The American Spectator

VinceP1974| 1.3.09 @ 6:09AM

I think there's two issues

1 - The case for Gay Marriage itself
2 - How to enact such change

I focus on number 2. IMHO this is not an issue for the courts. This is an issue for the American people to decide on. The people of this country retain teh soverign right to have their representatives enact into law via the State Govts the policies that they so choose.

No one is excluded from marrying a member of the opposite sex.

The reason the State gives recongnition to Marriage is because it is the traditional insitution by which human beings create children and raise them. This is something non-hetereosexual relationships cannot do.

Marriage is thousands of years old and never in no society have there been homosexual marriage. Marriage is not for us to redefine, marriage is what it is.

It is simply too-bad that insecure Leftists cannot get society to give them all a hug. Civil Unions are entirely appropiate and they should be grateful that enough people support them.

The Courts in this country are absolutely abusing their authority when they create Homosexual Marriage law.
Courts are to follow the law or render specific acts invalid. But they cannot create new law.
Well, they shouldn't anyway.

As for the merits of gay marriage itself. I'm gay and I oppose gay marriage. I dont think the life-long monogamous relationship model is one that works with gay people.

You see, one of the things that marriage does is create a social expectation that married men won't go sleeping around on their wives, impreganating multiple women and create babies everywhere. This destroys every family this man involves himself.. all the wives, mistresses , and their children. Thus the man has to restrained and have to go so far as to obligate him to make an oath to God that he won't do that.

What is the consequence if a gay guy cheats on his whatever... nothing other than perhaps STD. Other than disease, sex has no consequence for gay guys.

You dont need State recognition of marriage in order to have a monogamous gay releationship so those up for that challenege could have always lived this way.

The vast number of gay relationships that i know that span more than a decade almost all involve non-monogamy.

If disease-control is being cited as a motivation FOR gay marriage, I will disagree. I believe it's nearly impossible for gay guy to never cheat on his bf. Sure many are able to remain faithful but just as many if not more are not able.

Gay men look to the man-woman relationship model and say "Hmm. if he sleeps around on me that means he doesnt want me"

But that's not neccesarily true because homo-sex has far far far fewer risks of destroying relationships / creating children then straight-sex.

So the calculation to cheat is different.

But if one is under the strict rules of Marriage, cheating means the end of the relationship.. this forces people to lie. Instead of being honest with one another about the temptations to sleep around, this unrealistic Marriage model forces them to lie about it. And with lies come wrong assumptions and those wrong assumptions can lead to disease.

The Conservative Wanderer| 1.3.09 @ 8:32AM

"In a follow-up, Friedersdorf says, 'my support for gay marriage is so inextricably tied to my conservatism.'"

I would ask Mr. Friedersdorf what is so "conservative" about overturning something that has been around for essentially the whole of human civilization, and yet has not posed an insurmountable barrier to the advancement of said civilization.

In other words, if homosexual marriage is so all-fired important, how has civilization survived--and, yes, flourished--for these thousands of years without it?

I challenge any supporter of gay marriage to show me one society that's embraced it and done better than the American society has without it. And please, don't try to use the old, tired, circular argument of "they've done better because they have gay marriage." That sort of tactic was discredited in elementary school.

dad29| 1.3.09 @ 9:51AM

If "conservatism" is to be taken seriously, it must acknowledge the Natural Law. Were F. to claim that "his conservatism" includes denial of the law of gravity, he would be laughed off the planet.

Jefferson, no religious fanatic, acknowledge 'the laws of Nature and Nature's God,' which did not include gay "marriage." (That's obviously why Kirk missed it too.../sarcasm.)

We must conclude that F's "conservatism" does not acknowledge God--or that his "conservatism" includes defiance of Nature (and Nature's God.)

Either way, it's not "conservative."

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 2:54PM

There's nothing inherently good about something that "has been around for thousands of years."

Slavery has been around for thousands of years. Go back a few centuries, and you can't find a single philosopher that has any problem whatsoever with slavery.

Gay marriage brings 0ut a contradiction in "conservatism" between the strand that focuses on individual rights (a.k.a "liberalism") and actual conservatism, which is concerned primarily with social cohesiveness.

dad29| 1.3.09 @ 3:04PM

And there's nothing "inherently evil" about something that's been around for 1000's of years, either, J.

