Every now and then, I get caught up in a dialogue on Facebook regarding various political, religious, or philosophic issues. After a while, I always find myself wondering if all of the time and effort is worthwhile. It is unlikely, after all, that any of us involved are going to change our views. It’s basically an arguing contest, not a quest to gain knowledge from others. Also, more importantly, I am spending precious time and mental energy producing stuff that will disappear into the Facebook void instead of focusing on writing for my own blog. Still, these types of dialogues may have some value. At least all of us involved are getting some practice exploring, clarifying, and expressing our beliefs.
So to give an example of what I mean and to have something to show for my Facebook efforts, I have included, word for word, one of these recent dialogues. (Names of my “opponents” have been removed, however.) I will let you decide for yourselves if this was a worthwhile way to spend my time. This discussion started shortly after Proposition Eight - California’s ban on same sex marriage - was overturned by a federal judge. Some would argue that this decision by one man was in defiance of the will of the voters who passed it two years ago.
(Someone had just asked why it is that Christians focus so much on the “sin” of homosexual behavior. After all, Jesus never directly mentions it in the gospels.)
Person #1 (P1): Voters do want their votes counted so a judge shouldn't be doing this. And Jesus didn't dwell on it, true, but He did include it in Matt 15:19 as one evil, under sexual immorality. I don't think most Christians dwell on this subject, but shouldn't be passive either.
Me: In 1967, the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage. If this issue, along with several other civil rights issues, was left to the voters of individual southern states, I can predict how some of them would have voted. Sometimes, courts must protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." If anyone cares, here is my take on gay marriage: "Gay Marriage: Why It's Fine With Me."
Person #2 (P2): In that case, I want to legalize POLYGAMY!! Just please dont tell my wife.
Me: Maybe polygamy should be legalized. Old Testament patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives. Plus, it's more honest than cheating on your spouse. If people want to impose their moral code through the law, adultery should be the practice that is outlawed. (And maybe we can go back to the good old days of Old Testament law when the guilty parties were stoned to death.)
P2: If you want to remove morality from the law, then what about drug use, sex with minors, prostitution, etc? Should we legalize all that too, or remove any laws banning it?
P1: If it's case of civil rights that it should be challenged in the constitution - whether state or federal, not by one single judge. The judicial system was set up to protect constitutional rights of all voters. Everyone didn't favor the healthcare reforms and the impact it will have - can we find a judge to repeal that?
Me: P1, I don't know what you mean by "challenged in the constitution." They are following the standard process of challenging the law. It's done through the judicial system. The same process will be followed for both gay marriage and challenges to the health care bill. Judges may ultimately repeal parts of the health care bill, and they may ultimately uphold the same sex marriage ban. The gay marriage decision will be appealed until it reaches the Supreme Court. Then nine judges (instead of one) will decide. (Judicial review has been firmly established for 200 years, so I don't see it going anywhere.) Keep in mind that there may be cases where you are in the minority but you feel that basic legal principles are on your side. I don't think that anyone believes that majority rule should always win out. There are countless cases throughout American history where the majority of people in a state or region supported laws and policies considered either ludicrous or blatantly unjust today. And P2, I'm not advocating for "removing morality from the law." Obviously, laws are often based on a moral foundation. If a behavior has a measurable, negative impact on others, it should be illegal. That's the principle that our legal system is founded upon. Gay marriage, like polygamy or interracial marriage previously, has no measurable negative impact on others. Therefore it should be allowed whether it offends certain people's morals or not. Sometimes a distinction must be made between personal moral codes and enforceable legal codes. If you refuse to recognize this obvious distinction, then this "discussion" is clearly a waste of time. (And I guess we will be on our way toward the 10 Commandments becoming a legal code.)
I've noticed in these Facebook "conversations" that no one ever directly addresses the questions that I raise. Political and religious topics - and this one gets into both - are usually pointless. At least this gives me a little writing practice.
P2: Paul (Me) - I always enjoy your comments because unlike other some of the other folks we debate, you always have good points and back it up with good reason.
Let me first address your points, so that your efforts dont just end up being writing ...practice haha!
"If a behavior has a measurable, negative impact on others, it should be illegal. That's the principle that our legal system is founded upon."
How do you define negative impact on others? For some people, finding out that your son is married to the same sex can be as equally or more painful than finding out that your son is hooked on illegal drugs or that he sleeps with prostitutes.
