Via Mike Hoye’s Weblog blarg?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It won’t surprise anyone here to learn that I’ve gone rounds and rounds with anti-gay Americans about why they are opposed to more rights for the nation’s homosexual citizens. Often they’ll quote the Bible, or they’ll raise the specter of rampant man-on-box-turtle sex, or they’ll suggest that even terrorism poses less of a threat to our way of life than allowing gays to live their lives with respect and more equal treatment under the law. The one thing I’ve learned in all these exchanges, however, is that it’s rather unfair to expect anti-gay Americans to employ logic when discussing their feelings. It tends to trip them up and make them look silly. Take Pat Buchanan for example:
To some of us, homosexuality is an affliction, like alcoholism, and hellishly difficult to control. Why some folks can take or leave alcohol — while others can enjoy it in moderation, and others cannot stop drinking without help and must swear off it for life or it will kill them — remains a mystery of nature. Homosexuality seems to be like that.
I can see the billboards in Key West now. Two buff studs, well-oiled and naked, rolling around on the beach, with the court-ordered legal disclaimer in small print at the bottom: “Enjoy Responsibly.”
Maybe Pat needs to give Zell Miller a call for some help in formulating his metaphors.
Edward – “rather unfair to expect anti-gay Americans to employ logic when discussing their feelings…”
So that established, what now? So if the ‘feeling’ is that marriage rights should be accorded to a solemnized relationship between a man and a woman, and that feeling is inherently strong, how do you propose to overcome that. Calling those people silly may be gratifying in many ways, but it certainly won’t advance your cause. By the way, many of us think Pat Buchanan is ridiculous. He doesn’t represent any belief I hold strongly. How can you help me, and those like me want to help you?
It’s widely considered a bad parallel, blogbudsman, but in the broadest context, the way for Americans with genuine feelings that gay marriage is somehow wrong to help, is similar to the path the nation took with regard to miscegenation. In short, to recognize that those genuine feelings stem from something they were taught, whether they realize it or not, and to question how appropriate what they were taught really is.
Usually even the staunchest anti-gay person will soften their stance when they realize that someone they care about has come out of the cloest. When they see that the sterotypes they see in film or TV or wherever don’t exactly match the reality.
Once you have gay loved ones who express to you how they feel about marriage (or just equal respect under the law for their relationship), it won’t necessarily change your overall opinion, but it may help you, yourself, identify where any misgivings are coming from.
Overall, it’s extremely difficult to defend what you feel is a God-given right to live with dignity in the face of hatred. It’s something all minorities face, I know, but at least other minorities can count on their families to support them in it. Which is not to say “poor little me” but rather to explain why I tend to be a bit snarky on the subject. I note that, with apologies, in response to your sincere question. Thanks.
All I know is that every time I hear Pat Buchanaen and ilk explain something to me, I find I need several drinks.
And I’m not even Irish, which further confuses the nature versus nurture argument.
Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it. When I was growing up, there was a older gay couple that ran the local neighborhood grocery store. I know us kids thought it a bit strange, and maybe unique for our closed little society, but I never felt any hatred. We all liked these guys. But it really wasn’t discussed much. Your probably right, if I was more exposed to gay relationships in more of a family setting than garish, offensive (to me) parades flashing open sexual high jinx. I even have a double standard in my double standard. I have a lesbian sister in law who we love to death. It’s odd because I probably accept Lesbian relationships more willfully than I would gay men. Likely a hang up with sex between men. Well Edward, I’ve more than likely confirmed your worse nightmares. Middle aged white males are way too screwed up to ever be pursuaded easily. Ridicule me or keep up the dialog, I’m sure both are deserved. Any snarkyness is accepted.
Well Edward, I’ve more than likely confirmed your worse nightmares. Middle aged white males are way too screwed up to ever be pursuaded easily. Ridicule me or keep up the dialog, I’m sure both are deserved. Any snarkyness is accepted.
Not at all…my worse nightmares are folks who believe gay people have no right to live. They help me keep those who simply disagree about rights in perspective.
I confess to not really understanding what achievable goal the anti-gay-marriage folks are aiming for, here.
