Fellow Jerseyblogger Ian Argent asks just one question of gay marriage opponents:
Why do we allow sterile, divorced, atheistic serial adulterers who happen to be of opposite sex to enter into legally recognized marriage; but prevent people who truly love one another to do the same, if they happen to be of the same sex?
...and points out that in a nation with a robust establishment prohibition, the answer can't have anything to do with any religion.
Unlike its prototype, though, this One Question has a very simple answer:
Because laws against gay marriage accomplish their unstated goal of reaffirming whose subculture is in charge, and who gets to tell whom how to live.
See how easy these questions are to answer when you're honest?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm all in favor of gay marriage, let them pay the Marriage Penalty too!
ReplyDeleteI think it's because of the confusion caused by the language used. That and the entanglement between legally government recognized "marriage" and "marriage" the historic religious ceremony.
ReplyDeleteMost the anti-gay marriage folks I know see "gay marriage" as a government attack on the fundamental building blocks of their religion. As if the government intends to FORCE their church to recognize and perform same sex marriage ceremonies.
So, yes I realize I brought religion in when that was disallowed...but honestly (in my view) it's not ACTUALLY about religion so much as two poorly defined concepts using the same word. I acknowledge it's probable REAL anti-gay zealots are using that confusion in terms to "reaffirm which subculture is in charge". But, I think if it were stressed that no one's religious institutions would be pressured or changed the voters would support marriage equality.
Or maybe I give too much credit to my fellow man...
Funny how many seemingly irrational positions make perfect sense if you look at them as signaling devices.
ReplyDeleteD.W.,
ReplyDeleteAnd I want to get married _twice_. We could balance the budget, letting poly folks marry!
bluntobject,
Yup. You can come up with an elaborate justification for forbidding pork or alcohol, or you can just admit it's because that's what _they_ do, and we're not _them_.
Anthony,
No, there's something to that. At least some smart folks are uneasy about gay marriage for just that kind of reason, and it's not completely unfounded. I think the equal rights movement really shot itself in the foot, for example, in Massachusetts when, after getting marriage equality, they then pushed for programs to promote acceptance of gay relationships in the public preschools.
Now, I think everybody should accept gay relationships, but it's still a contentious issue, right or wrong. And in contentious issues, it;s not acceptable to go after your enemies' kids, no matter how right you're sure you are. That idiocy lost the movement a lot of support, and was brought up again and again by the groups that managed to overturn marriage equality in California.
Obviously, this still isn't a valid reason to oppose equal marriage rights. You fight the attacks on your church if and when they happen. Just like it was never right Just like it would never have been right to oppose the end of segregation just because you could predict Jesse Jackson.
To be fair, the more intellectually-honest opponents are against the first example couple marrying as well. They just know they can't do anything about it.
ReplyDelete