"Gay marriage, like polygamy or interracial marriage previously, has no measurable negative impact on others. Therefore it should be allowed whether it offends certain people's morals or not."
So should it be legal to set up a strip bar next door to your house because it does not hurt anyone, and only offends you?
In the end, I think everyone has a preference and everyone wants what's best for them and fits with their value system. And what goes and does not go depends on what the courts let pass or strike down. I do agree that the process of the judicial system was set up to ensure that laws do not conflict with our constitutional rights. The only problem is that many times, the judicial decisions are driven also by the political, religious, and personal views of the judges. This occurs on both sides of the political spectrum and is the reason why presidents usually pick judges who typically have made judicial decisions that align with the president's political view. Also, I'm sure there are political scientists on both sides of the spectrum who can argue the constitutionality of many laws.. If not, there would be no appeal.. So I believe the constitutionality of laws ultimately depend on which judges are in place at the time the law goes through the process.
Now for your final point :)
"Sometimes a distinction must be made between personal moral codes and enforceable legal codes. If you refuse to recognize this obvious distinction, then this "discussion" is clearly a waste of time."
I think all legal codes stem from some type of personal moral code. I think the reason why some fight for a ban on Gay Marriage vs premarital sex is the fact that Gay Marriage may be more easily enforced now than the other.
Let me know if I've missed any of your points and I'll try to address them too so you know your writing has not gone to waste :)))
P2: One last question: Should incest be banned? Like father/daughter marriages? Or how about incestial polygamy, where the entire family marries each other? According to your definition, it hurts no one when all parties are consenting and who cares if it offends anybody.. LOL!!
P1: Paul (Me) - What i meant is that it hasn't been determined yet if this is a civil rights issue. Not everyone agrees if it's comparable to anti-discrimination yet and the constituion has to be amended once that is determined. Up till this point..., marriage was always assumed to be man/woman, now we're talking about a new definition and different social rules that we haven't faced before.
Paul and P2 - You are both gave great points of view. P2, you could be a lawyer -ha ha. You can never take bias completely out of any social issue - that's just impossible. We live with the outcomes regardless of our personal beliefs.
Person 3 (P3): Can I marry my hermit crab Hermie?
Me: First, I have one important question. Is it cool if I use some of this dialogue for a future blog post? (I won't use your names.) I just don't want to waste all of this writing on Facebook alone. This question also goes for any other participators who might still be reading this stuff.
Thanks P2 for your detailed response. (It's refreshing.) There is no doubt that judges often have political agendas. It's unfortunate that courts have become so politicized, but it is, as you said, probably unavoidable. I'm not sure if the writers of the Constitution had "judicial review" in mind when they set up the judicial branch. It has evolved over time, and you could make a good case that it has made that branch of government too powerful. People only seem to get upset about it, however, when judges don't rule in their favor. I still hold to my statement about the distinction between personal moral codes and legal codes. Since we are not in a theocracy, the Bible cannot be used as a legal book. So all we can do to be fair to people with different beliefs is determine as best we can if a behavior infringes on other people's rights. In a country that claims to love freedom, we should have the freedom to engage in behaviors so long as they do not harm others. Anything else is an attempt to impose your personal beliefs on others. You compared allowing gay marriage to legalizing drug use, prostitution, and incest. Now I could go on for a while about drugs and prostitution. Our society is highly arbitrary in defining those terms. Alcohol and nicotine are legal, and all kinds of people have sex for economic reasons without breaking the law. I think that prostitution and drug use are banned due to some of the negative byproducts associated with them: disease, addiction, human trafficking, abuse, stealing to fund the habit, etc. I tend to think that laws involving drugs and prostitution should be liberalized a bit, but with some legal restrictions to limit some of these "side effects." Incest, however, is a different story. There are measurable negative effects, particularly potential birth defects in any children produced. I'm sure that many psychologists can also demonstrate the harm done when parents have sex with their kids. (I notice that no one has tried to deal with my interracial marriage argument, however.) And P3, I don't think that you can get Hermie to say "I do" or sign the certificate.
P3: use any dialogue you like for future blog posts. If Hermie cannot say "I do" or sign the certificate so that indirectly and unfairly disallow my right to marry Hermie simply because Hermie is physically unable to do the above actions? Isn't that discrimination based on "physical handicaps?"
Me: P2, I missed a couple of your arguments. Some people might be offended if their Christian daughter marries someone from another religion. Maybe we should ban that as well due to the harm it has done. Strip bars are legal. There are just regulations determining where they can be. (There are land use regulations for everything.) So no, I should not be allowed to stick one next door. (Or maybe you just want to ban strip clubs altogether.)
