Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over?

Great Debates
341

You can hold people accountable at any point you want. You can indict them for apathy, ignorance, homophobia, or any number of things such as a too rigid mindset. My point is that each person is different and when you try to summarize the problem as bigotry, you miss the reality of many of the actual motivations for their behavior or failure to act.

Knowing the actual motivations will provide a better framework to shape the arguments to persuade enough of them to get the laws changed. Shouting “bigot” at them will not be persuasive, particularly if they do not even understand why you are calling them names.

342

On the contrary; shouting “bigot” at them is very effective - it’s what has worked, more than anything else. “Bigot” is a very effective accusation when the target can’t come up with any non-bigoted reason for their beliefs. And anti-SSM people can’t.

And you presume that there actually are “actual motivations” besides bigotry; given that the anti-SSM crowd has been challenged again and again to come up with such reasons and consistently failed, I see no reason to think they exist.

And most practically of all, why should SSM proponents change a strategy that’s working?

343

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html

A statement from 50 scholars, journalists, and activists:

The last few years have brought an astonishing moral and political transformation in the American debate over same-sex marriage and gay equality. This has been a triumph not only for LGBT Americans but for the American idea. But the breakthrough has brought with it rapidly rising expectations among some supporters of gay marriage that the debate should now be over. As one advocate recently put it, “It would be enough for me if those people who are so ignorant or intransigent as to still be anti-gay in 2014 would simply shut up.”

The signatories of this statement are grateful to our friends and allies for their enthusiasm. But we are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade those who disagree. We reject that deeply illiberal impulse, which is both wrong in principle and poor as politics.

We support same-sex marriage; many of us have worked for it, in some cases for a large portion of our professional and personal lives. We affirm our unwavering commitment to civic and legal equality, including marriage equality. At the same time, we also affirm our unwavering commitment to the values of the open society and to vigorous public debate—the values that have brought us to the brink of victory.

Diversity Is the Natural Consequence of Liberty

The gay rights struggle is about freedom and equality for all. The best and most free society is one that allows the largest number to live true to their core beliefs and identities. It is a society that allows its members to speak their minds and shape their own aspirations.

The natural consequence of true liberty is diversity. Unless a society can figure out a way to reach perfect agreement, conflicting views will be inevitable. Any effort to impose conformity, through government or any other means, by punishing the misguided for believing incorrectly will impoverish society intellectually and oppress it politically.

The test of our commitment to liberal principles is not our eagerness to hear ideas we share, but our willingness to consider seriously those we oppose.

Progress Comes from Persuasion

There is no evidence that Brendan Eich, the Mozilla CEO who resigned over his $1,000 donation to California’s Proposition 8 campaign, believed in or practiced any form of discrimination against Mozilla’s LGBT employees. That would be a very different case. He was pressured to leave because of personal political action he took at a time when a majority of the American public shared his view. And while he acknowledged the pain his donation caused, he did not publicly “recant,” which some suggested he should have done as the price of keeping his job.

So the issue is cleanly presented: Is opposition to same-sex marriage by itself, expressed in a political campaign, beyond the pale of tolerable discourse in a free society? We cannot wish away the objections of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith traditions, or browbeat them into submission. Even in our constitutional system, persuasion is a minority’s first and best strategy. It has served us well and we should not be done with it.

Free Speech Is a Value, Not Just a Law

Much of the rhetoric that emerged in the wake of the Eich incident showed a worrisome turn toward intolerance and puritanism among some supporters of gay equality—not in terms of formal legal sanction, to be sure, but in terms of abandonment of the core liberal values of debate and diversity.

Sustaining a liberal society demands a culture that welcomes robust debate, vigorous political advocacy, and a decent respect for differing opinions. People must be allowed to be wrong in order to continually test what is right. We should criticize opposing views, not punish or suppress them.

The freedom—not just legal but social—to express even very unpopular views is the engine that propelled the gay-rights movement from its birth against almost hopeless odds two generations ago. A culture of free speech created the social space for us to criticize and demolish the arguments against gay marriage and LGBT equality. For us and our advocates to turn against that culture now would be a betrayal of the movement’s deepest and most humane values.

