Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Marriage Immigrants
When immigrants move to a country of their own free will, they have an obligation to adapt to their adopted country’s values. This doesn’t mean abandoning their old culture entirely or pretending that the new one is beyond reproach, but at the very least it means giving up aspects of it that are incompatible with their new one. After all, if you think your adopted culture is worth immigrating to, you should want to try to keep and cherish it basically as you found it.
As of this Friday, gay people across the nation are now immigrants to marriage culture. Some of them have been here for a while — I personally know gay couples who’ve been legally married five times longer than I — while most are freshly off the ship. Like all voluntary immigrant populations, they have a positive duty: to assimilate to the culture they chose to adopt and to do so with enthusiasm.
That probably means not only being as married as your straight peers, but more so. In practical terms, that means being more monogamous than straight couples, less prone to divorce, and even more interested in your children’s (should you have any) welfare. And if you’re so inclined, think what a powerful message it would be for marriage if you said that sex only belongs within marriage, even for you.
Moreover, don’t be a jerk about it, or (continue to) use the law to further your victory. If someone doesn’t want to celebrate your marriage, leave them be. The tradition of people objecting to others’ marriages is probably only a few minutes younger than marriage itself. It’s rude when straight people try to force approval from others, and the same goes for you.
Much of the opposition to same-sex marriage comes from the belief that the institution of marriage will make no sense — and will have no form — if sexual complimentariness is removed. You say (and I agree with you) that to the contrary, marriage has a real and important meaning when extended to homosexuals. Do yourself and marriage a favor. Prove yourselves right through your actions. I’ll be rooting for you.
Published in General, Marriage
I happily concede that SSM couples could help improve the status of marriage, but I’m not optimistic. There will clearly be a selection bias in the early years, but after that, without children as a stabilizing influence and prevalence of two-income families, I think SSM divorce rates will likely be higher than hetero ones, not lower (though, to be fair, I think heterosexual divorce rates will continue to increase to stratospheric levels).
The family in this country is rapidly dying. Instead of looking to SSMs to save it, we need to think about what happens to society post-family. I know the left is salivating at the prospect of a post-family society, they’ve been working towards it for decades.
I can’t think of a polite way to say this without crossing the lines of politeness, so I apologize.
What about the behavior of the activists in the past makes you think they’ll accommodate themselves to tradition now?
These are nice thoughts, but your metaphor is all wrong. SSM is not immigration. It is an occupying force.
In Canada they did not waste much time in providing support for your hypothesis:
I suspect that the new marriage “immigrants” will adapt to their new adopted “homelands” the same way most other immigrants do now: by changing it.
For example, one of the supposed characteristics of marriage is sexual exclusivity. Gay men tend not to be particularly monogamous (yes, I know everybody’s next door neighbor is an exception).
Thus, cheating on a spouse is currently considered grounds for divorce. However, pretty soon I expect such standards will be perceived as pushing heteronormative standards on gays. Cheating won’t constitute grounds for gay divorce.
And then most progressives out there will observe how enlightened are these new “fresh perspectives” on marriage and start insisting that straights get on the “right side of history,” that spouses who don’t like it when their wives or hubbies cheat are just being primitive.
Far fetched? Maybe, but not as much as expecting anyone to adapt to traditional norms these days.
I assume most of the activists are beyond persuasion, largely because they’re overwhelmingly social-justice leftists.
The activists, however, don’t speak to everyone. There’s likely a small minority who are easily persuadable toward this position and a larger one who can be persuaded. I think we should try to persuade them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
I don’t have really any interest in hearing from people who were happy to let the camel’s nose into the tent as they tell us all about how they’re going to keep the camel out of the tent now.
Exactly. These folks will “immigrate” into marriage much the same way Atzlan types immigrate to the US: they’re here so they can return the Southwest to Mexico.
I choose to read this post as truly masterful trolling. I admire it greatly, and will be quoting it to liberal friends extensively.
Moreover, don’t be a jerk about it, or (continue to) use the law to further your victory
I love liberty and freedom, and would in most cases celebrate increased freedom (in this case for gay people). However, this decision doesn’t seem set to increase overall freedom, but will be used to diminish freedom for another (larger group) – Christians and social conservatives.
If they really love freedom, then they will let Christians have theirs too. If they are selfish – they will demand the surrender of others’ freedom.
We shall soon see who they really are. Sadly, I’m concerned they are the later.
As of Friday, the camel’s in the tent. Might as well tell it to abide by tent rules.
You may be right, Mr Meyer, but if the SJWs are only a small part of the group, the larger group need to rise up Right Now and work for peace in the community. Otherwise, they will be like the ‘moderate muslims’, who we’re told exist, but never seem to stand up and criticize their extremist brothers – but stand by and let the extremists destroy life and freedom.
How do you think these couples are going to get children, Tom, should they have any? Please see my post about Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s view of marriage for perspective on this. Trust me, they will not all adopt.
No, no, no, no. The camel is not in the tent at all. The fact that you felt the need to write this post just shows you don’t even believe this yourself. You haven’t seen anything yet, Tom. This nifty little wave of immigration you cheered is only beginning to reveal it’s true impact.
And this strategy will work about as well as telling and actual flesh-and-blood camel who’s gotten into your tent to behave.
Yup. Amen to this.
I agree that the metaphor is all wrong. Not sure about an occupying force, though I sense that somehow. My metaphor is an incorrect arithemetic equation. One plus one cannot equal three, no matter what any law or judge says.
This is an untrue statement.
There’s currently an alliance between gays who want to replicate actual marriage as much as possible and Marxian extremists who will do whatever it takes to destroy Christianity and the family.
I’ve no idea the actual percentages on each side, but the money, megaphone, enthusiasm, and power lust all lie with the latter.
And it doesn’t take huge numbers to take down the whole damn thing. You don’t need thousands of gay couples to sue bakers, photographers, and pastors, just a few here and there who are willing to sue will suffice.
The vast majority of gays may find what’s happening to Christian business to be abhorrent (and I’ve see little evidence that’s the case), but even if they do, IT DOESN’T MATTER unless they’re as willing to boycott Mozilla as Mike Huckabee.
But they’re not, and they won’t be. Period
[edit: decided to flesh out my thoughts in a member feed post later.]
You’re such a romantic, Tom.
And Tom, don’t take my above remarks to mean that if it by magic what you advise here would come to pass, that wouldn’t lessen the problems ushered in by the current developments. I just want to point out how foolish and naive the advice is.
And just so you know, if you keep up this type of talk be aware that you are a bigot, a wretch, and an utterly retrograde font of hatred. You will not deserve gainful employment and you forfeit any right to legal protection or any place in decent society. Fair warning.
I appreciate the sentiment, Tom, I really do. But so-called “marriage equality” creates new inequalities among children, and it entrenches older ones. Briefly stated: the only way gay couples can become parents is to ensure that a child has a break with his genetic background.
Now I fully realize that hardly anybody cares about this, least of all gay couples. But that’s the reality: marriage equality creates new inequalities.
I’m called such things quite regularly, albeit for other reasons. Don’t worry; I’m used to it.
No, seriously, it’s not just about being called names. You will literally be risking your opportunity for gainful employment and putting yourself in legal jeopardy.
Lovely thoughts, Tom.
Ah, but who has the longest pole in the tent?
(sorry I just couldn’t resist.)
What!?!? You’re assuming that the people who hounded Brendan Eich out of his job and tried to destroy Memories Pizza, Chick-Fil-A, and God knows how many florists, bakers, and photographers could possibly be so intolerant as to go after anybody else?
By no means! There are millions of gays out there who didn’t utter so much as a peep in defense of the people who their allies were trying to destroy who will leap to their defense the next time it happens.
BTW, my husband’s family immigrated at the height of the nation’s campaign against Mormon polygamy. They had to sign statements largely comprised of promises not to practice polygamy — and they weren’t Mormon. The nation had actually decided to enforce a standard for marriage which discriminated against a religious sect, to which Mormons (and non-Mormon immigrants) could adapt, or suffer the consequences (of being denied entrance or being prosecuted if already here).
Mormons chose to adapt.
I keep thinking… whose behavior is supposed to change as a result of SSM? You’re one of the few people arguing that homosexual behavior will change (Joseph Eager used to be another, although I’m not sure he still holds the position). I think it’s pretty clear this is intended to change the behavior of people who hold to a male/female definition of marriage. We’re to adapt. It’s the opposite of your immigrant analogy, and why I find it so … I can’t think a way to soften this… repugnant.
It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.”
—Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), Senator Richard Russell (D-GA), and other Southern legislators, in 1956, describing the perils of integrating public schools