The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
My husband couldn't get over the light and breezy coverage of Ryan Lochte's mother saying her son has one-night stands. She said this on national television and the media covered it but seemed to have no problem with it. My husband said he feels like up is down. Why, he wonders, do the media revile an athlete like Tim Tebow for attempting to be virtuous but celebrate Lochte for announcing he's not?
One of the things that was so striking about the Million Mouth March (as Jon Stewart called the Chick-fil-A "eat-in") was that it showed that many people strongly believe in things that the media ignore or deliberately hide. They are sick of government overreach and violations of free speech. They are sick of being bullied about same-sex marriage. And they are sick of having traditional values mocked and denigrated. (And, yes, maybe they just like perfectly fried chicken sandwiches.)
The media routinely characterize belief that marriage is sacred -- and that it's a conjugal union, that it should not be dissolved, that it is a blessing if it includes children -- as homophobic or bigoted or retrograde or unloving.
And while that characterization and bullying has been remarkably effective at pushing public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage, at what cost I wonder? This week has been very difficult for activists who support same-sex marriage. Here are three examples:
A mainstream media reporter published on his public Facebook page all sorts of things. Typical stuff -- his hatred for Mitt Romney. His strong support of Barack Obama. His belief that the HHS mandate is no big deal. His hatred for Chick-fil-A. But then it turned out that he was covering the Chick-fil-A eat-in for his paper. He put on Facebook that he'd never felt as much like an alien in his country as he did that day. He claimed he saw things that differed greatly from other reports around the country. He claimed that people were racist, homophobic and speaking ill of immigrants (but that when he asked for their names, they conveniently declined). He went on to mock the protesters for taking "such a brave stand ... eating a [expletive] sandwich." The comment thread to his post is full of people mocking rednecks and Christians and FoxNews. They plot how to physically attack Chick-fil-A locations, etc.
His editor got wind of the very public meltdown and reprimanded him.
Or what about the bully who went after a Chick-fil-A drive-thru worker and then, inexplicably, posted his boorish behavior on the internet for all to see? His employer also reprimanded him. Actually, his employer fired him. He was an executive at the company and had reflected poorly on it.
When I wrote about my experience at Chick-fil-A and media coverage of same, many of my readers expressed dismay that the media could cover it as anything other than bigoted jerks who seethe with hatred for their fellow man. To them it was self-evident. Take this note from a leftist site that a reader posted to show me how awful I was. A lesbian in Tucson drove by an insanely crowded Chick-fil-A and recorded the following reaction:
My reaction surprised me. It felt like all those people—young men in pickup trucks, moms with kids, older couples—were stepping on my chest. It felt like hidden bigotry had come out to make itself known. It felt like hatred and rejection. It felt like go home, you’re not wanted here. My response was visceral. My gut ached, a sob caught in my throat, and my eyes welled up with tears. I couldn’t drive away fast enough. And I’m not a person who cries easily, at least not usually, but I cried all the way home. Just those couple of minutes of seeing how many people are anti-gay, anti-me, hurt more than I could have ever expected.
All of these stories sadden me, even if I can find errors with the thinking or behavior of each of them. Each, in their own way, clearly indicate confusion about who their fellow Americans are and what they believe.
But I place most of the blame the media and the cultural elite.
If it is true that believing marriage is the conjugal union of one man and one wife is bigoted, the equivalent to the most vile racists of the past centuries, then it makes sense to react in the way the reporter, the recently fired corporate executive and the lesbian passer-by did.
If the idea that marriage is the conjugal union of man and wife is bigotry -- and the mainstream media and the cultural elite have pounded this view non-stop for years (here's the latest example of the accompanying holier-than-thou pietism with which the view is pushed) -- then you should respond by tormenting drive-thru workers who are part of the bigotry-industrial complex. You should speak ill of people who hold this view on Facebook. Often! You should feel like eating a chicken sandwich was about people putting their boot on your chest.