Me: P3, no. A marriage is a legal contract, and as far as I know, animals cannot enter into any legal contracts. So maybe we should ban all contracts due to discrimination (along with strip clubs, marriages that offend any parents, and every form of "sin" that we can imagine.)
Me: I have enough dialogue now. . . .
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Marriage. Show all posts
Gay Marriage: Why It's Fine With Me
In recent years, gay marriage has been one of the most contentious and emotionally charged issues in the United States. I had some reservations about addressing this issue because I know that many people have a problem with my point of view. Then again, the controversy makes addressing this issue irresistible. If nothing else, writing about something that many people are passionate about can attract potential readers, and bad press is better than no press. As always, I encourage comments and feedback, particularly from people who can point out things that I left out or who can show me where I have gone wrong. But be respectful, please. If you can’t back up your opinions with a rational argument, it is probably best to keep them to yourself. Also, refrain from quotations from any scriptures. The last time I checked, our country still had the separation of church and state. Scriptural references, therefore, are irrelevant when discussing this legal issue.
I am going to address this issue a little differently than normal. I have made a list in no particular order of the arguments that I have heard against the legalization of gay marriage. Then I will attempt to refute each argument.
1) If gay marriage is made legal, it will open the door for other types of non-traditional marriage. People might want to marry their pets and farm animals, and polygamy could potentially make a comeback. First of all, the argument that people will marry animals is stupid, and it embarrasses the people who make it. As far as I know, no one has learned to speak dog, cat, or horse language. (Although we can train them to obey simple commands.) Marriage, by definition, is a contract involving two consenting adults. So if we can’t speak animal language, it is difficult to determine if the animal has given consent. And because it is a bitch to pick up a pen with a paw or a hoof, it is impractical to get written consent from them either. Even if we could understand their wishes, I doubt that animals comprehend the concept of marriage. I suspect that we will never know. Now the polygamy argument is more plausible. Polygamy has been common throughout history and still exists in a semi-underground fashion in the United States. Personally, I don’t have a big problem with polygamy. I would not recommend entering into this type of arrangement, but if other people make this choice, it has no effect on me. At least it is honest. Large numbers of Americans have multiple romantic relationships simultaneously, and in most cases this is done secretly. It’s difficult to argue that polygamy is somehow more immoral than cheating or adultery. Now allowing polygamy could raise some tricky questions involving child custody, tax breaks, medical insurance, inheritance, and many other issues, but these questions can be tricky now with our heterosexual monogamy system. Adapting the rules to polygamous marriage might force us to ask ourselves if the current rules and regulations surrounding marriage make any sense. (In particular, it could be another reason to change a medical system in which it is so difficult for many to get affordable insurance.) And finally, attempts to marry animals or to have multiple spouses could occur whether gay marriage is implemented or not.
2) If gay marriage becomes legal, it will be the strongest sign yet that homosexual behavior, something that many Americans consider immoral, has become acceptable. People who disapprove of homosexuality should not be forced to accept it as normal. I agree somewhat with this argument. The acceptance of gay marriage would represent a major cultural shift in our country. The only question, I guess, is whether or not this is a positive thing. No one, however, is going to be forced into thinking that homosexuality is OK. There are lots of perfectly legal behaviors that people have the right to openly criticize: heavy drinking, extramarital sex, gambling, and the list goes on and on. You do not, however, have the right to abuse or discriminate against people who have a lifestyle that you do not like. You will also run into trouble if you try to turn your personal code of ethics into a legal code. It is impossible to legally ban all of the things that you are personally against. If the Ten Commandments were ever turned into a legal code, all of us would be fined or in jail – or in the Old Testament, stoned – fairly quickly, and many members of Congress would be put away first. Can you imagine if adultery was illegal? What if you could arrest or sue someone for coveting your wife, dishonoring his or her parents, or doing some work on the Sabbath day. The only commandments that can be practically enforced as laws are those against killing and stealing, and I think that we can all agree that physically harming someone or stealing his or her stuff does more damage than performing a gay marriage in front of that person. We are all forced to put up with some behaviors that we find offensive. The basic rule in our country is that people have the right to engage in behaviors that do not infringe on the rights of others. Try as I might, I cannot think of any way that other people entering into a gay marriage takes away my rights. The Constitution, as far as I know, does not say that we have the right to never be offended. Interracial marriage used to offend people and was illegal in many states until shortly after the Civil Rights Movement. Forty years ago, my marriage would have been illegal in certain parts of the country. Heaven forbid that people as dangerous and immoral as my wife and I should have the opportunity to offend anyone!