Disagreement Should Not Be Punished

We prefer debate that is respectful, but we cannot enforce good manners. We must have the strength to accept that some people think misguidedly and harmfully about us. But we must also acknowledge that disagreement is not, itself, harm or hate.

As a viewpoint, opposition to gay marriage is not a punishable offense. It can be expressed hatefully, but it can also be expressed respectfully. We strongly believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong, but the consequence of holding a wrong opinion should not be the loss of a job. Inflicting such consequences on others is sadly ironic in light of our movement’s hard-won victory over a social order in which LGBT people were fired, harassed, and socially marginalized for holding unorthodox opinions.

Enforcing Orthodoxy Hurts Everyone

LGBT Americans can and do demand to be treated fairly. But we also recognize that absolute agreement on any issue does not exist. Franklin Kameny, one of America’s earliest and greatest gay-rights proponents, lost his job in 1957 because he was gay. Just as some now celebrate Eich’s departure as simply reflecting market demands, the government justified the firing of gay people because of “the possible embarrassment to, and loss of public confidence in . . . the Federal civil service.” Kameny devoted his life to fighting back. He was both tireless and confrontational in his advocacy of equality, but he never tried to silence or punish his adversaries.

Now that we are entering a new season in the debate that Frank Kameny helped to open, it is important to live up to the standard he set. Like him, we place our confidence in persuasion, not punishment. We believe it is the only truly secure path to equal rights.

344

“Carol, I thought I told you to put a ‘United Way’ update between those two agenda items.”

345

Of course it works. Such a charged word couldn’t help but work in today’s society. The question is whether it is a fair debating strategy.

Many non-bigoted reasons have been presented in this thread for opposing SSM. Your personal disagreement with those reasons doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

346

I’ve been waiting literally my entire adult life to hear an explanation for opposing gay marriage that was not ultimately based on the idea that gay people aren’t quite as good as straight people.

Still waiting.

347

It would be so much easier for you and your ilk if we just agreed that those reasons are non-bigoted, wouldn’t it? Sorry. It’s not 1950 anymore. Yearn for the past all you want, you’re not going to get it back without a fight.

348

Again, we start with the first precept that marriage is not an institution to simply make adults happy, but as one to bring biological children into the world. Implicit in that belief is that biological children are best served by a strong male role model who will paddle some ass when needed, and a strong female role model who will comfort, care, and kiss scratches when needed.

Of course, that is the goal which will not be reached by many families. Dad might be a drunk asshole and be gone from the child’s life. Mom might be a prostitute or a drug addict. Either party might divorce the other. We accept these shortcomings as a fundamental consequence of freedom.

What we don’t do is allow marriage to two people who by the very nature of their biology are incapable of having natural children. Two men or two women present a per se bar to the introduction of children into the world that is unlike anything presented by an opposite sex couple. Yes, an opposite sex couple may be infertile or elderly. We let those cases go for ease of administration.

You have already stated your disagreement to this proposition. But your disagreement doesn’t transform the argument into bigotry.

349

So we only let infertile people marry because it’s too much of a hassle to do fertility tests?

You do realize this is not a mainstream position, right?

350

If we start here, please show me the law that requires procreation or two parent families for the raising of children.

I’ll wait.

351

There are no restrictions for couples that refuse to bring biological children into the world, and there are gay couples that would love to raise biological children brought forth by conventional(and nonconventional) means.

352

I call bullshit for two reasons:

  1. Marriage is for the production of children. Historically, controlling the production of legitimate children is ONE OF the key functions of marriage, but in contemporary culture we have almost completely severed legal marriage from legal parenting, and we no longer socially stigmatize illigitimate children. In other words, you no longer need to be married to produce acceptable children.

  2. Your antiquated, culture-specific gender roles. As evidence, I cite the diversity of the human species, which has a cultural institution of marriage across all of them but startling different ideas of what men are like and what men do, as well as what women are like and what women do. Educate yourself a bit about gender cross-culturally and then return to this statement.

I don’t mind people who disagree with my views, but if your views are predicated on ignoring half a century of cultural shift and two centuries’ worth of data on other people’s cultures, not to mention historical data, why on earth should I take your ideas seriously?

