Tolerance FAQ, take 2 (II of II)
5. Homosexuals are destroying the institution of marriage
The social ritual of marriage in the United States today is highly unstable, as the 50+ % divorce rate shows. I don’t think it’s fair to blame that instability on late-comers to the institution of marriage. That’s like seeing a tire is getting low on your car, letting a friend drive it, and then blaming him for the tire now being completely flat.
Let’s face it: marriage is not being destroyed; it is changing. This is expected and normal, since a society’s institutions change as it changes. We have all of human history to show us how common and predictable this constant cultural change is.
Unfortunately we also have all of human history to show us how short-sighted and panicky some people can be when faced with unwanted change.
You cannot stop cultural change, though, not even if you threaten violence in order to get your way. That being the case, why can’t we let kindness and tolerance rule our reactions, instead of fear or hate?
The popular notion of love and marriage is that they are synonymous. … Like most popular notions this also rests not on actual facts, but on superstition.
— Emma Goldman, 1911
6. What’s next? Bestiality/ polyamory/ incest/ whatever?
In the United States we have a social standard called “consenting adults.” Basically, if two or more people are legal adults and make an agreement with each other which harms no one else, it is no one else’s business what they do. That pretty much covers all the “what’s next?” suggestions — animals cannot give consent, nor can children.
To be quite frank, polyamory and/or extended families would be a return to more common human forms of family, and especially valuable if the standard of consenting adults were applied. Personally, I’d love to have more than one adult available to hand children off to, or to help out with paying the bills.
Since extended blood-related families are no longer the norm, why not let polyamory, or nonsexual extended friendship-families, fill the bill? More money, time, and care for children can only help them in the long run — and also help the adults trying to raise them, especially in a society which devalues homemakers.
I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.
— anonymous
7. Same-sex marriage brings no benefit to society. Not allowing same-sex marriage does.
First, if we’re only allowing our culture to contain things which benefit the society and ourselves, there’s a long list of things we should throw out immediately for harming us, long before we worry about same-sex marriage.
Rampant corporate greed, zealotry trumping reason or facts, mindless media consumerism, and governmental indifference to their people are all good places to start.
Second, cultural change comes about when the needs of the people are not met through current societal conventions. That automatically makes cultural change a benefit to society — it answers the real-life needs of the people.
The current version of marriage does not answer people’s social needs for family, as the appalling divorce rate shows. Therefore marriage must change with the times or lose relevance as a social convention, and eventually be forgotten.
We can see this happening in the Scandinavian countries already [text-only version]. I’m not sure why some people consider this a bad thing, as long as the needs of the people are being met.
Third, abuse of selected minorities is not healthy for either the minority or the people involved in the abusing. As the old saying goes, slavery is bad for the master as well as for the slave.
To refuse societal recognition to certain minorities simply because we don’t like them, and they can’t stop us, is extraordinarily unhealthy for us all — and horribly un-American.
Alternatively, choosing to treat all people with kindness and respect helps us all become better, healthier individuals, and benefits society as a whole.
Marriage is important when you’re afraid, insecure, or need something. It’s possible to be married just by being together.
— Tina Turner, 60 year old singer who has cohabited with her partner Erwin Bach, a record company executive, for the last 14 years
Closing comments
Reactionary desires to return to some mythical “Golden Age,” when “things were simpler,” should be recognized for what they are.
For some it’s wanting to have their “right” to power, to being “society’s privileged,” remain unquestioned. For others, it’s a longing for a lost fable of childhood “innocence,” of constant maternal love and care, with no responsibilities or difficult decisions to make.
If that’s how you truly feel, that’s fine — there are professionals who can help you in coping with this, or who will take care of you. But realizethis is what you want; don’t hide from it. Don’t think fear gives you the right to decide how others should live, or that everyone feels like you do.
As I noted above, change is inevitable, but how we react to it is not. We’ve tried fear, intolerance, and hatred, and it was unpleasant, messy, and useless in stemming the unceasing tide of cultural change. That being the case, why don’t we try kindness and tolerance this time?
Same sex civil unions don’t bother me.
Same sex civil unions blessed by a priest don’t bother me. What does bother me is bigamy, polygamy, and polyamina, which will be claimed as a constitutional right by combinations including, a homosexual man, a bisexual man, a homosexual woman, and a bisexual woman, and larry, who likes small children and animals, and they all want to get married, and adopt and bring children into this newly sanctioned institution. Legal Marriage brings with it the opportunity to adopt children.
Re: Same Sex Marriage “manifesto”
Hello.
In the distant past (back when you were still on the uniblab site), I ran across your gun control paper, and mentioned how much I liked it. Well, you’ve done it again; your August Firestarter is a wonderful (and reasonable) argument on the issue. (It’s also a bit less dismissive to the religiously inclined than is your original piece). With your permission, I’d like to link to it at my website, Horologium. We approach politics from a slightly different viewpoint, but we agree on this issue (in addition to our views on gun control). Is this acceptable to you?
Ron
aka “timekeeper”
I mentioned this to you, and I thought I’d scribble down and email like I should have in the first place.
I hope you weren’t “berated” for making things too long… that sounds rather harsh.
And I am not sure I agree that conciseness infers dismissiveness and flippancy. You may wish to say “that I can be either” rather than the all-inclusive “you.”
The Arguments, followed by The Answers:
1: Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not an inherited trait
Q: Baloney
A: This is a good clear answer. Concise and clear. The Taliban example at the end verges on pointy, but makes the point clearly.
