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
Herbert, in what meaningful way are black and white people different?
Now, in what meaningful way are heterosexual relationships different from homosexual relationships?
If you answer those questions thoughtfully, I think you’ll see how specious your analogizing homosexuality to race is.
See, Tom?
I’m not Tom, but I don’t.
I told Tom that if he kept on making the type of arguments he was making, he would get tagged a despicable bigot. It didn’t take even two hours for that to start happening; on a conservative site, no less!
It’s a not-so-secret in their circles that the whole monogamy thing is more of a guideline than a rule. So no, I wouldn’t be laying any cash on gay marriage “improving” the marriage culture.
ROFLMAO. Oh, that’s good.
Tell me… since it indeed forced it’s way into the tent… why should it “obey tent rules”? Isn’t the whole point “This is MY tent now, and MY rules”?
The Stitch in Time that Saved Utah.
So, instead, we should….?
(((I told Tom that if he kept on making the type of arguments he was making, he would get tagged a despicable bigot. It didn’t take even two hours for that to start happening; on a conservative site, no less!))
Look I think there are plenty (maybe even a majority, maybe even a pretty large majority, although I think that on a site like ricochet there is almost assuredly a significantly smaller percentage than avg). Of bigots on the anti gay marriage side. But that wasn’t the point of my post.
Prepare each other (and our children) to live in a post-family society.
Oh, I see. Quoting an avowed racist opposing desegregation wasn’t analogizing anyone to being a bigot. How stupid of me to read it that way. Apologies.
You will be given no choice. Follow the new rules or become sidelined, unemployed, etc.
(((Oh, I see. Quoting an avowed racist opposing desegregation wasn’t analogizing anyone to being a bigot. How stupid of me to read it that way. Apologies.)))
Accepted
It’s called cultural imperialism.
Just so I can understand what your point actually was, and how it had nothing to do with calling people bigots, why don’t you make it clear to everyone.
My point was to show how previous caterwauling over major change in social policy looks a few years after the fact. I actually searched for a quote on women’s sufferage and the demise that would befall America because it was coming to pass. Came upon the above one first and went with it.
Well, for starters, get your kids out of government schools.
(I realize that’s not exactly what you were looking for, Tom.)
Wow! Just browsing around the internet today, I noticed the SSM ruling pivoted so fast to destroying Christians and their organizations that one has to wonder if that wasn’t the main goal. Perhaps this “we just want to be free to LOVE” wasn’t just a scam.
Right, but those examples would only seem relevant if there was an underlying similarity between those decrying desegregation or women’s suffrage and those who worry about the effects of legalizing SSM. If your only point is that people who oppose change are often proven wrong you could have pulled a quote from someone complaining about how putting sporting events on TV would kill ticket sales to the game. That was a real but very foolish notion once upon a time among people who own professional sports teams. We now have proof that was an incredibly stupid thing to believe. But using that analogy with regards to opponents of SSM would seem inapt, right? That’s because there isn’t really a similarity between the objections of those sports owners and opponents of SSM, even though both are decrying the negative effects of a big change.
1/2
2/2
You deliberately chose two examples of bigotry being overcome by government action because to you this is what is happening with SSM legalization. To you those who oppose SSM are just like the bigots who feared the changes that would come from stopping their unjust policies.
You’re right those earlier people look stupid and their bigotry was completely irrational. But the truth is the vast majority of the public at the time of segregation and women’s inability to vote already accepted that those policies were acts of irrational bigotry. Woman’s suffrage was attained with a constitutional amendment after all, not something done without an overwhelming majority of approval. Desegregation was done by the court, but that was because in an earlier era the court had found a constitutional right to segregation and that court decision had to be overturned. Had desegregation been put up for a vote in a national referendum it would have enjoyed virtually universal public support.
That’s where your comparison comes up short. There is not anywhere near the consensus for SSM that the other two issues you cite enjoyed. What’s more, it is nowhere near obvious that opposition to SSM is rooted in irrational thinking. In fact, I could easily cite counter comparisons like those who decried the unjust and harmful effects of the change brought by prohibition or the imposition of abortion as examples of people who were vindicated in their fears and disapproval.
A few thoughts:
Are there any data from other countries regarding rates of SSM / divorce?
Are there any reliable data from the U.S. concerning rates of comparative infidelity in hetero and homo couples?
Does anyone think the numbers will be large enough to affect the wider culture?
Does anyone think popular culture is likely to reverse direction on the positive value of divorce and sexual activity (perhaps especially amongst teenagers) that it promotes?
Actually, what is the point of marriage? What purpose does it serve, nowadays, that necessitates legal discrimination against single people?
How will gay-sex education work in schools?
I understand the principle, but the number of children adversely affected by gay parenting (assuming we ever hear of them) will be dwarfed by those affected by dysfunctional straight parenting. Surely?
Is there any evidence that SSM leads to polygamy or incest, however theoretically plausible on Fourteenth Amendment grounds?
Could you please explain how SSM will, in itself, lead to the death of the family?
Also:
This will not remain as vital an issue as abortion, because we all know the nature of abortion, whereas a gay couple is literally that nice couple next door.
Freedom for religion is not an option, because THERE IS NO FREEDOM TO DISCRIMINATE. It’s seen as the functional equivalent of Jim Crow Laws. (Trust me, I’ve had these conversations).
Protestant churches will be used against Catholic and Evangelical churches.
I do understand both arguments, I really do. With regard to the original post, I don’t think that’s going to happen. But nor will this lead to societal collapse. I know that isn’t the point, but it is at least true. It may turn out to be a symptom, but not a cause.
So, Herb, just to put a point on it, I find your claim that you’re not really comparing those who worry about the effects of SSM to earlier bigots to be intellectually dishonest. You would not have chosen examples of bigotry to highlight if you didn’t think this was also a question of bigotry.
((So, Herb, just to put a point on it. I find your contention that you citing the complaints of bigots after the passage of women’s suffrage and desegregation is not actually comparing those who worry about the effects of SSM to be intellectually dishonest. You would have chosen examples of bigotry to highlight if you didn’t think this was also a question of bigotry.))
Bthompson you make a decent case, and yes I probably did choose the examples in part because they match more closely my belief that in ten years, people will look back and see that gay marriage didn’t destroy marriage and that many of those who did oppose were basing their opposition on bigoted beliefs and animus towards gays.
question: …. Do you think a person who bases his beliefs about gays mainly on his religious understanding can be bigoted in his beliefs. Pare this down …. Do you believe religious beliefs are exempt from being bigoted?
FWIW, I’ve always believed destroying religion was a key goal of the leaders behind the SSM movement, so the things you’ve seen have not surprised me in any way whatsoever. I’m only surprised that people are surprised.
But, Herb, Tom supports gay marriage and his advice in this thread that you compared to the remarks of Strom Thurmond didn’t cite any religious beliefs at all.
Well, I’ve long argued that SSM is a symptom of the decline in the family not, in isolation, a cause. For example, it’s hard to imagine SSM being considered a reasonable option if marriage had the common meaning it had 50 years ago when my parents got married. SSM simply couldn’t happen if the family was not already severely damaged.
But, it is entirely possible that forcing SSM on society will accelerate the decline in the family as marriage becomes little more than an economic arrangement between adults (which I think is far more likely to happen than Tom’s wishes articulated in the OP). As happens so often when the left gets its way, it will be children of the poor that will suffer the brunt of the negative consequences.
This is how I greet him in person.
This appears to be an exceptionally unrealistic hope: