entitlements that marriage brings then there would be no problem.

So, your problem (one of your problems, at any rate) appears to be with marriage, and not with gay marriage. So why don’t you go rail at the heterosexuals, instead? Why pick on the gays, when A) they can’t get married at all in the first place and B) even if they could, they’d represent the tiniest minority of married couples in the US.

[Kyla]

@JamesCarroll

People who support gay rights aren’t supporting human rights, they’re supporting THEIR rights, the rest of the world be damned. They want to be another “protected class” in marriage, the same wat that they have become a “protected class” in employment and housing. “Fuck the rest of the world, give me mine” is their mantra.

What I don’t get is how I, as a straight woman, want to become part of a protected class by supporting gay marriage. Huh? Please to explain.

[elfbabe]

I’m not planning to read the Stanley Kurtz stuff. My reasoning is that even if he were right and gay marriage DID irreparably destroy the fabric of Scandinavian society… I’d still be in favor of it. Of course, I’m not planning to participate in any discussions that pertain specifically to what he has to say, either, and if I decide to do so, I’ll bite the bullet and read what he’s said. For now, I know what the gist of his argument is, and I think that’s enough.

I think at SOME point, you have to take a few steps back for the sake of your own sanity, especially on an issue like this. I don’t check godhatesfags.com every day, either.

[Leaper]

@BytopianDream

Of course, I only read the guys blurbs about what he was going to say. His arguments might be more indepth than that.

In case you’re curious, you can find his article on the subject here.

And as an aside, it’s not that I’m completely ignorant of the other side’s arguments (though perhaps these specific ones aren’t 100% clear to me), it’s just that I’m wondering if it’ll be enlightening enough to justify any increase in blood pressure I suffer.

[kung_fu_lola]

(from the rebuttal page:) “Research suggests that many Nordic couples don’t feel that they need the approval of the state to certify the validity of their permanent relationships.”

But isn’t that what the Pubbies and other right-wingers want? Less government interference in people’s personal lives?

Kurtz’s argument is that the rising cohabitation rate in Scandinavia is evidence that gay marriage is bad for society? That is completely lame. Families come in all shapes and permutations, and anyone who can’t be accepting of that is a dinosaur.