Why don't conservatives embrace gays and lesbians getting married? I would think they'd love it; it's like gays and lesbians embracing the heterosexual lifestyle instead of the more partying lifestyle that the gays had during the 80s, or that they still have in San Francisco.
Like anything other major societal issues, there are a lot of mindsets which can get you to the same point.
First, there are the religious, who see specific Scriptural admonitions for one man/one woman marital arrangements, those who don't like gays, and those who just don't like change. These are fairly straightforward reasons, and the most easily and most frequently caricatured.
Another reason is, "we've changed enough." These are the people who are most swayed by "slippery slope" arguments, because they see an ideals of marriage family as having been kneecapped over the years. Where marriage was "until death," now it's "until inconvenient." Where single parents were once rare, they're now common. And every change has been for the worse: single women with children are the mostly likely to be living in poverty; unmarried men live shorter, less happy lives. The expectation is that gay marriage will, on par, make society worse off, too -- as will any change that might follow it.
Complementing those are the conservatives who aren't averse to change, but need a better reason than for the sake of change. The aphorism which sums best sums this up is, "don't tear down a wall until you know why someone put it up in the first place." A world where gay marriage activists think sitting in traffic is an effective, adult protest, and where pro-gay marriage columnists like Dan Savage refer to monogamy as an "alternate lifestyle" are not displaying a sufficient understanding of why marriage matters to 95% of the population. They make marriage look frivolous, which exactly the opposite of what devoting your life to another is supposed to be.
Lastly, there are those who are all for gay rights -- as gays considered them 20 years ago. Back in the 70s and 80s, gay activism could not have been more against marriage. It was inconvenient to the party atmosphere you describe, and many gays had chosen to live in the closet. Being out was (understandably) liberating. Now that that lifestyle has had its flaws open for everyone to see, the new line is how marriage is good again. Well, maybe. But it's enough to give a person whiplash -- and again, the frivolity appearance becomes a problem. Last decade bad, this decade good; are we going to have to go through this all again in the 2010s, if/when gays decide marriage doesn't work out for them very well either?
20
 17
|
of barn doors and hinges and heterosexuals
Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:40:51 AM EST
5.00 (brilliant, brilliant)
|
Interesting comments gerry, but what really stands out is the fact that all of those arguments, as you acknowledge in your first para, can also be applied to heterosexual marriage. Indeed, one could argue that the vast majority of all those points regarding how seriously marriage is undertaken, can and should be applied to heterosexual marriage. I mean, if any group of people have "kneecapped" (as you described) marriage and have blatantly disregarded the whole "sanctity of marriage" (typical descriptor), it's been christian, heterosexuals who've done the most damage to wedded bliss.
are not displaying a sufficient understanding of why marriage matters to 95% of the population. They make marriage look frivolous, which exactly the opposite of what devoting your life to another is supposed to be.
Again, the only group of folks causing damage to the institution of marriage are the heterosexuals who disregard their vows with wild abandon. It's pretty clear that the only real reason for being against gay marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage tainting/kneecapping heterosexual marriage, as it's abundantly clear that heterosexuals have not adhered to the principles of marriage as outlined by most opponents of gay marriage; the real reason lies within those basest of human instincts: fear of what's not understood, loss of control (and therefor power), and plain old Haterade™. Meanwhile, we're treated to an almost nightly regaling of the latest pol, preacher, or pundit who has been caught carrying on in a manner that's blatantly at opposition to their stated positions.... So you'll have to excuse my dismissal of your frivolity argument, as the heterosexual population has already blown that particular barn door right off its hinges.
Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer
23
20
|
Re: of barn doors and hinges and heterosexuals
Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST
|
the only group of folks causing damage to the institution of marriage are the heterosexuals who disregard their vows with wild abandon.
1fastdog, this is somewhat of a tautology. Because only straight marriage was recognized, and because gays only represent 5% of the population, then by definition the greatest percentage of damage to marriage as an institution has come from heterosexuals.
That said, I think it's still very incorrect to say straights are the only group to harm marriage. One can point to the number of divorces from the 70s through the 90s where one closeted gay partner came out, and longed for sexual freedom. In earlier times, gays would stay married. On one hand, this was somewhat deleterious to marriage; one or both partners might cheat, or suffer in more passive/aggressive ways. On the other hand, it solved another problem which certainly does arise for modern gay couples: children. Gay men didn't have to adopt, lesbians didn't have to look outside of their relationship to conceive. And let's not forget the children, for whom straight matches are going to be the important pattern the majority of the time.
But does any of that get any better if we add gay marriage? The deleterious parts don't, necessarily. Gay men certainly seem to be no less prone to cheating just because they can be in relationships with other men; in some ways, it appears that cheating is endemic to gay culture. As for gay women, "lesbian bed death" has been part of the discussion since the 80s. And as per above, having children becomes a problem, too.
Railing against marriage as imperfect is one thing, but supporting an even less perfect alternative just seems foolish.
25
23
|
Re: of barn doors and hinges and heterosexuals
Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:55:44 AM EST
5.00 (interesting)
|
Railing against marriage as imperfect is one thing, but supporting an even less perfect alternative just seems foolish.
Actually, I would say that both heterosexual couples as well as gay/lesbian couples have the same percentage of making their marriages work these days.
First reason is that heterosexual couples have changed a great deal in the last few decades with the women's movement. Since women can now earn equal salary to men, the reasons for marriage are radically different than the set roles of male breadwinner and female housewife. If anything, I would say that the heterosexual marriage is in the midst of one of the most experimental stages where no one (or at least no heterosexual married person I know in my age group) knows exactly what they are supposed to be doing in their marriages.
Then, there have been many changes in the gay community. A recent New York Times article by a gay man in his early 40s noted that gay men in their 20s are more relationship-prone because they come out of the closet earlier, allowing them to spend their teenaged years and early 20s experiencing different partners and which wasn't available to gay men as much in the previous generations.
Given that, I would say that any couple has an equal percentage chance of making it work. Actually, if I had to bet real money, I would bet on a gay couple since they might actually be more emotionally invested in making a marriage work these days.
21
17
|
Re: Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State
Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:38:51 PM EST
|
Thanks, gerrymander, for your response to my question about why conservatives might be opposed to gay marriages. It was a serious, as well as a seemingly informed, response about that sector is concerned about in regards to this issue.
I would have to agree with 1fastdog that the largest reason why marriage is not taken seriously is because of how marriages have turned out in the heterosexual population. My friends and I, who are mostly in our early to late 30s, joke about now getting to an age where the marriage ceremonies are ending and the divorces are beginning. As far as I can tell, this trend doesn't seem different whether the marriages are between conservatives or liberals. For whatever reason, people in my generation seem unhappier in their marriages and do avail themselves of divorce.
Given the distress that some of my friends are feeling in their marriages, I don't know whether it's because they didn't take their marriages seriously. In my parents' generation, yes, they would have just stuck it out. But sticking it out in an unhappy marriage didn't necessarily give individual marriages more meaning even if it seemingly gave the societal definition of marriage more meaning. By this, I mean that people in older generations who stayed in unhappy marriages didn't derive more from their marriages than people who now would divorce. If anything, I would say that people who stay in unhappy marriages get less from their marriages than from a divorce. But the institution of marriage becomes a legend of its own, an abstract for the construct of societal good even if it doesn't necessarily do individuals good. The wording in this paragraph is awkward, but I hope you get what I am trying to say.
While it is difficult for single mothers with children to raise children and to work, I would say that the solution could be different rather than returning to older ideas of marriage. Couldn't we be working towards helping single mothers with children in numerous ways:
- we could give tax incentives to companies that offer childcare services
- for at-risk teenagers who somehow think parenthood is an expedient means to the authority of adulthood, there should be more grassroots programs to give these teenagers more meaningful ways of becomings adults such as internship programs, special classes to help them do better at school, etc.
- maybe society needs to encourage more men to rethink their understanding of fatherhood if there are so many willing to abandon their children financially? In other words, biologically, the fathers are just as at fault for the poverty of single child mothers as the mothers.