As you obliquely note, "conservatism" is concerned with social cohesion; thus it is based on nature, rightly understood.

Slavery violates nature; either each man is a child of God with (thus) equal rights as man, or not.

Of course, women are NOT "equal" to men except in the "child of God" category.

John| 1.3.09 @ 4:12PM

I can think of no more subversive or self-destructive activity for a species to do than to equate confused sexual activity with the social bonding to form the basis and capability for child rearing.

Humans are not fish. We do not spawn and leave the eggs to fend for themselves, protected by their vast numbers and the chance that more than a few ill reach maturity.

Humans are also not other mammals. We are not bears where the sow, after having a short estrus period where she will accept the company of a mate, and boars with enough pheromone boost to keep from killing and eating the sow... will produce a pregnancy where the sow retreats to a den to continue her pregnancy and early cub rearing. Of course as hormones die down and estrus begins again she chases off those cubs to fend for themselves.

Humans must form cohesive complementary family units in order to survive. Division of labor, specialization of skill, socialization, and education are all primarily family functions. The caveat of course is that there must be the next generation to provide for.

Homosexual behavior cannot provide for the creation of the next generation. It merely preoccupies the current generation with some form of psycho-sexual pleasure.

To normalize, socialize, and institutionalize a fundamentally congruent social pathology is a sign that the society is breaking apart at its foundation.

Sigmund Freud addressed the causes of homosexual behavior in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was not, and is not wrong.

To hold a foundational social institution hostage to that which is its antithesis is to continuously pour acid on the truss of a bridge. It's collapse is guaranteed. It will merely be a matter of time.

We tend to want to destroy that which we hate and disrespect the most, I suppose.

Regards,

John

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 4:13PM

dad29 --

Slavery was considered eminently "natural" by the greatest thinkers for most of recorded human history. The fact that it lingered monstrously in the modern world in the U.S. testifies to how "natural" it seemed.

Jesus refers to slaves without even hinting there's anything wrong with institution itself; Plato, Aristotle, and all of the ancients are unanimous in believing it as "natural" as anything else.

My point is only that the concept of "natural" gets you very little work done.

Conservatism used to adhere to a rigorous epistemological skepticism.

The conservative in effect said, "We cannot know the best way to organize society. However, we can know what has worked for our fathers and try to emulate them. We have to stick together and follow our customs, or else chaos may overwhelm us."

This is not the "liberal" view -- that is, not the view that "individual rights" (to property or anything else) are paramount.

Interestingly, todays "conservative" and "progressive" political tendencies each retain impulses of this earlier, more genuine conservatism. "Conservatives" who oppose gay marriage, for example, point to its menace of marriage -- the basic building block of social cohesion. Progressives shrug at hysterical libertarianisms that foment resentment about taxation: for them, something like Social Security or unemployment benefits creates social cohesion and reduces the likelihood of class resentment.

TheConservativeWanderer| 1.3.09 @ 4:18PM

Jeremiah, find me any modern country that still practices slavery, and you might have an argument.

Until then, your example might apply to backwaters that haven't caught up to the 21st century, but not to modern civilization.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 4:57PM

I think there are two countries that still do slavery and they both Islamic.

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 6:47PM

Conservative Wanderer and Vince --

1. You miss my point -- or, rather, you unwittingly make it for me. I was merely arguing that a practice's or institution's apparently "natural" existence doesn't fully legitimate it.

The fact that slavery is now considered monstrous and unnatural after five thousand years being considered eminently natural merely illustrates the limits of "arguing from nature."

2. There's also a slightly different point to be made, now that we're on the topic. It is estimated that there are more slaves in the world now than ever before. While slavery is not acceptable in industrialized nations, it still exists in them all -- particularly in the form of sex trade slavery. There are hundreds of thousands of slaves in the United States, many of them children. (See the recent Frontline on slavery and international organized crime.)

Conservatives are to be commended for their attention to slavery -- particularly but not exclusively in Africa. It's something leftists don't talk enough about.

Why is all of this so important?