The thing is, though, that it's not. And the media and the cultural elite have been lying. And they have gotten us to a place where people are unable to just be civil to each other (one Ricochet member mentioned he recently got kicked out of his fantasy football league for supporting Chick-fil-A).
When I first began covering this issue -- back when California was deciding Prop. 8 -- I was shocked to learn that what the media had told me was wrong. When I interviewed people who supported Prop. 8, I found that they were eminently calm and reasonable. Their arguments did take a while to learn, but they were able to be learned.
These people explained why marriage law exists and what it is designed to protect. They explained why they viewed a change to those laws as seriously misguided. They pointed out some of the logical conclusions to changing the definition of marriage.
Now, you may agree or disagree with what they have to say (and to learn more about what they say, I think this paper is easy to read and digest), but it's not bigotry. And it is a scurrilous indefensible charge to say otherwise.
If our country is to work through these debates about what marriage is and what it should be, we simply must devote ourselves to listening to arguments and thinking things through. It is impossible to do that when we dismiss supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.
It is time to start talking about what marriage is without charging people with bigotry. Some people believe that marriage is the conjugal union of a man and woman who make permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, based on their gender differences and built around conjugal acts -- those acts that naturally lead to reproduction and unite them as a reproductive unit. Other people believe that marriage is the union of two people of any sex who commit to romantically love and care for each other and share domestic burdens.
Marriage law built on either view will have consequences that are far-reaching. We probably haven't even touched the surface of what those consequences might be. And we will never be able to think these things through rationally and calmly if we denounce one or the other view as unfit for public discussion.
Many of us are tired of cultural battles. Unfortunately, tiring of them doesn't do much to help us resolve them. So when we discuss these things, and we must, let's discuss them in a spirit of love and charity. And let's encourage others to do likewise.
-- If you liked this post and want to join the conversation on it, click here to sign up for a One-Month Free Trial Offer. --
- Comment (165)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: Ed G.
[This is all way too intrusive, too expensive, unwelcome, and probably unworkable. These costs would outweigh the benefits to society.
Without quantifying either, how can we tell?
.....
I thought I gave examples of what would be required to ensure that only those willing and able to procreate are recognized as married. Do you want to institute such medical testing? I don't. Do you want the government to periodically monitor the couple's progress toward the goal of procreating? I don't. Do you want to empanel some board to determine whether a couple's efforts to procreate are sufficient to avoid fraud or revocation of license? I don't. Would it take a scientific study for you top conclude that these things are intrusive, expensive, a loss of liberty, and difficult to administer even if tried?
Society has an interest in encouraging stable procreation ; society's interests are damaged by loss of freedom and government involving itself too closely in private matters. That's why "official" marriage is a voluntary institution; so drawing the bright line at the category level rather than the individual couple level is a pragmatic approach to reaping these real benefits.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
I understand the view that marriage only involves one man and one woman, and I get it if this is due to personal beliefs – I may not agree, but it’s an honest view and I can respect it.
.....
Right, the personal belief that society has both a special interest in renewing it's population in as stable a way as possible and in preserving individual liberty as much as possible since it's the engine of general prosperity. If you're referring to some religious or whimsical personal belief, then you're wrong (at least in my case). Besides, isn't your position due to your personal beliefs?
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
What I don’t get is the whole “settled answer looking for just the right question” approach – which is what the “procreation standard” looks like to me. Because the answer stays the same though the questions keep shifting.
.....
Are you implying that the case for traditional marriage that rests largely on procreation is merely an after-the-fact justification of discrimination against homosexuals? On the contrary, I'd say that the procreative/complementarity aspect has been the constant in all the forms that marriage has taken across time and place.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
This, imho, undermines the social fabric by bringing into question the justice of our laws and how they are applied. If the laws are unjust, why obey any of them? If social mores are inconsistent, why follow them?
.....
