Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I have to disagree with this post by my friend and co-blogger Jason Kuznicki. This is not something I do lightly because I have such enormous respect for Jason, but I really think he's wrong on this. And he is directly addressing an argument I've made many times in the past:
Supporters of same-sex marriage like to say that opponents should enjoy their moment now -- because it's not going to last. Polls routinely show that older Americans oppose same-sex marriage, while younger ones support it. A cohort replacement effect will soon usher in solid majorities for same-sex marriage, the argument goes.This strikes me as both sloppy and complacent.
And here's his reasoning:
It's sloppy, because there is no evidence that cohorts will keep to their opinions on same-sex marriage throughout life. Young people are famously liberal; old people are famously conservative. Guess where we're headed demographically in the next few years? That's right -- we're getting older on average, not younger. And those young, pro-SSM people aren't going to be young forever. Soon they'll be older (and wiser, say SSM opponents).Saying "it's not going to last" is also complacent, because it neglects the teaching power of established law. Laws influence norms; there's no getting around it. In 31 states, the law is sending a very clear message that homosexual unions are wrong. So wrong, in fact, that we need a constitutional amendment to stop them.
In states where same-sex marriage is prohibited, especially in those states where it is constitutionally prohibited, we can expect to see a significant pull in the direction of keeping that prohibition, and also toward further restrictions. Opposition to gays and lesbians adopting seems to be the obvious next front, as I've been saying for some time. This actually seems a more likely future direction to me than does increased acceptance of same-sex marriage.
Here's why I think he's wrong. Yes, it's true that younger people tend to be liberal and some portion of those who are liberal then swing back toward conservative as they get older. But that is a very broad and general observation that has little to do with this specific issue. Left out is any understanding or analysis of why younger people tend to be liberal on this particular issue.
What is driving the acceptance of same-sex marriage (and equality for gays and lesbians generally) among younger people is not some general tendency to be more liberal. If such a general trend was the cause of the growing acceptance of gay people, the same would have been true of younger people 40 or 50 years ago as well - and it wasn't.
Rather, it's something entirely unique to the younger generation today, something that was true of very few people in their parents' or grandparents' generation: They actually know gay people. More importantly, they know that they know gay people. The number of gay people is no greater today than it was 40 or 50 years, but the number of people who are living openly as such is vastly greater.
That is what has broken down the old prejudices among young people and among every age group except the very elderly, who are probably too set in their ways (as a group) for any significant shift. But we've seen huge shifts not just among those under the age of 30, but among those who are middle aged as well. Because once you know that you know gay people - people you already liked and had a relationship with - it becomes impossible to treat them as merely an evil abstract.
We have seen changes among younger people that go way, way beyond some general trend toward youthful liberalism. We've seen the formation of thousands of Gay Straight Alliance clubs in middles schools and high schools, with hundreds of thousands of kids standing up for themselves and their friends and demanding an end to bullying and discrimination. That's not something temporary and it's not something they're going to walk away from when middle age hits. It's a genuine sea change in society.
We are seeing a repeat of the pattern of the civil rights movement, where desegregation and greater integration of blacks and whites led to familiarity, which inevitably leads to acceptance. That is why the single most important thing that any gay person can do, as difficult as it often can be, is to come out of the closet and be who they are.
I figured all this out not because someone argued me out of any early prejudices I might have had, but because people I loved came out of the closet. It wasn't intellectual argument that led me to fight for equal rights for gays, it was the fact that people around me, my own family and friends, revealed to me that they were gay. And because I already knew them and cared about them, I could not separate them from myself and push them aside for being different than me.
I'm afraid my friend Jason is being too pessimistic. Things have changed. The genie of equality has been let out of the bottle and there is no putting her back in. The inexorable march of history will continue apace and the result will be real equality. It will happen within our lifetime. It will happen by the time that beautiful new daughter of yours is our age (okay, my age - you're a bit younger).
And it will happen precisely because so many people just like you are now living openly and proudly, building families and proving to a skeptical world that gays and lesbians are just like everyone else in every other respect. Because once the rest of us see that, we can no longer draw the line between you and us. We realize that you are us.
Politics
Comments
Plus, we improve property values!
Posted by: noel | November 19, 2009 9:15 AM
I think you're absolutely right, and Jason is (fortunately!) wrong. There was plenty of anti-gay sentiment when I was teen/college-age (in which I am ashamed to say I somewhat shared, not helped by the fact that I was suffering from a bad case of religion during that period). I was over 30 before I got to know any out gays as friends. My attitudes on this have definitely "liberalized" over the years (I'm now 52). My sons, however, now in their 20s, and have a number of gay and lesbian friends, some of whom are kids they grew up with. There's no way they would even think of turning against their friends.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 19, 2009 9:33 AM
I agree 100%. Even my neolithic family is slowly having to adjust thier beliefs due to the very real fact that life happens no mater how long you cover your eyes and ears screaming, "I'm not listening!" Welcome to the 21st Century. Your neighbors just might be Mr. and Mr. Jones or Mrs. and Mrs. Smith. and we are better for it.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | November 19, 2009 9:35 AM
Keep in mind that the fiercest battles of the civil rights era came after Brown v. Board of Education. It was not in any way a "one and done" battle, and yet with hindsight we can see that, in the long run, Jim Crow was a doomed system.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 9:38 AM
The other thing to note is that one of the reasons that some people turn more conservative as they get older is that they take into account (perhaps not consciously) that conservative policies appear to be in their economic and social self-interest; at least that is the way it was explained to me once, long ago. But if this is the case, then since there is no clear, substantial benefit to heterosexuals to deny homosexuals the right to marry, this particular attitude shouldn't change necessarily.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 19, 2009 9:38 AM
A man becomes a conservative in twenty years without changing a single idea.