One of the strengths of conservatism is to remind us that the good of society -- the communal good -- is always crucial to the happiness of individuals. Conservatism -- before it ceded the difficulties of thinking through these complicated problems to others -- used to stand against the braying self-interest of the market-mongers. No more: now conservatives see capitalist acquisitiveness as the same thing as conservatism.

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 6:55PM

John --

Freud analyzed the causes of homosexuality and determined them to be beyond the control of homosexuals. He is one of the first writers to urge tolerance of homosexuality, since he believed it was not something chosen by individuals.

You seem to be making a logical mistake that is easy to make: you are confusing positive facts with normative conclusions.

A classic example is the following:

A woman has breasts; therefore, she should have children.

Homosexuals cannot procreate; therefore, they should not have sex.

Both of these statements may be believed without doing violence to reason. But there is no logical reason to connect the first claim with the second. The "therefore" is not a valid truth connector in these instances.

One question quickly follows: do heterosexuals only have sex to procreate?

TheConservativeWanderer| 1.3.09 @ 7:09PM

"One of the strengths of conservatism is to remind us that the good of society -- the communal good -- is always crucial to the happiness of individuals."

Thanks for using the word "communal." That confirms my theory about you. If you're a conservative, Jeremiah, I'll eat my USS Ronald Reagan hat.

Thanks for playing, we have some wonderful parting gifts for ya.

Ran| 1.3.09 @ 7:49PM

RSM,
"This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument, because traditional marriage is based on the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different, and hence, unequal. Traditional marriage assumes a complementarity of the sexes that becomes absurd if you deny that "man" and "woman" define intrinsic traits, functions, roles."

For what it's worth, it's a mainstream teaching of the Orthodox Jewish approach that though women and men differ in characteristic and functional ways, we learn in Genesis that we are both of us made in the image of G-d and thus fully equal in our essential humanity.

We are not fungible nor even replaceable: The one completes and complements the other in marriage relationship. The marriage union creates something greater than a mere pairing of equals, it creates a higher spiritual potential for them both.

The point being, that 'equality' is not to be confused with 'equity' or 'sameness' and that 'different' is not to imply 'differential respect.' To declare women and men different, then, is not to declare inequality (illegal discrimination) in those matters of individual rights or human responsibilities. That essential, human equality is a gift from G-d that none may rationally deny without first denying G-d.

In this construct, gay "marriage" becomes an oxymoron. No complement is engaged, no completion occurs, no higher spiritual potential evolves. It simply isn't marriage in any meaningful sense.

One can apply the same argument (that as creatures of G-d we are all of us equal) to deny racists the fallacy of "racial" difference = hierarchical status. For me, it is the primary moral underpinning of my opposition to political collectivism - the "communal good" fallacy.

RedHatRob| 1.3.09 @ 7:55PM

I am reminded of the old chestnut:

Q. Why do we allow women in the military but not in the NFL?

A. Because we're serious about football.

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 8:20PM

Conservative Wanderer --

I've never once pretended to be a conservative. As I freely admit nearly every time I post: I'm an unrepentant tax and spend liberal.

I do read and think about conservative points of view.

I'm sorry you're made uncomfortable by the word "communal." You seem to be misunderstanding your own political philosophy.

Conservatives themselves argue that their opposition to gay marriage is based upon their belief that it could destabilize marriage, the fundamental building block (if you will) of social cohesion, the social fabric -- a.k.a. the community.

I assure you there's nothing scandalous in my use of that word -- even as I look at something from a "conservative" point of view.

What is crucial to understand about this issue is that here is one issue (and there are many others, often but no always related to sexual morality) where conservatives believe that the social good, the health of the community, is more important than individual rights or freedom.

If gay marriage were simply a matter of individual liberties, on what would conservatives base their disapproval?

It's only by an appeal to the needs of the collective, the social, the communal, that they're able to make an argument.

It just so happens too that that argument is widely accepted, even among Democrats. Gay marriage, if it's left to the states, as Clinton, Kerry, and Obama have maintained it should be, we'll probably not survive many referendums.

This is hardly illustrating some kind of silent libertarian majority exists.

dad29| 1.3.09 @ 8:58PM

now conservatives see capitalist acquisitiveness as the same thing as conservatism

Acutally, that's a broad-brush and (therefore) somewhat inaccurate assessment.

Real Conservatives understand 'community' to include ALL members thereof. While acquisition of goods/money is not evil per se, accumulating it to the detriment of others IS evil; same with refusal to assist the less-fortunate from one's goods.

Orthodox Judaism understands that through the 1st Commandment "Thou shalt not have other gods before me (money, e.g.); Catholics understand it through that AND the Sermon on the Mount, "blessed are the poor in spirit.."

Further, Jeremiah, I do not argue "natural law" detached from the reality of families. It should be obvious that marriage is ordained to procreation and upbringing of children into society. Thus, "nature" is more than simple tradition.

ConservativeWanderer| 1.3.09 @ 10:04PM

My, my, Jeremiah, I am so lucky to have you here to explain to me the philosophy I have studied, followed, and debated since high school! (/sarc off)

Typical lefty... you think you know more about everything than everyone else. Go stand at the shore and tell the tide to recede, King Jeremiah Canute.

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 10:14PM

Conservative Wanderer --

If you think I'm a "typical lefty," then you don't know much about "lefties."

I also think that you do need reminders about what certain aspects of your political philosophy mean.

To have it repeated endlessly that conservatives just want to be "left alone" and that their property rights are of the highest priority begins to take its toll. The fact is that like everyone else conservatives see and understand the need for social order and cohesiveness -- the same social order or cohesiveness that progressives seek to build and support through their own policy agendas.

ConservativeWanderer| 1.3.09 @ 10:19PM

Jeremiah, you're demonstrating your obsession with groupthink. Every conservative must, in your mind, believe exactly what every other conservative believes.

Of course, the fact that all the evidence is to the contrary doesn't bother you at all, does it? Just look at last year's GOP primaries... Huckabee supporters attacking Romney and his supporters... but of course we all believe exactly identically, so why all the angst over which nominee we get, since each one would believe exactly as we do.

By the way, don't try jumping on my "typical" comment... the assumption of a "typical" also presupposed an "atypical." For an example, I'd say Joe Lieberman is an atypical lefty, given his pro-Iraq-war stance.

Are you able to accept the existence of conservatives that don't believe the boilerplate that you seem to think we all believe in?

ruth| 1.3.09 @ 10:33PM

Jeremiah is an atypical liberal because he says he's pro-life. I guess I'm an atypical conservative because i'm an environmentalist--but not a crazy one--I love people.

ruth| 1.3.09 @ 10:36PM

Jeremiah, the social order you strive to build and support can only be enacted through coercion. We conservatives frown on being made to do 'Dear Leader's' bidding.

John| 1.4.09 @ 11:46AM

To Jeremiah:

1. Sorry for the delay in responding. I was at Mass last evening. Feast of the Epiphany.... which was a lovely reminder of the importance of family.

To respond. On Freud; he pretty much believed that all psychological pathologies were fundamentally incurable, they could only be dealt with, understood, and the ill effects mitigated by "talking it over" - psychotherapy. The causes of the pathology were what I was driving at. You are reversing cause and effect, to make the effect justify the cause. This is not particularly structurally sound, but it sure gets the weak confused.

2. You make the standard libertine error of confusing sex with procreation, which has led the to the insane (yes it is a fundamental insanity) movement to conflate sex with marriage.

Sex has a critical component part in marriage. Without sex between a male and a female there is no procreation. Therefore no naturally produced, biologically bonded offspring.

Humans are infinitely more complicated than just how they pleasure themselves and or each other. Marriage is not about sexual gratification. In fact, if it is ONLY about sex, then marriage dissolves over time. Which has, again, shown to be universally true. One need only look at the failure rate and non-start rate of marriage (illegitimate births, cohabitating couples, etc) to get a clue as to how disastrous our flirtation with "marriage as a private sex contract" has been.

Marriage is more about how two different and complementary beings (one male with all of the male traits necessary to survive and one female with all of the female traits necessary to bear children) bring into the world and raise at great cost and effort, a family.

Two males cannot produce a child. Two females cannot do so either. Only with antiseptic unbonded methods can an adoption or illegitimate pregnancy occur. This is the exception, not the rule.

I am constantly amazed at how the Left picks and chooses what it deems to be natural and worth supporting. Usually what it boils down to is the simple irrational demand of "I want what I want, and I want it now; and if you don't want me to have it you are being mean." Veruca Salt as a society... yeesh

r/John

Jeremiah| 1.4.09 @ 12:43PM

John --

Perhaps the "left" is not as homogenous as it seems.

My point was simply that a) deriving marriage from "nature" is tricky business; and b) saying that homosexual unions were not eligible for marriage because biological reproduction is impossible seems not logically sound.

This is not to say that there should be such a thing as gay marriage -- or that any other belief about marriage is not well founded. I accept, for example, the teachings of the Church about marriage. I do not believe in gay marriage. But is the Church "natural"?

My point is merely that marriage (broadly understood as a function of human culture) is an institution of civilization (and its discontents). It is made by human beings to suit our needs, like a tractor or a public library.

Jeremiah| 1.4.09 @ 2:21PM

One way of looking at marriage is as a contract between children and the state. It seals the legitimacy of children who, because they are not children, cannot enter into a contract.

The public aspect of marriage illustrates its basically social function. John is right in denying that marriage is a private sex contract. Rather, it is a promise or contract made between a couple and a community: the couple vows to support one another and follow the rules of the community; the community in turn (and this is often forgotten in modern times) vows to support the marriage and family.

Jeremiah| 1.4.09 @ 2:22PM

...Or rather, "because they are children" ...not "because they are not children"

J David| 1.5.09 @ 9:03AM

Mutations do not carry on a species, mutations cannot carry forward a culture. Mutations, being unable to extend the lifespan of a culture/civilization are effectively killing the body of same that tolerates that cancer. Ours WILL die, as others before have done, no "ifs", "ands", or "buts".

The FOOL has said in his heart 'There is no God[no Supreme arbiter over anyones' lives]" Ps 14:1.

Admitting to a factual reality has ABSOLUTELY no bearing or mitigation on the fact itself, merely damaging the fool that ignores it.

ruth| 1.5.09 @ 2:13PM

Well said, J David, nature has a bottom line.

BobN| 1.6.09 @ 4:48PM

"never, in no society"

Think what you will about same-sex marriage, but be grateful that the discussion about it has allowed humankind to achieve something which eluded all those who came before us. We have managed to prove a negative!!!

Or so it appears...

Fitz| 1.6.09 @ 5:24PM

"This is why so many of those who would defend traditional marriage find themselves unable to form a coherent argument"

I found the opposite to be the case.... I don’t see how any serious observer can claim that defenders of traditional marriage can’t find a coherent argument.

The Maryland, New York and Washington decisions all manage to do so.

As to the appalling statistics of marriage breakdown over the last 40 years.

bill kotcher| 4.6.09 @ 8:48PM

Jeremiah, why do you stereotype people. You stated the following;

"Conservatives themselves argue that their opposition to gay marriage is based upon their belief that it could destabilize marriage, the fundamental building block (if you will) of social cohesion, the social fabric -- a.k.a. the community. "

It is common to develop stereotypes when we do not have all available information we need to make a balanced or objective judgment about people or situations. It is this lack of information that can sometimes lead to extremes such as discrimination and persecution, or cause us to make ill-informed judgements or assumptions.

Jeremiah, I know you will correct yourself and say that you did not mean everybody but you have already shown the shortcomings of your intellect and now I am afraid you will be "back-pedaling".

You have made an ill-formed judgement about homosexuals and you have proven that homosexuality is not the only subject you have ill-formed judgements and lack knowledge of. A man who has flawed judgement, lack of knowledge, easily stereotypes people has flawed comparative reasoning.

Until Jeremiah can admit his problem he is in a state of denial. Comparitive reasoning by intelligent people has a benchmark which takes into account all factors. Anything will look good if you are ignorant or choose to ignore the negative aspects of an activity that cause extreme harm to individuals.

There is no sense in debating with Jeremiah until Jeremiah returns with the knowledge of conservatives so that Jermiah does not stereotype people. Jermiah also need to learn much more about homosexuality for Jermiah has stereotyped homoseuals as well.

air jordans| 7.1.09 @ 9:20AM

It is a wonderful article,i like it,thank you very much!

classic handbags| 10.13.09 @ 9:53AM

Best Fashion Classic Handbags

Best Discount Cheap Handbags

groupshoes| 10.21.09 @ 9:20PM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.