Whether the current situation is unjust is the crux of the argument. I've answered your objection that we don't apply the standard at the individual level by asserting that we'd be injuring ourselves in the process. Furthermore, society's interest in individual relationships is (and should be) narrow and limited. By removing procreative unions as the limiting principle we're inviting ever more intrusion into areas that should be private. Government intrusion into private affairs is unjust; the fact of procreation widens a relationship to make it not quite private; I oppose expanding the sphere of not quite private relationships. How is any of this unjust?
By the way, good luck with your quest for consistency in life, especially other people.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
So I’ll hand it back to you. You don’t believe in SSM for a number of reasons. How can you present this to people who do (and who may be gay) in way that doesn’t cave or pander, but which still treats them honestly and with respect – in word AND deed? · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
When have I treated people deceitfully or disrespectfully? Which of my arguments does that?
Besides, they're the ones who want to change the current system: isn't it they're responsibility to justify the change?
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Hmm....and perhaps I could work on asking questions without being accusing and making people defensive? I think I could. Peace, Ed G.
[Are you implying that the case for traditional marriage that rests largely on procreation is merely an after-the-fact justification of discrimination against homosexuals?]
When you fail to follow through on the procreative line rigorously (because inconvenient, costly, intrusive, etc.) it does seem that way.
[When have I treated people deceitfully or disrespectfully? Which of my arguments does that?]
You're dismissive. You acknowledge an inconsistency in your approach, but don't see any need to resolve it.
[Besides, they're the ones who want to change the current system: isn't it they're responsibility to justify the change?]
The point is, the pro-SSM argument is generally consistent. Your anti-SSM argument isn't consistent. I am not venturing to say who is right, but you're less consistent than they are at this point - which makes you less convincing to me.
And it was a genuine question, fwiw. How would you make the case against SSM without being inconsistent or dismissive of people's (imho legitimate) interest in being treated fairly?
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar -
Here’s why I don’t quite understand your pursuit of *consistency* as it pertains to marriage, in particular SSM.
Marriage is a social institution that has always and forever been about opposite sex attraction, procreation, childrearing and what today we’d call social welfare: providing for the care of the disabled, sick and elderly. It has never had anything at all to do with same sex attraction. So, first and foremost, how is it *consistent* to apply marriage’s most superficial aspect (conjugal partnering) to sexual behaviors with which it has never, ever been associated?
Second, since marriage does have a long historical and cross-cultural association with polygamy, why shouldn’t we—a priori—include Multi-Member Marriage (MMM) among the things we’re *correcting* in this venerable institution? Would you not agree that the claim of polygamists is more compelling than that of SSM advocates, given the historical record and the fact polygamy, unlike SSM, is rooted in same-sex attraction? If applying *consistency* to marriage is what you are attempting to do, pray tell why the claim of SSM advocates is first in the queue and not MMM advocates.
(continued)
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
(Continued)
Third, please help me understand why marriage between a brother and sister should be prohibited under this modern marriage scheme. It’s opposite-sex attraction, after all, and we can prohibit them having children (and anyway genetic defects don’t appear for at least four or five generations). If marriage is about two people loving each other, what’s the problem with sibling marriage?
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Hi HVTs
[Marriage is a social institution that has always and forever been about opposite sex attraction, procreation, childrearing and what today we’d call social welfare...It has never had anything at all to do with same sex attraction. ]
"Traditionally" homosexuality has been against the law. No longer - so it could be argued that that it increases social stability to involve gay people in marriage. Gay couples contribute to care of the disabled, sick and elderly - obviously their parents, but also others - remember the 1980s when nobody would foster crack babies except gay couples? The babies were too sick to survive to adulthood, but they still needed love and care.
Polygamy and sibling marriage are "natural" & actually used to exist traditionally - polygamy still does in much of the world.
The West has changed its definition of marriage to exclude these because Western society changed. Polygamy was outlawed because respect for women grew. Sibling marriage outlawed because of knowledge (of genetics). Miscegenation decriminalised because racism no longer acceptable.
Definitions changed to make marriage consistent with social evolution. And these definitions do not just reflect nature - 0therwise we would still have polygamy. Change is normal.
Edited on August 11, 2012 at 2:18pmFeb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
[Are you implying that the case for traditional marriage that rests largely on procreation is merely an after-the-fact justification of discrimination against homosexuals?]
When you fail to follow through on the procreative line rigorously (because inconvenient, costly, intrusive, etc.) it does seem that way.
.....
I sincerely don't know what you mean by this. I have followed it rigorously; I just disagree with you when you say that we must attain perfection or nothing at all.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
[When have I treated people deceitfully or disrespectfully? Which of my arguments does that?]
You're dismissive. You acknowledge an inconsistency in your approach, but don't see any need to resolve it.
.....
You're implying that merely arguing the position I hold is disrespectful and possibly deceitful. I disagree with that. I don't think I've been dismissive: I've engaged each point raised, even to the point of acknowledging where I think my argument is weakest. However, I don't acknowledge inconsistency in my approach, as I certainly have tried to resolve the tension between liberty and society's interests rather letting one destroy the other. I think my solution is the best balance of limited government liberty on the one hand and the societal interest in procreative unions on the other.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
The point is, the pro-SSM argument is generally consistent. Your anti-SSM argument isn't consistent.
.....
Let's address consistency, because I don't understand how you're applying it. My argument in favor of preserving traditional marriage is this:
In general, society and government have no interest in private affairs that aren't coercive or injurious, with the exception of affairs that are procreative. Society has a positive interest in such affairs in that we need to replenish our population without being reckless; society has a negative interest in such affairs in that procreation will happen regardless, and unless parents take responsibility for their creation then the burden will be unfairly placed on society at large. Therefore we have "official" marriage to promote stable procreation and punish abdication of responsibility (not so much anymore now that we have no fault divorce). It's this particular interest that has been the heart of marriage arrangements around the world and throughout history, regardless of any additional forms and purposes it may have taken. I honestly don't understand how you categorize any of this as inconsistent. (cont).
Edited on August 11, 2012 at 4:23pmFeb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
#152 cont.
On the other hand we have the proponents of SSM. Most arguments seem to relate to equality, but hardly any of them attempt to address the antecedent issues of the purpose of marriage, the distinction between "official" and personal marriage. How can we assess equality without regard to purpose?
Do proponents think that society has a broad interest in all relationships rather than the limited interest I asserted in #152? If so, then that is a radical departure from anything the world has seen thusfar. If not, then what compelling interest does society have in same sex arrangements? How do they justify allowing couples yet still excluding multiple partners? Either proponents are inconsistent with most of human existence or they're inconsistent with their own arguments.
If proponents think that society has no interest in any relationship, then how is it consistent to argue for expanding the the number and type of relationships government will be involved in? The better argument would be to abolish "official" marriage altogether; arguing for SSM is far from a way station on the road to this goal, it's moving in the opposite direction.
Where is the consistency you're referring to?
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
How would you make the case against SSM without being inconsistent or dismissive of people's (imho legitimate) interest in being treated fairly? · 7 hours ago
In my view I'm already making a consistent case without being dismissive of people's interest in being treated fairly. Disagreeing is not dismissing. I agree with equality and fairness, that is not my argument. There is nothing wrong with identifying a common good; having identified the good and implemented a policy, it's reasonable to set criteria to strictly limit the policy to the intended purpose; it's also reasonable to balance the intended purpose with pragmatic considerations.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
Definitions changed to make marriage consistent with social evolution. And these definitions do not just reflect nature - 0therwise we would still have polygamy. Change is normal.
Yes, definitions change, but what hasn't changed is the gender complementarity aspect of marriage. That has been consistent no matter what other forms marriage took (polygamy, etc.) or what other purposes were grafted onto it (anti-miscegenation, etc.).
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
.....- so it could be argued that that it increases social stability to involve gay people in marriage. Gay couples contribute to care of the disabled, sick and elderly - obviously their parents,.....
"It could be argued"? Do you in fact argue that, or are you just playing devil's advocate?