The youth will not start hating gays, they will eventually just be bitching at their children for robot sex or something.
Posted by: J. Allen | November 19, 2009 9:49 AM
When I was a pre-teen where the attempts to indoctrinate me to be fundie were relentless, I took my Bible lessons seriously, especially those lessons taught attributed to Jesus. Even as a kid, I could immediately discern the huge contradictions between what the Bible has Jesus saying relative to what other OT and NT characters/writers/editors asserted. For me this contradiction included gays since I viewed them in some ways as "the least among us" given how others treated them added to the fact that the 'love thy neighbor' golden rule didn't include an exclusion for gays (social conservatives now argue 'neighbor' means people like them but other passages don't use the word neighbor.
This issue was a big litmus test for me in trying to figure out the legitimacy of church dogma and Christianity that was being redundantly crammed down my throat four times week. Regarding the latter, not its theological arguments but instead how people used their dogma to live their lives and treat others.
When I was in high school I experienced by first exposure to someone being bullied merely because this person had gay mannerisms (He was beaten by two guys and then locked into a locker.). After I went and got the principal to get him out, I started asking authority figures about how we should treat this young man - who couldn't help but be out of the closet, his mannerisms were obvious (though I also worked with a man with apparent gay mannerisms who had a heterosexual marriage with multiple kids).
My university 'liberal' teachers who I respected told me I should treat them exactly like I should be treated. In addition they argued not for fairness, but kindness; a kind of secular argument that grace is superior to justice. From the authority figures in my church, the answer initially was the old canard, "hate the sin, love the sinner" where no love was evident. However, if you questioned them enough, they'd eventually conspiratorially tell you what they really thought, which was and I quote one church elder precisely, "We should throw them all in the sea.".
That was defining moment for me when I realized that evangelicalism and fundamentalism could in no way withstand serious scrutiny or deserved any respect for its teachings or its influence in society. This wasn't the only nail in the coffin, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, Christians' defense of Richard Nixon's crimes, the willful ignorance toward Biblical contradictions to itself and reality in general, were also nails. But it was the last nail.
The fact that gays are out of the closet will not allow the emperor to continue to arguing he has clothes on, only the oldest are still delusional about this matter. Given how much more exposure we have to gays, this discrimination will not stand. In fact I think social conservatives don't want acknowledgment of the existence of gays in the schools primarily because their kids will get infected with the gay, but instead they realize keeping their kids in the dark through childhood is their last chance opportunity for their kids to eventually join them in their institutionalized hatred. Given that's not going to happen, I concur with Ed.
What's ironic is that I still buy into many of the teachings attributed to Jesus, especially those considered the first layer of Quelle. I do my best to have those lessons guide my life. However the Christians that lead this effort to discriminate against gays are in no way following those teachings. Yet it's claimed that me and people like me "hate Jesus". No, we hate how you treat other humans.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 9:53 AM
Wow -- 4, 5 & 6 are all right on and say everything I was thinking of saying and then some.
Posted by: Tom | November 19, 2009 9:54 AM
While it's true that older people tend to be more conservative than younger people, and it's also true that people tend to become slightly more conservative as they get older, the real difference is by generation, not age. For our recent history, each generation tends to be more liberal than the previous generation, which makes the older generation seem more conservative in comparison. Even though my parents' generation got more conservative with age, they never reached the same level of conservatism as my grandparents' generation.
Posted by: catgirl | November 19, 2009 10:00 AM
There are two distinct theories of conservatism in America right now. One is the status quo, the "We've always done things this way" idea. The other is structural, the notion that you build society through the building of institutions and communities.
In that second conservatism, SSM is a thoroughly conservative idea. If marriage is a good thing for heterosexuals, surely it is also good for gays.
Of course, modern conservatives are not really conservative: They are reactionaries, and so ideological as to be incapable of actual thought much of the time.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 19, 2009 10:01 AM
Michael Heath wrote:
I like Jesus just fine; it's his fan-club I can't stomach.
Posted by: valhar2000 | November 19, 2009 10:09 AM
Don't discount the effect of the slippery slope.
"Domestic partner" issues are to the immediate benefit of a lot of straight couples, too. Personally, I'd much rather see the law get totally out of the "marriage" business and simply support reasonable contractual arrangements (which oddly enough is how most of the world has been through most of history.)