353

And that only allows biological parents to raise their biological children. And please note that “best served” does not mean ONLY served.

It amazes me that the people who scream “children need a mother and a father” are likely to be the same ones who scream “no abortions.” You cannot endorse single motherhood and adoption and then oppose gay parenting without being seen as a super-duper-hyper-hypocrit!

A lesbian I know got pregnant by rape and decided to keep the child and raise it with her parent. The anti-abortion crowd told her to “have the baby and give it to a REAL family.”

354

There is no reason to accept your limitations. Marriage hasn’t been limited to these factors for a long time.

(1) Heterosexual adults who are incapable or uninterested in producing biological children are not restricted from marriage.

(2) Heterosexual and homosexual couples are equally capable of raising children that are brought into the family by other means, such as through adoption, surrogacy, from prior relationships, etc.

(3) The legal benefits and consequences of marriage go far beyond facilitating the production of biological children, such as tax benefits, inheritance, etc.

This belief has no basis in fact and is entirely based on stereotypes, prejudice, and bigotry.

The real world has so overtaken this assertion that it is ludicrous for you to state it with such confidence – plenty of jurisdictions around the world do indeed allow it and it has worked out just fine.

When your argument is based on thoroughly disproven and discredited assertions and all that is left are assertions that stand on nothing but bigotry, then, yes, your argument is bigoted.

355

Every single state in the union allows people that are biologically not capable of having natural children to marry.

356

Can’t let this pass unnoticed. I love the “when needed” part. I’d happily live in a world with all kinds of marriages, event those I didn’t understand or approve of, if men(and women) would just stop paddling their children.

357

Keep in mind that conservatives have disagreed with these shifts and have actually argued at times that such shifts could lead to the recognition of SSM which the opponents summarily dismissed (See Goodlatte; the MA case that decreed that SSM must be legal in MA. The Court used the state’s equal rights amendment as the grounds for allowing same sex marriage, even after noting that the opponents of the amendment in 1976 were assured, almost childlike, that the amendment would not allow for SSM).

I have no problem with a man who is effeminate or a woman who wants a career. I certainly don’t wish to scorn illegitimate children. But these steps have been argued at every point by those who have seemingly correctly stated that they will destroy the family foundation. Since we have permitted no-fault divorce and accepted single motherhood as a virtue, should we just do the rest and throw in the towel on the whole tradition of what constitutes a family?

I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why we should do that other than the happiness of some people. I further reject the label of bigotry. I have many personal flaws, some genetic and others not, that aren’t accepted by society. Nobody is a bigot for not allowing me to pursue those desires or innate traits.

358

You don’t seem to be aware that what constitutes “effeminate” varies wildly from culture to culture, and that the two roles you describe for the ideal parenting scenario aren’t universal. Really: read a bit of anthropology about traditional gender and marriage in non-western societies. I’m not saying we should emulate other societies, but I am saying that you are making assumptions about human beings that aren’t warranted and aren’t borne out by evidence.

359

The trouble is treating any of those things - dad’s an ass-paddler, mom soothes scratches, marriage is for having babies - as presumptively valid. The answer to “Since we have permitted no-fault divorce and accepted single motherhood as a virtue, should we just do the rest and throw in the towel on the whole tradition of what constitutes a family?” is yes, if there’s good reason to do it and no good reason not to. If there’s a good reason to keep it, we keep it. But you have to say what it is if you don’t want people to lump you in with all the other billions of people historically whose opposition was in fact based in bigotry.

I mean, look, you just said

You need a reason other than making people’s lives better? Is there a better reason to do anything? So there is a good reason to allow gay marriage, right? They’re human beings and they want to marry each other like human beings do sometimes.

There’s no good reason not to, is there? Only that we haven’t previously done it. Once we reach this particular standoff for the hundred-thousandth time, at some point it does have to be true that either 1. there’s some other reason to object or that 2. you’ll point out why the way we’ve been doing it is a good way to do it.

360

“I have no problem with a man who is effeminate…”
Would you be o.k. if two big manly lumberjack-type whisky-swigging, cigar-smoking dudes wanted to get married? :dubious: