Paul MeroMero Gay Marriage Debate Broken Down
Cliff Note: The post below is a numbered re-print of this comment by Paul Mero from Swimming With the Gays, to advantage clarity in readers’ responses.
I am not going anywhere.
The difficulty in this conversation, for me anyway, is that you invoke a personal moral code that you define only vaguely, or only broadly at most.
1.) If I argue empirically that the natural family is best for society AND for men, women, and children individually, you either ignore the claim or resort to your personal morality to argue that some things (love and good intentions) trump human experience.
2.) If I argue morality you weave and dodge with pseudo-scientific ramblings of gay researchers, feminist theories, and politicized pop psychology.
3.) If I try to construct moral scenarios that allow you to fully express your moral parameters, you high-center on the minutia of the scenarios to avoid telling me exactly where you draw your moral lines and, more importantly, why.
4.) I still do not know what your brand of morality is. It’s seems as flaky as those gays who simply say that “love makes a family.” Fine and well until love flies out the window. Actually, solid family structures make a lasting family in the real world where love exists but fluctuates along with the everyday human experience. Families are more than love, just as nations are more than borders.
5.) If all you are ultimately saying is that morality changes in time…and it’s about time for people to accept gay marriage based on the reading of your social tea leaves…then that is hardly an argument for change (that things change).
6.) Lastly, I will reiterate, homosexuality is not about, nor ever has been about, traditional relationships…it is about sex. To think marriage will change that reality is intellectually immature. All of the accommodations from the APA community hasn’t done one thing to change gay culture, and broader public accommodations, like marriage, won’t make a difference either. The Gay Left is honest in this regard…meaning that the Gay Right, who make the case for marriage, seek something they already have (the ability to live and love in gay monogamy) or economic benefits they can have through private contract.
7.) Most of all, you seem to miss the simple point that the society you count on to change in its morality, is the current and same society that demands the gay community first show the social benefits of gay marriage…which are isolated at best and typically myths wrapped in pseudo-scientific gay research.
You are right about one thing: time will tell whose right.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
News flash for you, Paul: heterosexuality is also about sex, hence the three little letters in the middle of the word. One man, one woman is about sex. One man many women, many women one man — they’re all about sex. “Relationships” are about sex. One-man-one-woman marriage is just one way of socially regulating sex. But history and anthropology show us others. Not to see them is willful narrowmindedness.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
My response to:
Obviously there are some qualities found in the family structure that we can all agree are superior to others. For example, we all agree that 2 loving parents are better than one in which the parents divorce under bitter circumstances in which the children suffer emotionally and economically.
Obviously, no one will argue we should amend the constitution to protect the rights of the children or family unit effectively prohibiting divorce.
Therefore, Paul, do you agree that even if your argument above prevails in its entirety by consensus here, that it does not lend premise to an argument for creation of laws or by constitutional means, subordinate (unequal) legal recognition for same-sex marriage?
If I missed some previous clarification of that, I apologize.
But if in fact, the resolution of these issues in your favor will be used to further argue for a statutory remedy, then I think we should make that clear so we can respond under that premise.
Otherwise, the relationship between morality and legal principle as supporting statute, must be defined.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
You read my mind on #6 Ed Jr.
All I could think about was how its ALWAYS been about sex all the time, gay or straight. Its everywhere! On the mattress, in the media, music, every Bible, and UNDER every mattress, and the underlying substance of the loudest, longest right-wing conversation in Utah’s history.
I was gonna wait and address that one after a Sunday brewski closer to prime time.
But I am reluctant to leave this on a glib note. Out of respect for my good friend, I should remind you that he is trying to elevate the conversation about TRADITIONAL relationships. And that is important, because I agree that strong families are good for society.
I would ask my friend to describe a traditional relationship as distinct from one that is “ALL about sex.”
* note: I reserve the right to continue glibness on occasion.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Paul:
Even assuming, arguendo, that the natural family is best for society, why does such marriage have to be the exclusive brand of marriage? Indeed, taking your thesis to the logical end suggest we eliminate the silver and bronze medals at the Olympics because they are only second and third best - similar examples are endless in their variety.
I mean, really, why is it that the “best” form of marriage be exclusive to all other forms of marriage?
Albert O.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Wonderful thoughts, all.
News flash for Ed, Jr., of course heterosexuality is about sex, but it is also about much more in the eyes of the “state interest”…and this point is the context of the convo we have been having. I have tried to make the argument, in defending the current prohibition on “gay marraige,” that the natural family, with the male/female bond at its foundation, is in the state interest to protect, encourage, and nurture…and that “gay marriage” is not.
Cliff (#1)…I would be able to agree if I didn’t already consider “gay marriage” a threat to freedom and prosperity (to society)…that, yes, less-than-ideal male/female recognitions are allowed for the reasons I have stated, but that, at some point, the “less-than” simply isn’t a sufficient standard for society…and, in the case of “gay marriage” isn’t even close.
Cliff (#2)…I have tried to explain this point (obviously failingly). The “all” about sex-gay-sex comment versus the “traditional” (I call it natural) family “not-all” about sex relationships seems self-evident, at least to me. Child-bearing and child-rearing is an important state interest…and this goes to the “ideal” to be promoted by the state.
I realize what I will say here is an elusive point for many of you, but I will risk it nonetheless. In a natural family setting, sex is productive and positive in many ways. I contend that while gay sex may have value for the participants, it is selfish in regard to society. Of course, I would extend this selfishness to hetero couples leading hedonistic lives as well. Which segues to this….
Glen’s last comment on the previous post…that somehow gay marriage culture is reducing the promiscuous gay culture. I know Sullivan argues it as fact, and even my friend Stephen Clark argues it as theory, but I see it as baseless, even if hopeful, opinion. The gay movement remains predominated by the latter culture and the movement itself is divided, much the same way as the hetero community, except proportionally opposite, between the hedonists and traditionalists. Sullivan, Clark, Bawer, etc. are still in the vast, vast, minority in my opinion.
To Albert, indeed, there is, and should be, and needs to be, a “good, better, best” inclusive vision for life, and even in public policy to a certain degree as I have mentioned. But “gay marriage” doesn’t represent those standards. It is not only lesser, it isn’t even sufficient to consider a “state interest.”
July 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Paul,
I am uninitiated in the State’s interest subject.
Could you summarize it or point me to a good resource?
A few other examples of state statute established on the basis of a State interest which confronts the equality of its subjects?
I’ll bone up and get back with you.
Tks
Cliff
July 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Paul:
In all seriousness, should hetero couples be allowed to get frisky in the sack just for the heck of it, in between efforts to fill the quiver, or is that just plain too hedonistic?
July 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Other Moral Issues
Public Forum Letter
Colby Rytting defends the right of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to oppose gay marriage in California because “the LDS Church becomes involved in the public debate only when it views the issue as having a strong moral component” (”LDS rights,” Forum, July 11).
If gay rights is a moral issue, why doesn’t the LDS Church take a moral position on the killing in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lack of health care for almost 50 million Americans, the inability of millions of Americans to earn a living income despite working 8-12 hours per day, or the presence of millions of retired Americans who worked all their lives and now subsist below the poverty level?
Are these not moral issues, and arguably far more important than gay marriage?
Rudi Kohler
Heber City
July 20th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
What is terribly funny about this conversation is that it is being upheld by at least 2 people, who hardly ever get laid. Gay or otherwise. We are being led by the theoreticians in this exercise.
Nor have they ever been “married”.
It is funny.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Nor have they ever been divorced or put children through the trauma of divorce!
What’s your point, W3?
July 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Who is divorced? Have you been married and divorced Albert O?
Experience being the best teacher, it would speak to that…and I think the point was pretty clear, it’s funny.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:55 am
Ahmed:
It doesn’t have as much to do with moral components as it does with not wanting to fight organizations that can fight back. No giant Christian organization wants to lose it’s tax free status and are never going to fight the medical industry, war industry or industry period. It’s always exciting to be fighting something though. It gives you a sense of purpose so why not fight individuals like gays, drug users, gamblers, smokers, people who swear, pornography enthusiasts, people who play video games…
July 21st, 2008 at 8:08 am
Time will tell who is right?
Cultural norms have changed in western societies over thousands of years. For example, the ancient Romans believed that the highest form of love was between members of the same sex. Other cultures have produced a wide variety of traditions. The only thing that’s certain is, the future will bring change.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:17 am
Paul - your out of hand rejection of anything by feminists or gay theorists amounts to an ad hominem attack - you essentially say “Feminists are bad therefore nothing they say matters.” It’s bad thinking. There’s a great deal of richness in both - just as there’s a great deal to criticize and critique; i.e. one of the more interesting areas of debate in feminism for instance is the debate over sexuality - some feminists following Andrea Dworkin (and others) see any form of heterosexual sex as automatically exploitive while another set of feminists refer to themselves as pro-sex feminists and celebrate and right of women and men to engage in joyous sex as equals. Many gay writers and thinkers debate passionately over a wide array of issues, including marriage.
Which brings me to a second point: Your straw man version of the gay community. It’s a caricature of a community not an accurate picture. But even if it were accurate, it does not constitute an argument against legalizing gay marriage. As I said before, expectations shape actions. Most gay adults have grown up being told they can never marry the person they love so they don’t see dating as vetting potential spouses in the same way their heterosexual brothers and sisters do. Despite that, most of the folks at the gay bars on friday and saturday night are looking for love, not sex. They are hoping to find the man or woman of their dreams, who is their soulmate - just like the people at the straight bars.
Next, lets talk about morality. I think this is one of the best articulations of sexual morality I’ve seen:
As a matter of terminology, a lot of people stumble on the way in which this passage uses the term “sexual beings.” It refers not to having sexual intercourse but to a broad notion of sexual being that encompasses the biological gender, gender identity, sexual and physical health and reproduction, sexual orientation. Thus, in saying a child is a sexaul being it refers to him being male and embodied and experiencing the world through the senses, and DOES NOT mean that he is having sexual intercourse or is even anything like ready for it (that’s the developmentally appropriate part.
Where I think conservative thinkers differ from liberal and moderates is on the question of sexual orientation.
A great many conservatives apparently reject that being gay, bisexual and heterosexual are all normal and natural and healthy and part of the human and experience and instead would argue (I believe) that the only normal, natural and healthy sexual orientation is heterosexuality. Homosexuality and bisexuality are in this worldview perversions. So, Paul has asked repeatedly about bestiality because he sees gay relationships as a sexual perversion and in some sense is asking “If you are going to allow one perversion on what basis could you not allow others?”
I think most moderate and liberal thinkers about sexuality agree that there are perversions but homosexuality and bisexuality are not among them so allowing same sex marriage has no relevance to the issue of bestiality. Clearly (to go back to an example from before) Aunt Betty and her cat Tiddles can’t engage in a relationship characterized by consent, mutuality of expectation, caring and pleasure for the simple reason that a can’t cannot give consent, cannot give and receive mutual pleasure and certainly can’t hold mutual expectations. It’s also not developmentally appropriate for either the cat or Aunt Betty to get married to each other.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Real quick…and then I promise to come back to you later…
I am not saying that feminists are “bad” people. I am just saying that they are bad thinkers.
And, on my “characiture” of the gay community, I think all we have to do is look at the great scourge of AIDS circa 1985-1990 and see that, notwithstanding the billions of dollars pumped into health and medical education, the party is still on. I will claim intellectual responsibility for defending my ideas. I will not, however, carry your burden to defend the idea that gay culture has changed to any substantive degree in the last 30 years.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:51 am
I guess my challenge to you though Paul is this: What relevance does it have if the party is still on with regard to opposing gay marriage?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Careful Paul,
I think you are getting off track with the AIDS thing, unless you mean use it as supporting evidence for some sort of evil aspect of homosexuality which would not support the Natural Family argument.
Nor it is not relevant to an argument that paints homosexuality as immoral.
So what is the point of associating AIDS with homosexuality? The vast preponderance of all STDs (including HIV AIDS) is of course primarily a heterosexual problem is it not?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Paul:
You must have missed my question from above, so I’ll pose it again:
July 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am
Whoa, whoa, whoa…I used the AIDS analogy simply and only to say that even a deadly virus hasn’t changed gay culture.
And, honestly Cliff, there are more heteros than homos so it is no surprise the the raw numbers of ANYTHING are more in the hetero community than in the gay community. The better measurement would be proportionally. And on that point, gay culture suffers more than hetero culture.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Nephi…didn’t miss it, just thought it rhetorical and not in need of a response. I am not saying that traditional relationships cannot behave hedonistically at times, but I would rule out a healthy sexual relationship between a legally married man and woman as hedonistic.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
AIDS is not a primarily heterosexual problem, Cliff.
Outside of Africa, AIDS is primarily a problem among gay males.
Please note that the above is simply a statement of fact and not a judgment in any way.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Let’s dispose of marriage altogether, and make all marriage civil union, currently that way in Germany. Any other religious vows mean nothing to the State, unless you wish them included extra. They mean what you want them to mean, your church, or any extra obligations or vows.
The rest of the civil union obligations are standardized for any type of couples.
All the rest involving children, dispensation of assets, etc. etc. is clear cut. There is a movement on to make marriage a 7 year hitch, to be re-affirmed at that time, if it isn’t, it lapses, and the union is dissolved.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
w3:
Your last comment is likely the most intelligent thing you have ever stated on 1U.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
In Africa it is the result of lack of male birth/disease control and sexual mores. The preferred method of avoiding pregnancy in many cases is to engage in anal sex, which results in more bleeding and tearing of tissues, which invites more opportunity to spread the infection. Due to the simple mechanics of these events, the receiver is more apt to become infected, though do it enough and…well, that’s enough detail.
Men don’t much care for condoms either over there.
Please note that the above is simply a statement of fact and not a judgment in any way.
July 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I’m still waiting on yours Neph, C’mon, this site isn’t serious, it’s FUNNY!
You know pretty well what I think, and no one needs me to argue the progressive line. That would be boring, so adopt the diametrical opposite as an exercise. Could be useful to progressives in the manner of teaching them how to prevail, i.e. win against people they claim are less intelligent while running roughshod over progressives.