At that point, people who want to "marry" are free to do so within the context of their preferred social matrix and the State can flipping well stay out of the bedroom.
The fundies would be wise to adopt that approach, too, since it at least avoids the dreaded "marriage benefits to sinful relationships" outcome. Ain't gonna happen, of course, since they have too much invested in using the power of the State to enforce their own religion.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 19, 2009 10:12 AM
Wait, I thought the story of the Good Samaritan specifically made the point that we should be kind to everyone, including those who are least like us.
Yeah, whether or not he was divine, he was certainly a wise person, and his advice is worth considering along with other historical philosophers.
Posted by: catgirl | November 19, 2009 10:17 AM
I would worry about the idea, "It's not going to last," leading to complacency if I saw the people who used it being complacent. But I don't. Most often I see it used as a source of inspiration. I see it used as a source of hope after we suffer a setback or as a salve after suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fuckwits. It’s essentially the same idea as, "We shall overcome," the rallying call of the last generation’s civil right’s struggle. It is a statement of conviction, not a strategic plan.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 19, 2009 10:23 AM
I think that Jason is right, at least in the short to medium term, on the complacency issue. In particular, I concur that things are likely to get worse, not better, for gays who live in states with a heavy reactionary religious influence. (It's already happening in large parts of the Muslim world--Islamists and Christianists have far more in common than either would like to admit.) I can also see around me that racial prejudice is alive and well, so I have no reason to think anti-gay prejudice will disappear anytime soon, especially in places where it's sanctioned by law or state constitution. It will take a Supreme Court decision expanding Loving v. Virginia to same-sex couples to change this, and that case could be decades away (it took decades to go from some states allowing interracial marriage to the Loving decision).
That said, I agree that Jason is wrong about the population becoming less accepting of gay people as we get older. The point about familiarity leading to acceptance is exactly right.
Posted by: Eric Lund | November 19, 2009 10:27 AM
As an open transsexual woman, I think I may have a better perspective than Jason does on the subject.
I work in a professional position for a large internatinonal manufacturing company in a position where I work face-to-face with people from the CEO to the workers on the production lines. I'm out, but I'm not in anyone's face.
I truly believe that I change minds, one heart at a tine.
Posted by: Audrey | November 19, 2009 10:29 AM
@DC Sessions
The problem with your stance is that marriage is the civil contract. There is no need for the 'law' to get out of it. The real problem is that religious nuts think they own it which is completely wrong. They never did.
I also think Kuznicki is wrong. There is simply no evidence to back up his claim.
Posted by: yoshi | November 19, 2009 10:31 AM
It's funny, the same argument that Jason made occurred to me just yesterday... but I quickly dismissed it for very similar reasons.
Another way of putting it is: It is true that today's young people will be "conservative" when they become elderly, but the definition of "conservative" fifty years from now will almost certainly not include "anti-gay", any more than the definition of "conservative" today means "pro-slavery".
Wellll, some of the things the fictional persona of Jesus said were wise. Most of the really progressive things though (like the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" story) were indubitably added later. So even if we except Jesus as a historical person (which is debatable to begin with), we certainly can't say that the historical person was wise. If he existed at all, most likely he was more of a radical communist agitator... though we'll never really know for sure.
Also, maybe some of the things the fictional persona of Jesus said were nice, but let's not forget he is also the guy (according to the Biblical narrative) who introduces the concept of eternal damnation... Before Christ came on the scene, Yahweh might visit his wrath "upon the third and fourth generation" of your descendants, but he was at least done with you when you were dead. Jesus... not so much.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 19, 2009 10:39 AM
I previously stated:
catgirl responds:
The Good Samaritan story is a good example that contradicts the mutation into 'love only neighbors'. That was my point, that there are contradictions refuting the narrow use of the word 'neighbor', including in the OT. However, I've also seen it argued that the Samaritan story can be narrowly read as him being the kind of neighbor used in the separate 'love thy neighbor' passage. I don't have a citation for that hurdle and it's been awhile (I quit studying religion years ago and went full-bore into science books).
catgirl stated:
My research never yielded any empirical evidence Jesus ever existed, so when you see me refer to Jesus, it's to biblical passages attributed to him, not the man himself given this lack of evidence.
I'd like to think the cynical parables ('cynical' being a Greek way of thought that frequently employed somewhat obtuse parables) and the 1st source or Quelle sayings came from a historical Jesus. But that is hopeful thinking on my part. Especially after I spent two years studying Greek philosophy and discovered that the passages attributed to Jesus are neither uniquely insightful or even very distinguished within the Judaism of his time or even prior - contra to what I was taught in fundie church - which was that 'love thy neighbor' and the concept of grace was unique and radical for the period when Jesus was supposed to have lived (when in fact you can even find the principle in the OT - lots of contradictions going on in that group).
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 10:45 AM
catgirl @ # 9: For our recent history, each generation tends to be more liberal than the previous generation...
You must be talking very recent history. In my graybearded USAian lifetime, there has been a strong swing from conservative youth to liberal-&-radical youth to self-centered/apathetic youth to conservative-reactionary youth to (now) emerging trends of "liberalism" (with luck, to be given another name).
All, of course, with strands moving off in every direction at once.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 19, 2009 10:53 AM
I don't think anyone thinks through the idea of the government getting out of marriage. Legal marriage (as opposed to religious marriage) is a contract, think of it as a contract with a fixed set of terms for all who sign up. Can you imagine the burden it would put on individuals to have to create individual marriage contracts that equal civil marriage? Look at the problems gay couples have trying to replicate marriage with contracts, it is expensive and there is no guarantee they are complete or enforceable. People can and do alter the terms of legal marriage with prenuptial and postnuptial contracts, but is an expensive process. What happens when a marriage ends if there is not government involvement? How do you decide cutody and support of children/spouses and divide property? How do you determine inheritance issues? Religious institutions have no power over those matters, certainly nothing that has an ability to be legally enforced. Not to mention what happens when a religious marriage ends because one party chooses to leave the religion? Will the person who left have any rights to property or children or are they at risk of being cast out as apostates? In NY we've had horrible stories of women trapped in religious marriages, mostly among the Hasidic Jewish communities because the husbands would not give the women they abandoned a Get, or religious divorce. This meant she could not remarry. NY changed its divorce laws to require each spouse to remove any impediment to remarriage before a court could grant a divorce. If there was no role for the government in marriage, these women would be trapped. Marriage has always been a function of the state, it is just that for a very long time, the church was the state. Just because we separated church and state does not mean that governement has no role to play in marriage. If anything, legal marriage has done far more to change marriage into a relationship of equals, and protect the rights of women and children, than religious marriage. I have a legal marriage, not a religious marriage, and I'm perfectly happy with it. I would fight tooth and nail if someone tried to take my marriage away by eliminating legal marriage.
Posted by: Liz | November 19, 2009 10:55 AM
Whoa, I think everyone misunderstood my statement about Jesus. I think that the stories of Jesus are based loosely on a person that actually existed, just like any historical figure. I never claimed that he was original or perfect.
Posted by: catgirl | November 19, 2009 10:57 AM
Audrey, can I ask why you think you think you have a better perspective than Jason does? It isn't like he doesn't know a little about same sex marriage. I hope he's wrong on this point, hell he hopes he's wrong but he certainly knows the subject.
Posted by: Matty | November 19, 2009 10:57 AM
Ed, this is a very cool distinction, and an important one to make.
If what Jason is saying is right, then there should never be any lasting progressive social change--for race, gender, sexual orientation, handicaps, anything--because a generation will always "age out" of it. But history shows that there have been lasting progressive changes (labor movement, e.g.)
Another problem is the logic of it: How can there ever be a period of progressivism for any time? For if aging out quashes progressivism, and there is always an aged cohort available to quash it, it should never take hold. And yet there are periods of progressivism. If Jason argues that the young cohort now is the "leader" of public opinion, and they will age out of it, won't a coming young cohort behind them take their place as the "leader" and so we will be in stasis?
It just doesn't seem to work.
Posted by: cm | November 19, 2009 11:08 AM
IOW, Samaritans were the niggers of the Holy Land.
BTW, Michael Heath - ever since reading Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament?, I've been looking for more info on the Cynical roots of "Jesus"'s teachings. Can you recommend a title or two?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 19, 2009 11:09 AM
I agree with Ed entirely, and many of the points I would have made have already been made, but I'll add a couple more.
First, sometimes we seem to forget how much of the battle has already been won. Hate crimes legislation might be battled by the HCS (Homophobic Conservative Set), but even they are only arguing 'we might be prevented from preaching against the sin of homosexuality,' and almost all of them would insist -- I believe sincerely -- that they would still condemn any assault on gays. (The Radical Homophobes are different, but they are really 'leaders with few followers.' Something tells me that even most religious conservatives would condemn the 'Watchmen on the Walls' types.)
SSM might be a 'battleground' but SSS ('Same Sex Sodomy') is legal and is Constitutionally accepted. Even the Mormons have backed anti-discrimination ordinances in SLC. When I first discovered the existence of gay newspapers, I'd have to go to a porn store to buy them. Now I can buy hard-core gay (and straight) porn at every newsstand in my conservative, Jewish neighborhood.
Harvey Milk was unique when he ran as an openly gay politician, and even Barney Frank had to be forced out of the closet. Now the favorite in the runoff for mayor of Houston, Texas is a lesbian and most people don't seem to care that much.
Because a lot of blog commenters have a bit of anti-tv snobbism in them, they don't realize how important this type of gay visibility is, or how common. So, a little list:
Talk show hosts: Wanda Sykes, Ellen, Rosie
Judge shows:Arthur Young (and the opening plays up his campiness the way Judge Melian's used to play up her 'hotness.')
Comedies: Neal Patrick Harris plays a straight man in Two and a Half Men (and TV BY THE NUMBERS lists it as less likely to be canceled than even NCIS -- which features Pauley Perrette, straight but an incredibly strong activist for gay rights -- even preaching at her church in their favor).
Award shows: Ellen and NPH were so monopolizing hosting that it is news that there might be a straight host this year.