Frankly, this is the aspect of discrimination that I have the hardest time with. What’s the goal? What is the bottom line? I mean, I think I understand that there are a lot of people out there who would rather that there just weren’t any gay people, but is it their impression that legal discrimination will make gay people move elsewhere, or just go away?
From my own point of view, this issue has always been an ease one. I don’t think the government should be in the business of marriage anyway, but there is apparently an assumed societal advantage to be had in stable, long-term relationships. This is why there are privileges written into law for married folks, right? If we’re going to recognize and reward stability, I would think that the definition used for stability should be inclusive, rather than exclusive. Requiring some form of commitment is not a bad thing, but the standards for being able to enter into that commitment should be accessible.
Plus, well, I really can’t see any reason why two people, who love each other, who want to formally tell the world they do, and want to spend their lives with each other, shouldn’t. The sex of the two people frankly doesn’t enter into it. But that is an emotional, personal thing, to be shared with friends and family. Why the whole state has to be involved in that, I’m not sure.
Just my thoughts.
crutan
“and that feeling is inherently strong, how do you propose to overcome that.”
I think there are two questions implicit here. One is, is it right to overcome that, and the second is the more explicit how. I think it is right to overcome that, because satisfying feelings is not a principle we respect in this country. Rather, we have legal principles like equal access to the law and moral principles like the golden rule. When some or all of those principles are in violation of feelings, even a majority feeling, it is absolutely right to point that out and campaign over peoples’ feelings.
Second, how. I think if you point out that it’s just a feeling, and that there is no other reason to justify it, that goes a long way. You put people in the position of defending it purely on the basis of their discomfort, which is not compelling. People understand this intuitively, which is why when asked to defend their position, they don’t talk about their feeling. They talk about the Bible (capriciously. Anyone who wants to dig for the details with an open mind will find them), they talk about undefined ‘natural law’, or any other seemingly objective source they can rest on other than their feelings.
I laughed at that Buchanan quote and then felt kinda horrified that I found it so funny. Too many people feel that way.
It is amazing how different it is here in Europe. You can’t get “married” here in Norway if you are gay, but you can have a civil marriage, with every single right and benefit that regular marrieds have. We even have a lesbian bishop here (the state church is Lutheran). Not even the older people here care much about homosexuality, they just accept it as part of modern life.
I hope you live to see the day where it is as accepted in the States as it is here, Edward. I really do.
If so many of these anti-gay folks really think that being gay is a choice…..I can only wonder if they’ve actually just been suppressing their own desires all this time….
I wonder if Pat and his lesbian sister speak to each other.
I think both sides of this issue are wanting to use the law partly to make a moral statement. The anti-gay-marriage crowd wants to make a moral statement that gay marriage is immoral, or not approved by society, or yucky, or some such thing. The pro-gay-marriage crowd wants to make a moral statement that it’s moral, that gay couples are an accepted part of the community, that you shouldn’t need to stare at the gay couple walking down the street anymore than you do at the straight couple walking down the street.
I gather that many of the people who will vote to ban gay marriage really don’t care that much about banning civil unions, since it doesn’t make the same kind of moral statement. (Many is not all–the biggest advocates of a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage seem to be fiercely anti-civil-union, as well. But I think most people who find gay marriage to be at least yucky to contemplate don’t see anything objectionable about civil unions with exactly the same set of rights.)
I also gather that “separate but equal” civil unions are better than nothing, but not the goal that most advocates of legal gay marriage crave.
Would it be more workable to try to split the issue between the moral statement issue and the practical set of equal rights issue? I say this as someone with relatively little personally at stake (I have friends this affects, but it will have little impact on me personally–indeed, it seems like the ultimate in policies that help someone else while costing me nothing.) Is there some technical legal reason why this is a hopeless thing to try to do?