2: America is ruled by majority, so whatever the majority says is wrong shouldn’t be allowed
Q: Eek, scary.
A: This is not just a frighteningly un-American statement, it’s just plain frightening. (Although, the committee on un-American activities was searching for exactly this… wait, wasn’t Senator McCarthy determined to have gone too far?)
This is the answer where I didn’t know all your examples:
This list wasn’t as powerful as the single, obviously known example given in the first, because I have no idea what some of these are. It didn’t help you make your point for me, it only helped me think I’m not as educated as you. Were I in a less positive mood, I could think it was you trying to sound pretentious and smarter than me. I know you too well for that, but it’s something to be careful of.
The second half of this, where you point out that the tyranny of the majority is safe only as long as you are in the majority is well done. I’m not sure it would bother some thoughtless people though. Do some of the people who are so horrified by this issue perhaps secretly believe in those things, or that they weren’t so bad?
3: Homosexual couples can’t be a “nuclear family,” and kids need that
Q: Baloney.
A: Nuclear family bullshit. I think your argument is good and clear. Their “argument” itself is weak and a throwback to a non-existent ideal.
The only weakness is the last paragraph — there are people who would tell those kids and those parents that not having their genetics is a bad thing. I think they’re nuts, too.
4: Homosexuality is an attack on society
Q: Huh? What planet are these people on? An attack on society? What does that mean? How? This makes them sound crazy, not the homosexuals, who merely want to be happy with each other, officially.
A: I don’t understand the assertion that homosexuality is an attack on society. (How can it be, when all the gay men are always portrayed as neat, tidy, and fashionable? Kidding!) What, anyway, does that have to do with homosexuals marrying each other, anyway?
Your argument here is pretty clear.
This is the argument that had the bible quote I didn’t see the relevance to in it. After we discussed, it and I read it again, I can see the relevance. However, I don’t think that someone arguing this point ever will.
The quote is about sin, not about ignoring facts and being dangerously illogical, and I didn’t make the connection the first two, er, three times. Anyone arguing this way will be sure they aren’t ignoring facts or being illogical, so they will never be able to make the connection, and see you as spouting randomly, and perhaps besmirching their beloved bible by twisting it to your horrid ends. Were you really trying to argue with that sort, it might be a weakness to include this.
5: Homosexuals are destroying the institution of marriage
Q: How can anyone who desperately wants to be married destroy the institution?
A: Your argument here is good. I’m not sure the “institution” of marriage is a good thing, or how it got to be an institution. Does that mean that if you get married, you should be institutionalized?
6: What’s next? Bestiality/ polyamory/ incest/ whatever?
Q: What’s next? Happiness, tolerance, consideration of others, and peace on earth? The horror, the horror! *sigh*
A: This is a good answer to this question. I think it’s a stupid question, but that’s not your fault.
7: Same-sex marriage brings no benefit to society; not allowing same-sex marriage does.
Q: Wow, more people on another planet. What benefit does not allowing same-sex marriages offer? What benefit do differing-sex marriages offer? The more I think about that, the more I wonder why people rush so blindly in to them.
A: I don’t understand how they can make this assertion. Your answer seems to assume I understand what planet the speaker was on, and could be clearer.
Why is the divorce rate “appalling”? It’s only appalling if marriage is good, isn’t it?
What are you talking about in the Scandinavian countries? I’m not familiar with what you refer to there, and it seems critical to this paragraph.
Conclusion: Your conclusion stops being a well-argued FAQ and turns pointy. Is this what you wanted? It’s not rudely pointy, it’s just a serious jab after some otherwise balanced arguments.
I took a look at Collie’s page and I think it is in our spirit here in that it tries to get past the platitudes and tease them appart a little. If you are into the emotional aspects of this question rather than the political ones I have set out above, it’s worth a look. If you are dead set against gay marriage, hers is a good site to run your points of view up against. I mean, if you feel that the Bible is a stumbling block she at least addresses the question rather than waves it in front of you. Hope you continue to bring some of your clearish thinking to the runninmum here.
I just read your latest FireStarter (which somehow got received next Saturday (?)). Very interesting.
One of the things about the same-sex marriage debate that no one can explain is how same-sex marriages are supposed to destroy the institute of marriage.
On another point, I read somewhere (and I wish I could remember where) that the 50% divorce rate is a crock. What they supposedly did was take the number of couples getting married in a particular year and compare it to the number of couples who got divorced. The number of marriages was twice the number of divorces.
However, since the number of couples who weren’t married and could have been was much smaller than the number of couples who were and could have been divorced, these numbers are not comparable.
You’re a very well-written individual and it was a pleasure to see some thought put into approaching what is a very complex and volatile situation.
For me the issue has been taken off the intellectual level and put directly on the emotional one: I am good friends with a number of gay couples, and I am tired of seeing them treated as second-class citizens just because they are the same gender as their partner.
I’m tired of seeing them derided, reviled and deprived of the same rights and opportunities that others have based on something as arbitrary as gender. I am tired of individuals who pretend to be tolerant and understanding saying “Love who you want, you just can’t get married.” I’m tired of seeing their love made out to be inferior or somehow invalid.
This trend is hurtful to my friends and at this point I feel it’s also harmful to our society to perpetuate that behavior any longer.
But in the old days, my… did I ever like to start fires in a similar manner, just for the intellectual challenge of the debate. I hope you stay in the game longer than I did.