Reality shows: forget QUEER EYE, the new judge on AMERICAN IDOL -- the most popular show on tv -- is Ellen.
And most cable and satellite systems run LOGO, a network by and for gays.
If I listed the shows with gay characters (I mean characters who are gay, not gay actors) this too-long section would be twice as long, but I'll mention two, THE CLOSER (gay medical examiner) and -- imho, the best new show of the year -- MERCY (gay -- and Hispanic -- male nurse). And DirecTV has revived the wonderful EYES with its powerful gay equivalent of Spencer's Hawk.
(I went on too long, maybe, but most conservatives other than extreme fundamentalists (Christian and Jewish) watch as much tv as I do, so even if they never actually meet someone they know as gay, they can't get away from them, and that is important)
Gay teachers, gay doctors, gay cops (do you know that GOAL -- the Gay Officers Action League -- was openly -- and officially sanctioned -- recruiting cops from the gay community in 1980).
Somehow, even if we take a while to get SSM accepted (something that 20 years ago was the pipe dream of radical activists), I don't see much likelihood of our other advances being turned back.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 19, 2009 11:26 AM
There are a lot of tempting side paths I'm keeping from traveling down -- like the absurdity that Jesus was afictional character -- a myth exploded by Guignebert and others 80 years ago -- if they wanted to invent a fictional character, they would have done a better job of it and not given him so many lines that Paul contradicts.
But I have to take a swing at the 'liberal youth, conservative elder' myth. Even in 1968 more young voters voted for Wallace than Gene McCarthy. In fact the most successful radical youth movement of the last century -- maybe the only one -- was...
The Nazi Party. (We forget that Hitler, the oldest of the prominent Nazies was five years younger than Barack Obama when they both took power.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 19, 2009 11:34 AM
FWIW, this line of argumentation is highly appealing, though I don't think it's a slam-dunk.
Anyway, what I was saying was completely separate from whether there was a historical Jesus. Clearly the Jesus of the NT bears little resemblance to any kind of historical Jesus, given how much has been shown to have been added centuries later...
Posted by: James Sweet | November 19, 2009 11:41 AM
This was a great post. You made me think of my late brother, two years younger, who came out when he was twenty. It took us all a while to adapt, but we did -- and not because anyone told us to, or because it was politically correct to do so, but because he was ours, and how could we exclude him, who had been part of our lives for so long? He was a good man and I miss him.
Posted by: ohioobserver | November 19, 2009 11:44 AM
One trend that is manifestly true from 40 years of surveys is that each of the last four generations in America has become less religious. More importantly, the numbers within each generation don't change as they gets older -- people may get somewhat more conservative as they get older, but they do not become more religious.
Thus Americans are becoming less religious over time -- as many as 25% of people in their twenties now identify themselves as non-religious, compared with 4% of seniors -- and that will likely reduce amount of religious fervor behind the anti-gay bigotry. It's harder to be bigoted when there isn't a whole movement (i.e. the Religious Right) constantly telling you how you should think if you don't want to go to Hell.
As for the future, I am reasonably optimistic that the trend away from religion will continue. Many of my American friends who are parents started going back to church when their kids reached Sunday School age -- they wanted to expose their kids to their family's faith, but not to indoctrinate them, but more to give them the choice -- to give them a chance to make up their own mind.
This strikes me as being similar to what was happening back in the 70s when I was growing up in the UK. Many of my friends went to church with their parents at that time (as I did) but for most of the families it was because it was expected -- the right thing to do for the kids (to let them choose) -- as opposed to being out of any religious fervor.
Many in that generation opted not to believe and have had not felt the need to drag their own kids off to church, hence the collapse of regular church attendance in the UK.
So I think that the trend away from religion will continue, and might even accelerate over the next 20 years as less dogmatic generations begin to raise their own families. Yes, America is still a far more conservative country overall that the UK, which may result in a different experience here, but so far the trend has all been in one direction -- away from religious belief.
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2009 11:47 AM
In the book "Scanlon's War", which is about the experiences of George Scanlon in WWII, he mentions something similar in regards to how his father became extraordinarily progressive in his views on black people (at leats, for his time).
Apparently, before George was born, there was an epidemic ofmeningitis or something like that, and his father caught it. The strain that was going around was so contageous and virulent that nobody would dare to come near him, and even the locla doctor chased him away. Eventually he collapsed on to a street.
When he came to, he foudn he had been picked up by a black man who lived by himself in a junkyard, making a scarce living from selling whatever junk he could find. That man took care of Gearoge's father when nobody else would, and George's fatehr lived.
After that, he found it much harder to join in the typical condemnation of black people little more than animals.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 19, 2009 11:48 AM
Progressive ideals spread when free speech is protected. There tend to be reactionary movements true, but usually if stability in the government is maintained it goes two steps forward, one step back. Many children today think segregation is as bad as slavery...completely unimaginable.
So long as the rule of law is maintained and free speech allowed the better ideas will tend to spread. In Hitler's Germany the bullies usurped the government and free speech was not allowed, and the progressives had to flee the country.
Posted by: J. Allen | November 19, 2009 11:50 AM
James: my argument was very abbreviated -- I could have, and undoubtedly will, posted as long a post on this alone, but not here.
Don't worry, we'll undoubtedly have another thread that either starts being about Christianity or has an incursion by Prof. Heddle -- which turns any thread into one about Christianity. (Btw, Prof., I look forward to one where you and I can go at it on the abusrdity of Christianity, because I have a few arguments that aren't the usual Kabuki dance they usually turn into. One hint: I have no problem with accepting that, if God exists, he can produce 'miracles' but no god could have mishandled the ressurection as incredibly stupidly as it was supposedly done. Only please not in this one.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 19, 2009 12:01 PM
Re Prup
Let's not forger Rachael Maddow, an out of the closet lesbian who has her own show on MSNBC.
Re James Sweet
It is my information that the folks who authored the various books of the Christian bible never met Joshua of Nazareth, never heard one of his alleged sermons and wouldn't have known who he was if he walked into a room. At best, their claims as to what he may have said was second or third hand, and it is well known how distortions of narratives can occur in such recitations. Legally, such testimony is called hearsay and the admittance of hearsay testimony in court is strictly limited for that reason.
Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 12:07 PM
Tacitus: (and this IS relevant)
One factor you miss is that while the generations are growing less religious overall, at the same time the remaining believers are moving more and more into the more extreme versions. For example, thirty years ago, most Christians had never heard of the Rapture, that 19th Century invention of the renegade Irish cleric, Darby. Now people -- spurred on by LeHaye -- seem to act as if this has always been part of Christianity. Creationism was (and is) rejected by most mainstream Christianity -- I was taught that evolution (theistic evolution, i.e., that this was God's mechanism) was true in my Catholic schools over 50 years ago -- before Vatican II. And while Catholicism has always been -- in living memory -- anti-abortion, even such a prominent Protestant thinker as Criswell originally had no problem with it.
Another side alley for another time, because I'd argue that these two trends actually reinforce each other.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 19, 2009 12:12 PM
@Prup, sure, much of the battle has already been won. And sure, with the next generation, it is only a matter of time before it is won completely.
But keep in mind, the fact that it is not won yet if fakking ridiculous! In 20 years it won't be an issue, but that means we have to listen to the right's tired rhetoric for another 20 years! Painful. Sad.
Posted by: Mike Dark | November 19, 2009 12:12 PM
SLC:
Ouch, blush, and apologies to Rachel.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 19, 2009 12:14 PM
#23 Matty wrote "Audrey, can I ask why you think you think you have a better perspective than Jason does? It isn't like he doesn't know a little about same sex marriage."
Because I see that people, over time, begin to see me as someone who is normal, just different. Let's face it. Most people's starting point when thinking about a transsexual is that we're the most flamboyant, gayest-of-the-gay. They start with these exagerated, stereotypical ideas about who I am and I've seen first-hand how they change as they get to know me.
As such, I agree with Ed. It is the day-to-day interaction with the increasing number of out LGBT people that I believe will change people's hearts about the SSM issue.
Posted by: Audrey | November 19, 2009 12:36 PM
The flavor of the parable would probably be best captured in modern America, if we had a white southern farmer left for dead, if we then had him ignored by a minister and a sheriff, and saved by a Negro sharecropper."
Cotton Patch Version of the Bible. It's actually pretty good.
And because I feel like blogwhoring, I even wrote a post about it a while ago.
Posted by: Geds | November 19, 2009 12:43 PM
This is why I think Harvey Milk was so important, even if others brush him off as some small-time politician.
Posted by: Marilove | November 19, 2009 1:05 PM
Prup, you are so correct. Especially about the talk show hosts/comedians who are very popular among middle-aged, middle class housewives. Like Ellen. And it's not like Ellen doesn't talk about being gay -- she does. And she gets standing ovations. From middle-aged, middle class housewives. Her and Portia's wedding pictures were on the cover of People Magazine. This is HUGE. Again, People is widely read ... but middle-age, middle class housewives.
You did get one thing wrong, however:
It's actually "How I Met Your Mother." :)
And then there is HGTV, a home-improvement TV network that is, once again, watched mainly by middle-aged, middle class housewives (and gay men). They have several openly gay hosts, and they routinely showcase gay couples and their homes, like they are just any other couple trying to re-do their bedroom or buy a new home within their budget.
And of course, there is Bravo, another TV network that has many gay characters/hosts/etc and which is also watched mainly by middle-aged, middle class housewives (and gay men).
This is progress. When gays are represented in the media as real people and not just a butt of a joke, you KNOW you are making progress. Of course, we're not completely there yet -- there are still plenty of shows that use gay characters as just something to LOL at -- but we're getting there.
Posted by: marilove | November 19, 2009 1:15 PM
Small correction, Prup: Neal Patrick Harris plays a straight man (and chronic womanizer, which I figure is part of the joke) on How I Met Your Mother, not Two and a Half Men.
The show has also featured his character's gay brother (played by Wayne Brady) a couple of times.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 19, 2009 1:31 PM
Ninja'd by marilove (after 16 minutes :P)! This is what I get for starting a reply then buggering off for ten minutes.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 19, 2009 1:34 PM
I'm not convinced that people do become more conservative as they get older. For every old bigot, there's a grandparent who accepts their gay grandchild before the parents do. And while the baby boomers became more conservative as they aged, I don't think that's true of people my age. Trade unions, it turned out, were not stalking horses for world communism. Soaking the poor was not a temporary price you paid for greater prosperity for all. And the fall of communism opened up all sorts of intellectual space on the left that wasn't communist.
More to the point though, I'm not much more liberal than I was a decade ago, but gay marriage has gone from a strange idea to something normal. And I have gone from being a little uncertain to being a strong supporter. Just anecdotes, but enough to make me doubt Jason.
Posted by: Ian | November 19, 2009 2:17 PM
I am quite certain that the anti-gay lobby (or at least some of their leaders) fully understand and probably agree with the basic argument of this post. That is why they have become so vocal and active (desperate) lately. They dare not allow any "normalization" of homosexuals, anywhere. It only takes, for example, a tiny minority of legalized gay/lesbian marriages in a few small states for the rest of us to get the chance to see that these unions will work exactly like our own heterosexual unions, that there will be no threat of any kind to "the children", and the ethical fabric of society will not rip asunder and swallow us all in a black hole of wanton depravity.
My personal take on Jesus as a character, not withstanding whether he was a real or fictional one, but just as a character acting as literature referring to him describes, is that on the whole he was a pretty nice guy, with pretty progressive ideals. Certainly not everything he is reputed to have said or did is nice by modern standards, but that only counts against him if it is insisted that he must be absolutely perfect, like a god.
Posted by: amphiox | November 19, 2009 2:30 PM
I think #6 said it best.
The shared pool of ideas of a society generally changes faster than the isolated pool of ideas in a single human brain (there's a lot more opportunity for change, exposure to other ideas, cross-seeding, etc, for one thing). So, relative to the society one is in, on average, most of us will tend to get more conservative over time, not because we ourselves have changed necessarily in any way, but simply because the society surrounding us is changing faster than we are.
Posted by: amphiox | November 19, 2009 2:33 PM
The genie might be out of the bottle, but it's running into a lot of strong djins. If you take race related civil rights, it took 100 years from the abolition of slavery to full legal rights, and we're still not at full acceptance.
So thinking it might take another one or two generations for sexual orientation to become a non-issue doesn't seem to be too far off.
And, as usual, I have to disagree that screaming for it loudly will help; most of the counter movement didn't start until gay equality was demanded as a "civil right", without society being ready for it.
Posted by: Mu | November 19, 2009 4:54 PM
@Ian, my parents were always liberal, but I think they have grown more liberal as they have grown older too -- though perhaps that's at least partly my change in perspective since moving from the UK to the USA. Everything about the UK is seems more liberal when you're living in Texas!
My brother's father-in-law is a life-long conservative who ran as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) a number of years ago. He also has an openly gay son with whom he wasn't exactly estranged, but did not fully embrace (e.g. his son's partner was never welcome at family gatherings). Finally, after the son and his partner had kids (complicated story!) the father decided that life was too short to bear a grudge and for the sake of his son and the grandchildren shed his prejudices and welcomed them all back into the fold. So it does happen the other way too, at times.
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Of course the counter movement followed the civil rights movement, because before that it was simply called oppression. It could hardly be "counter" before the movement started. But if your claiming that the wide-spread cultural stigma and legal oppression of homosexuals didn't exist until The Hairpin Drop Heard Around the World, that would have to be one of the most absurd claims ever posted on this blog.
Homosexuals coming out, standing up for their rights, and showing their pride is what moves society toward being ready. Staying in the closet only got us dehumanized, beaten and killed.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 19, 2009 5:32 PM
Ian @44: I'm not convinced that people do become more conservative as they get older.
I'm prone to agree, but with a caveat. There are many, many different ways to use the word "conservative" and we've forgotten about that since it's almost entirely used as shorthand to refer to "Republicans or people who are even better at hating everyone else than them."
In terms of politics, people probably don't get more or less conservative as they age. In terms of personal risk, however, I would argue that people get a lot more conservative. You get all your stupid out of the way at a young age, then figure to stop doing that once you have a spouse, kids, and a mortgage. Or things that you would have stood up for on principle no matter the cost now start to be someone else's responsibility because you have to keep paying the bills and get your kids through college and "be a good role model."*
That doesn't mean that you're more likely to vote Republican than Democratic the next time you hit the voting booth. But chances are you are more conservative.
*Of course arguments like that would tend to ignore the fact that standing up for what you believe in is one of the best possible behaviors to model. And it's certainly a better behavior to model than allowing yourself to be blackmailed by the status quo and the powers that be.
Posted by: Geds | November 19, 2009 5:36 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 8:14 PM
Prup:
"James: my argument was very abbreviated -- I could have, and undoubtedly will, posted as long a post on this alone, but not here."