3) If gay marriage becomes legal, schools will be forced to teach children that it is OK. This is a classic scare tactic, similar to Sarah Palin’s “death panels.” I went to school for many years, and I don’t remember anyone teaching me lessons about proper marriages. Schools may have the opportunity someday to tell kids that gay marriage exists and is legal. Schools may also promote tolerance, teaching that all people regardless of race, religion, color, or sexual persuasion deserve to be treated with respect. Does this mean that schools are teaching that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are morally acceptable? Not necessarily. They are just pointing out that these behaviors exist and that you should not be mean to gay people. How could anyone have a problem with that? I doubt that there are many kids who get their morals from schools anyway.
4) If gay marriage becomes legal, it will be easier for homosexual couples to adopt and raise children (or to have kids through surrogates, artificial insemination, etc.) If kids are raised by gay parents, it will do them (the kids) psychological harm. I am unaware of any hard evidence that proves that children raised by gay couples are psychologically damaged. (If you really want to, you can probably make “scientific” data say anything.) If kids are harmed, the damage probably comes from individuals who criticize or make fun of their parents and not from the parents themselves. In this case, it is society that has the problem. Yet, if you could somehow show that it is bad for children to be raised by anyone other than a married man and woman, gay parents are hardly your biggest problem. Huge numbers of children are currently being raised by parents who are living in equally “immoral” circumstances. Divorced parents, single parents living with significant others, and gay, unmarried parents could all be labeled “undesirable.” Should we take actions to prevent these parents from “damaging” their kids?
5) Gay marriage threatens America’s traditional, Judeo-Christian concept of marriage. It will degrade the institution of marriage for everyone.
6) If gay marriage becomes acceptable, churches and religious organizations will be forced to go against their religious doctrines and bestow the sacrament of marriage on homosexuals.
7) Gay marriage is unnecessary. Most (if not all) states have other types of legal contracts that can provide gay couples with all of the benefits that married couples receive.
I am going to deal with arguments 5-7 together. They all come down to the same central issue. Often, when people argue against gay marriage, they are using the term marriage differently than the state does. For many, marriage is primarily a sacrament, a sacred union blessed by God and performed by some sort of a religious minister. In a country where you can get married by a judge or by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, it does not take long to figure out that the United States does not view marriage as a religious sacrament. According to the state, marriage is a legal contract that has implications for childcare, property sharing, medical insurance, hospital visitation rights, and many other issues. People who say that they are fine with “civil unions” but offended by “gay marriage” do not seem to understand that the state defines them as being essentially the same. Churches and religious institutions, therefore, are not required to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. I know from personal experience that the Catholic Church has a policy against marrying two non-Catholics or marrying someone who has been divorced. (They require that the divorced participant(s) get an annulment.) As far as I know, no one is suing the Catholic Church for these policies. The state, after all, has no jurisdiction over religious ceremonies. If the church refuses to perform the ceremony, this will do nothing to stop the individuals from marrying. So when people worry about the marriage institution being somehow degraded, their fears are misguided. In a sense, the institution is already degraded. Lots of heterosexual couples have married without seeking any blessing from God. Las Vegas, in particular, degrades the institution every day. Should we ban the Vegas style fifteen-minute wedding?
The most important question that I ask myself is why this issue gets so much attention. In my view, this issue has consistently been used as a smokescreen, a distraction from the issues that actually impact people’s lives: health care, business regulations, entitlement reform, defense spending, etc. The problem with the issues that really matter is that they are complicated, and they often force people to think about details that require a great deal of time, patience, and attention span. Gay marriage seems simple. You are either for it or against it. It also appeals, particularly for its opponents, to emotional, gut-level feelings of right and wrong. Politicians may be many things, but they are not dumb. They recognize an opportunity to emotionally manipulate voters when they see it, and there is no emotion easier to manipulate than fear, the most important emotion in politics. When you go through the arguments against gay marriage, many are rooted in fear.