–John
Well, I’ve stemed the problem dealing with any issue involving irrationally to bigotry. It’s quite evident that the only reason politics and government get involved in any issue is because it is becoming “hot,” and there are votes to be won. So I do not blame politics for developing policies engineered to please the majority of the people in the country; after all, that IS their job, isn’t it? But that’s a whole nother’ ball game…
“It’s widely considered a bad parallel, blogbudsman, but in the broadest context, the way for Americans with genuine feelings that gay marriage is somehow wrong to help, is similar to the path the nation took with regard to miscegenation.”
-Edward
I agree with this statement. If you take a look back in history, pretty much with any controversial social issue, society seems to hold very firm feelings at first and oppression of course exists. However, there is a trend that lurks behind every dying issue, and this trend is happening now – as we speak. That trend has been labeled with the following words and phrases, “adjusting,” “getting used to,” “getting comfortable with,” and “understanding.”
“Usually even the staunchest anti-gay person will soften their stance when they realize that someone they care about has come out of the cloest. When they see that the sterotypes they see in film or TV or wherever don’t exactly match the reality.”
-Edward
Edward’s statement could not be more true. This is how those previous words and phrases apply. Any surfacing societal issue is going to involve a minority – the wrong (but right) people – against the majority – the bigots and ignorants. It’s unfortunate that most social wars fought in the beginning are so lopsided, but the fact is American society simply needs “time” to learn to accept and deal with the new change. Even now, some 30 years after homosexuality has had a full blown “awareness” campaign launched, people are gradually learning to accept it; and the reasons for this vary. Perhaps they are a case that Edward speaks of. Perhaps they have read reports about possible biological linkings involving the “gay gene.” Or maybe they have even began to accept the fact that no idiot alive would subject themselves to the hate and prejudice these “faggots” >>CHOOSE (right?)<< to expose themselves to, cause that doesn't make sense, now does it? The fact of the matter is that society is making the chance necessary to accomodate for these persons needs. Just like with civil liberties for minorites, votes and rights for women, immigration, abortion, and gay marriage - it sucks at first but gets better, and even accepted, later. To conclude, the latest poll I recall was some 54-60% Americans being "ok" with gay marriage, compared to the some 80% a few years back. If prompted to, I will launch an all out gay-defense campiagn in the next comment I post. Give it time, gays, straight people like me are here to fight for you.
A while back, I criticized Tom Daschle (and the Democratic leadership more generally) on this blog for being too reactive on the issue of marriage and family. They all but ceded this issue to the Republicans, but worse, they took a mushy middle-of-the-road position that nobody could make sense of, much less get behind. I was told, in a rather patronizing manner, that perhaps I was unaware that Daschle was hanging onto his seat by his fingernails, and standing up for homosexuals would be political suicide.
Now Daschle has lost his seat by a margin of 4500 votes. He failed to do the right thing, and he still lost.
People want leadership, not reactive representation. Being right or wise gets you nothing if you are not willing to make a stand and try to inspire people to do the right and wise thing. We have seen throughout history how strong leadership trumps kindness, compassion, good judgment, and morality. It is not enough to put forth candidates who have these attributes–we have to put forth candidates who are all these things and strong leaders.
Equal protection of the law is right. It is the very foundation of justice. In the face of opponents who insist that inequality is moral what refutation did our leaders offer? None. They surrendered. They ceded the “pro-family” label. They ceded the language of “protecting marriage”, which in the hands of anti-gay activists is the rankest of lies. Republicans were given free reign to frame the debate, and Democrats lost by razor-thin margins. This is not a coincidence.
“. . . if I was more exposed to gay relationships in more of a family setting than garish, offensive (to me) parades flashing open sexual high jinx . . .”
Well, with all due respect, that’s why we want to be allowed to get married. To judge gays by “parades flashing open sexual high jinx” is like judging heterosexuals by spring break at Daytona Beach. If you want family settings, don’t stand in the way of us forming families. If you don’t approve of extramarital sex, then let us get married.
I sincerely do not understand how anyone can support the government telling them who they can and cannot marry.
[sarcasm]Although if the gay marriage amendment ban passes, I would like to propose the 20 year age gap marriage ban also, since seeing 50 yr old men marry 21 yr old girls squicks me, and it’s all about how I look at other people’s marriages, apparently.[/sarcasm]