Let us know when you do,Prup, with a link. I will read it. Everything I have read so far about the argument from embarrassment shows it to be pretty weak tea. The Mythical Jesus is more and more compelling to me. :)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 19, 2009 9:32 PM
That's how I remember it, too.
Labor has taken huge hits of late and probably will remain down until more multinational union movements emerge to counter the multinational corporations.
Recent polls also show that the young are more pro-life than previous generations. How do we rationalize that?
Evolution vs. creationism is as bad as it's ever been.
I'd love it if you eternal optimists were right, but I think gay acceptance is an exception, not a rule.
Wish we could all check back here in 40 years & see where we stand then...
Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 10:09 PM
Personal anecdotes:
I've always been a liberal, but have become even more liberal on the issue of gay rights, including SSM, as I've gotten older, probably because I now know more out people and care about them, and because I am persuaded that permitting SSM hurts no one.
OTOH, my husband has become increasingly more conservative as he's aged, but when one of my kids, a poly sci major, asked my husband to complete a political issues questionnaire, both my kid and I were shocked to find out that even very conservative husband is not opposed to SSM.
My kids all have close openly gay friends and will not accept anything less that fairness and equality for them. I really would be shocked if that will change as they get older.
I think SSM will have steps backward from time to time, but there will be continue to be progress.
Posted by: bastion of sass | November 20, 2009 2:52 AM
One cannot responsibly refer to "historical Jesus" while ignoring conspicuous 1st century Judaic constraints (e.g. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, see Prof. Elisha Qimron's book)to rely, instead, exclusively on extensively Hellenized (Christianized / redacted) Roman gentile hearsay from Hellenists based on earliest extant sources that date only from the 4th century C.E.--3 centuries after the fact. Even the handful of earlier verse fragments are all subsequent to the cataclysmic watershed event of 135 C.E. (see the History Museum pages of www.netzarim.co.il).
Oxford historian James Parkes documented (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) that this 4th century Christianized (extensively redacted) image was an antinomian (ANTI-Torah) fiction that was the polar antithesis of the 1st century PRO-Torah Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Since the 1st century PRO-Torah Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua is widely considered to be the Messiah, that implies that his polar opposite, the 4th century antinomian (ANTI-Torah) Jesus of Christianity is...
Posted by: Anon | November 20, 2009 3:06 AM
I think you both have good points.
It's true the younger generation is more liberal, and may well stay that way.
It's also true that making something illegal tends to be self reinforcing. A lot of (authoritarian) people argue against the legalization of drugs with "But drugs are bad!" "Why are drugs bad?" "They're bad because they're illegal!"
The mere illegality of a substance or behavior is enough to make it immoral in the eyes of many.
Posted by: JThompson | November 20, 2009 4:23 AM
Gingerbaker -- and others:
I started working on my "Myth of the Myth of Jesus" piece yesterday. The trouble is that I don't have a place to publish it. Actually, there are three interlocking problems:
I no longer maintain any of the three blogs I have started, am not sure I even could restart my original and 'generalist' blog -- which was on "Blogspot 1" not "blogspot 2" -- and wouldn't want it there because it was (deservedly) totally obscure.
On the other hand, this piece alone is likely to run about 5000 words, too long to be included in most blogs as a 'guest post' -- Ed has given me such a post before at half this length, but asking for this would be a tremendous imposition.
Finally, I would only accept such a post if the blog would agree to run a further post on 'the Ressurection' which argues that it is false because no god would possibly handle such a 'miracle' so stupidly. (A god, inherently, can 'r'ar back and pass a miracle' -- to use the term from GREEN PASTURES -- but any god would realize there was a better way of doing it than the one portrayed in the Bible.) This is likely to be shorter than the first, but -- you guys know me -- still long-winded.
If there is anyone out there willing to give me an absurd amount of space for these two posts, I should have them ready by the end of the weekend. Can you either mention it here or drop me a line: to figure out my e-mail, just drop the 'o' from my 'real name' and add verizon -- .net, not .org?
I'e love to do them and defend them, but where?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 23, 2009 11:54 AM
I think Kuznicki is a bit pessimistic in thinking change will NEVER come. But I think the heart of his argument has a degree of merit. Not that there will be a turning back to the days of the closet. But, complacency could cause a delaying of progress. Much of the passage of Prop 8 is credited to the complacency among the state's gay community, which seemed to assume we had already arrived at that golden moment in time. That complaceny gave our opponents the opportunity to organize right under our noses. Until recently their responses to progress in LGBT civil rights has been mostly haphazard and weak. But it's becoming increasingly clear they are becoming far more competent and are creating national-level networks to actively oppose us. As someone stated earlier, complacency could be an issue if we weren't also organized and actively fighting for ourselves. But now that we are seeing the emergence of a more unified, proactive and strong enemy, we must increase our efforts accordingly. The "complacency" we should be vigilant about is the assumption that we can continue with business as usual. I address this topic in "The tug of war over the next generation", written for an online LGBT parenting column I write for examiner.com.
Posted by: Bill | November 28, 2009 7:49 PM