To many opponents of gay marriage, this issue represents a major front in the “culture war,” a somewhat mythical battle between people who uphold conservative, “family values” and secular liberals pushing, among other things, the “gay agenda.” They seem to think that if they elect politicians who believe in traditional family values, then America itself will have better values. I don’t know about you, but I don’t get my values from politicians. Anyone who puts their hope for family values into the hands of politicians is bound to be disappointed. Whenever you hear about a sex scandal involving a politician, more often than not it is the story of a “family values” conservative who sought out gay men in restrooms or liked to visit his mistress in Argentina. I don’t care about politicians’ supposed, self-proclaimed values; I care about his positions on the issues that actually affect me. If people want the values of Americans to improve, and if they want to protect marriage, they should focus on improving their own marriages and on living up to the values that they claim to believe. Maybe then they will have less time and energy to spend butting in on other people’s personal lives.
I am going to address this issue a little differently than normal. I have made a list in no particular order of the arguments that I have heard against the legalization of gay marriage. Then I will attempt to refute each argument.
1) If gay marriage is made legal, it will open the door for other types of non-traditional marriage. People might want to marry their pets and farm animals, and polygamy could potentially make a comeback. First of all, the argument that people will marry animals is stupid, and it embarrasses the people who make it. As far as I know, no one has learned to speak dog, cat, or horse language. (Although we can train them to obey simple commands.) Marriage, by definition, is a contract involving two consenting adults. So if we can’t speak animal language, it is difficult to determine if the animal has given consent. And because it is a bitch to pick up a pen with a paw or a hoof, it is impractical to get written consent from them either. Even if we could understand their wishes, I doubt that animals comprehend the concept of marriage. I suspect that we will never know. Now the polygamy argument is more plausible. Polygamy has been common throughout history and still exists in a semi-underground fashion in the United States. Personally, I don’t have a big problem with polygamy. I would not recommend entering into this type of arrangement, but if other people make this choice, it has no effect on me. At least it is honest. Large numbers of Americans have multiple romantic relationships simultaneously, and in most cases this is done secretly. It’s difficult to argue that polygamy is somehow more immoral than cheating or adultery. Now allowing polygamy could raise some tricky questions involving child custody, tax breaks, medical insurance, inheritance, and many other issues, but these questions can be tricky now with our heterosexual monogamy system. Adapting the rules to polygamous marriage might force us to ask ourselves if the current rules and regulations surrounding marriage make any sense. (In particular, it could be another reason to change a medical system in which it is so difficult for many to get affordable insurance.) And finally, attempts to marry animals or to have multiple spouses could occur whether gay marriage is implemented or not.
2) If gay marriage becomes legal, it will be the strongest sign yet that homosexual behavior, something that many Americans consider immoral, has become acceptable. People who disapprove of homosexuality should not be forced to accept it as normal. I agree somewhat with this argument. The acceptance of gay marriage would represent a major cultural shift in our country. The only question, I guess, is whether or not this is a positive thing. No one, however, is going to be forced into thinking that homosexuality is OK. There are lots of perfectly legal behaviors that people have the right to openly criticize: heavy drinking, extramarital sex, gambling, and the list goes on and on. You do not, however, have the right to abuse or discriminate against people who have a lifestyle that you do not like. You will also run into trouble if you try to turn your personal code of ethics into a legal code. It is impossible to legally ban all of the things that you are personally against. If the Ten Commandments were ever turned into a legal code, all of us would be fined or in jail – or in the Old Testament, stoned – fairly quickly, and many members of Congress would be put away first. Can you imagine if adultery was illegal? What if you could arrest or sue someone for coveting your wife, dishonoring his or her parents, or doing some work on the Sabbath day. The only commandments that can be practically enforced as laws are those against killing and stealing, and I think that we can all agree that physically harming someone or stealing his or her stuff does more damage than performing a gay marriage in front of that person. We are all forced to put up with some behaviors that we find offensive. The basic rule in our country is that people have the right to engage in behaviors that do not infringe on the rights of others. Try as I might, I cannot think of any way that other people entering into a gay marriage takes away my rights. The Constitution, as far as I know, does not say that we have the right to never be offended. Interracial marriage used to offend people and was illegal in many states until shortly after the Civil Rights Movement. Forty years ago, my marriage would have been illegal in certain parts of the country. Heaven forbid that people as dangerous and immoral as my wife and I should have the opportunity to offend anyone!
3) If gay marriage becomes legal, schools will be forced to teach children that it is OK. This is a classic scare tactic, similar to Sarah Palin’s “death panels.” I went to school for many years, and I don’t remember anyone teaching me lessons about proper marriages. Schools may have the opportunity someday to tell kids that gay marriage exists and is legal. Schools may also promote tolerance, teaching that all people regardless of race, religion, color, or sexual persuasion deserve to be treated with respect. Does this mean that schools are teaching that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are morally acceptable? Not necessarily. They are just pointing out that these behaviors exist and that you should not be mean to gay people. How could anyone have a problem with that? I doubt that there are many kids who get their morals from schools anyway.