If so, then I'd like to hear a more detailed argument. Personally, I don't think society has any special interest in relationships (aside from the exceptions I noted above) so much as it has an interest in peaceably resolving tangible disputes. Society already has other institutions to handle disputes; we have property laws, civil law, and criminal law to govern the tangible relations between people. As far as caring for the elderly and taking on the burden of others (i.e charity), people do that independently of any sexual relationship they may be involved in, whereas procreation and the responsibility to care for the children produced are the direct consequence of the relationship.
Edited on August 11, 2012 at 4:20pmOct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Gay couples contribute to care of the disabled, sick and elderly - obviously their parents, but also others - remember the 1980s when nobody would foster crack babies except gay couples?
...
Definitions changed to make marriage consistent with social evolution. And these definitions do not just reflect nature - 0therwise we would still have polygamy. Change is normal.
Not to get pedantic, but while change is normal, it's not the same thing as evolution. And what Gay couples did in the 1980s was done without SSM, so your example is not an argument for its necessity now ... in fact, it argues against that point.
You cannot get around the fact that same-sex attraction is completely unrelated to any previous definition of or purpose for marriage. This is not a burden that either sibling or multi-partner marriage must overcome. Your argument appears to be that if two people commit to each other and *social evolution* finds the union unobjectionable to some unspecified percentage of the population, we should label it marriage and license it through the State. Why? And why not do the same if multiple people commit themselves collectively? In short, what principle(s) undergirds your definition of marriage?
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
HVTs
[while change is normal, it's not the same thing as evolution]
If a change is dysfunctional, it doesn't survive. If it's an improvement, it does. In the West the movement from polygamy to single partner marriage resulted in benefits to society, so the change 'took' and became the new norm. Ditto the move away from child marriages. Society evolved.
[You cannot get around the fact that same-sex attraction is completely unrelated to any previous definition of or purpose for marriage.]
So what? Are you arguing that because something has not happened before, it cannot happen now? On what grounds? Plenty of things that happened before (polygamy, slavery, child marriage) are emphatically NOT acceptable now.
What is your logic in accepting changes to marriage wrt numbers involved, race, age but NOT gender?
It *only* makes sense if you argue that marriage is only about procreation. Which:
1 Is debatable. (Lots of perfectly valid marriages don't involve procreation, nobody questions childless couples' marriages); and
2 Ignores the fact that gay people still have children. Perhaps not with their current partners, but these kids exist, and need a stable domestic environment. SSM would facilitate that.
Rgds
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
What is your logic in accepting changes to marriage wrt numbers involved, race, age but NOT gender?
It *only* makes sense if you argue that marriage is only about procreation. Which:
1 Is debatable. (Lots of perfectly valid marriages don't involve procreation, nobody questions childless couples' marriages); and
2 Ignores the fact that gay people still have children. Perhaps not with their current partners, but these kids exist, and need a stable domestic environment. SSM would facilitate that.
Rgds · 1 hour ago
If marriage isn't primarily about procreation, then what is the purpose?
Are you advocating a broad government interest in private arrangements without much limit? If so, then we'll agree to disagree. If not, then arguing for SSM is arguing to broaden the scope of government involvement.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Ed G.
[If marriage isn't primarily about procreation, then what is the purpose?]
I would say that the purpose of marriage is to stabilise domestic partnerships, even when that doesn't involve children - but I think we're going in circles. Perhaps the next step is to actually ask married heterosexuals who are childless and who intend to remain childless.
[Are you advocating a broad government interest in private arrangements without much limit?]
Not at all. I'm just questioning where that limit lies and why. You've picked the nurturing of the next generation as an area where Society, represented by the State, has a pressing interest. I'd agree - but I don't think that this is the only area - drawing the line there seems arbitrary.
More to the point, right now we don't actually draw the line there - we regulate quite a few things, and we encourage/discourage a whole lot of human behaviours and tendencies through social institutions and governance mechanisms. Perhaps too many, but it's hard to argue that any of these is MORE intrusive on the lives of individuals than the DOMA.