4) If gay marriage becomes legal, it will be easier for homosexual couples to adopt and raise children (or to have kids through surrogates, artificial insemination, etc.) If kids are raised by gay parents, it will do them (the kids) psychological harm. I am unaware of any hard evidence that proves that children raised by gay couples are psychologically damaged. (If you really want to, you can probably make “scientific” data say anything.) If kids are harmed, the damage probably comes from individuals who criticize or make fun of their parents and not from the parents themselves. In this case, it is society that has the problem. Yet, if you could somehow show that it is bad for children to be raised by anyone other than a married man and woman, gay parents are hardly your biggest problem. Huge numbers of children are currently being raised by parents who are living in equally “immoral” circumstances. Divorced parents, single parents living with significant others, and gay, unmarried parents could all be labeled “undesirable.” Should we take actions to prevent these parents from “damaging” their kids?
5) Gay marriage threatens America’s traditional, Judeo-Christian concept of marriage. It will degrade the institution of marriage for everyone.
6) If gay marriage becomes acceptable, churches and religious organizations will be forced to go against their religious doctrines and bestow the sacrament of marriage on homosexuals.
7) Gay marriage is unnecessary. Most (if not all) states have other types of legal contracts that can provide gay couples with all of the benefits that married couples receive.
I am going to deal with arguments 5-7 together. They all come down to the same central issue. Often, when people argue against gay marriage, they are using the term marriage differently than the state does. For many, marriage is primarily a sacrament, a sacred union blessed by God and performed by some sort of a religious minister. In a country where you can get married by a judge or by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, it does not take long to figure out that the United States does not view marriage as a religious sacrament. According to the state, marriage is a legal contract that has implications for childcare, property sharing, medical insurance, hospital visitation rights, and many other issues. People who say that they are fine with “civil unions” but offended by “gay marriage” do not seem to understand that the state defines them as being essentially the same. Churches and religious institutions, therefore, are not required to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. I know from personal experience that the Catholic Church has a policy against marrying two non-Catholics or marrying someone who has been divorced. (They require that the divorced participant(s) get an annulment.) As far as I know, no one is suing the Catholic Church for these policies. The state, after all, has no jurisdiction over religious ceremonies. If the church refuses to perform the ceremony, this will do nothing to stop the individuals from marrying. So when people worry about the marriage institution being somehow degraded, their fears are misguided. In a sense, the institution is already degraded. Lots of heterosexual couples have married without seeking any blessing from God. Las Vegas, in particular, degrades the institution every day. Should we ban the Vegas style fifteen-minute wedding?
The most important question that I ask myself is why this issue gets so much attention. In my view, this issue has consistently been used as a smokescreen, a distraction from the issues that actually impact people’s lives: health care, business regulations, entitlement reform, defense spending, etc. The problem with the issues that really matter is that they are complicated, and they often force people to think about details that require a great deal of time, patience, and attention span. Gay marriage seems simple. You are either for it or against it. It also appeals, particularly for its opponents, to emotional, gut-level feelings of right and wrong. Politicians may be many things, but they are not dumb. They recognize an opportunity to emotionally manipulate voters when they see it, and there is no emotion easier to manipulate than fear, the most important emotion in politics. When you go through the arguments against gay marriage, many are rooted in fear.
To many opponents of gay marriage, this issue represents a major front in the “culture war,” a somewhat mythical battle between people who uphold conservative, “family values” and secular liberals pushing, among other things, the “gay agenda.” They seem to think that if they elect politicians who believe in traditional family values, then America itself will have better values. I don’t know about you, but I don’t get my values from politicians. Anyone who puts their hope for family values into the hands of politicians is bound to be disappointed. Whenever you hear about a sex scandal involving a politician, more often than not it is the story of a “family values” conservative who sought out gay men in restrooms or liked to visit his mistress in Argentina. I don’t care about politicians’ supposed, self-proclaimed values; I care about his positions on the issues that actually affect me. If people want the values of Americans to improve, and if they want to protect marriage, they should focus on improving their own marriages and on living up to the values that they claim to believe. Maybe then they will have less time and energy to spend butting in on other people’s personal lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
