My first post on In the Agora, a reprint of the open letter to gay marriage opponents that I published here a few months ago, prompted an exchange of comments with ajmac, who posts at this blog. He responded to it in comments, and in this post on his blog. He seems simultaneously to be defensive at being called a bigot (which I did not do) and derisive of those who disagree with him. He says:
Opposition to traditional views of homosexual conduct is borne not out of a desire to promote licentiousness but rather out of a misplaced empathy. First, one drinks the Kool-aid and becomes convinced that equal access to traditional marriage is somehow less equal for homosexuals. Then, one's rightful sense of justice is awakened and offended. Before one has thought through the implications of one's natural reaction, one has endorsed an entirely untenable position and is calling anyone who disagrees a "bigot."I'm sure that, upon further reflection, Mr. Brayton will reconsider his unfortunate characterizations.
It is strange that after he accuses his opponent of having "drank the kool aid", he then complains that they call anyone who disagrees of being a bigot. But the word bigot only appears once in my letter and it refers specifically to people who have thrown family members out of their lives for being gay and didn't even come to their funerals. I do not accuse everyone who opposes gay marriage of bigotry, and in fact I have written repeatedly that a large portion of the opposition is not motivated by bigotry at all.
Even stranger is the notion that wanting my gay friends to have the same benefits and opportunities that I have automatically merely because I'm straight is "misplaced empathy" and that I just haven't "thought through the implications." But in fact I have thought them through. Unfortunately, most of the opposition has not, because while they continually make the argument that allowing gay marriage is bad because marriage is such a vital societal institution, they can't give any specific reason why allowing gays to get married will harm that institution. They speak only in vague terms like "diminishing" marriage or "undermining" it, but they can't actually point to any particular marriage it will change in any way. Nor can they explain why, if marriage is such a good thing, it suddenly becomes a bad thing when gays are allowed to do it. Then we get to this part:
UPDATE: I made the mistake of commenting on the post at the blog. (Just can't help myself.) For a moment I found myself involved in a thoughtful conversation with Mr. Brayton. Then the comments grew intolerably inane and I ejected. Why do I always think it's going to be different this time?
This leaves me baffled. I have no idea what specifically he refers to that was "intolerably inane". My responses were logical and on point (judge for yourself) and not the least bit impolite. But the fact is that if you're going to repeat the same poorly reasoned arguments that have been made a million times, the result is going to continue to be that others point out the illogic of those arguments. He makes the exact same argument that the state of Virginia made in Loving v. Virginia, then objects to me pointing that out and says the argument is "tired" and "offensive" - but no mention of "untrue", which is really all that matters. He repeats the same obnoxious comparisons to pedophilia and incest and then feigns outrage at being called a name he was not called. Some might even call that intolerably inane.
- Log in to post comments
I have no desire to have ill will between you and me and I apologize if I have contributed to any.
I certainly could not tell that your "bigot" reference was so circumscribed. Nothing in the final sentence of your post, where the word is found, makes it clear that the word "refers specifically to people who have thrown family members out of their lives for being gay and didn't even come to their funerals." If I misunderstood what you meant to say, I hope I can be forgiven for reading what appeared on the printed screen and giving it the most logical interpretation I could.
Though I certainly was not offended by the comment (it takes a lot to offend me) I did, as I mentioned on my own blog, find it rather unfortunate.
Your empathy is misplaced on a red herring. We can give homosexual couples the rights and benefits of marriage without redefining marriage. If we do so, however, we should not discriminate against other domestic partners -- spinster sisters, war veterans, daughters caring for their elederly fathers -- on the ground that they are not engaged in sexual activities.
My opposition to gay "marriage" is not on the ground that it will "diminish" anything but rather on the ground that no such thing is possible. If we are to redefine marriage so that a woman or a man (take your pick) is not an essential component, then we must be prepared to say that gender does not matter. I am not prepared to say that.
The conversation becomes inane when it devolves into a debate over whose debate tactics are better. That is why I left the comment string.
By the way,
The Loving analogy is a bad analogy because it is a bad analogy. Loving involved a law that added a requirement to marriage has NOTHING TO DO with marriage, namely race. Goodridge took away an element that is ESSENTIAL to marriage, namely gender. Again, if you resort to Loving you must be prepared to say that gender, like race, does not matter. I can find no logical basis for such a claim.
The Loving analogy is a bad analogy because it is a bad analogy. Loving involved a law that added a requirement to marriage has NOTHING TO DO with marriage, namely race. Goodridge took away an element that is ESSENTIAL to marriage, namely gender. Again, if you resort to Loving you must be prepared to say that gender, like race, does not matter.
I think you are using language far too loosely to make any sense of it. The phrase "gender doesn't matter" is a nonsense phrase because it is too vague to have meaning. Anyone who merely said "gender doesn't matter", without detailing in what context it does not matter, would be saying something quite meaningless. So let's get specific. Does gender matter in the context of the purpose of marriage? I would argue that it should not matter. Gay couples are every bit as capable of making a lifelong commitment as straight couples, every bit as capable of having a deep and abiding love for one another, every bit as capable of bearing the responsibilities that come with that commitment. Hence, I conclude that they should also reap the benefits of doing so.
You also continue to miss the point that I was not making an analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage, I was making an analogy between your argument against gay marriage and the argument against interracial marriage. Actually, it wasn't even an analogy - it was a direct restatement. The argument that you made - that there is no real discrimination due to laws that ban gay marriage because gays and straights are equally free to marry someone of the other sex and equally unfree to marry someone of the same sex - was precisely the argument that was made and rejected by the court in Loving. That argument was that there was no real discrimination because blacks and whites were each equally free to marry someone of the same race and equally unfree to marry someone of a different race. It is precisely the same argument, and it is wrong for precisely the same reason - because it presumes the wrong logical basis for claiming a violation of liberty, not the one actually being made. In other words, it is a straw man.
No we're getting somewhere! (With the 1st paragraph, that is; I assume your 2d paragraph was a momentary lapse.)
Yes. The difference between you and I is that I am convinced that marriage is not marriage unless it includes a man AND a woman. Unless the differing strengths, weaknesses, characters, atrributes, and virtues of MAN and WOMAN are included in a lifelong commitment, the commitment is not marriage. It may be good. It may be something other than marriage. But it can never be marriage.
If marriage is not, essentially, the joining of two unlike persons into a committed whole, then on what basis can you be assured that the resulting relationship will be... COMPLETE? If marriage can include two men, then the unique strengths, virtues, etc. of WOMAN must not be necessary for the formation of a marriage. Likewise with two women.
In other words, gender isn't necessary.
Are you really prepared to say that? Have you thought through the implications of such a claim? I am not sure you have.
"Gay couples are every bit as capable of making a lifelong commitment as straight couples, every bit as capable of having a deep and abiding love for one another, every bit as capable of bearing the responsibilities that come with that commitment. Hence, I conclude that they should also reap the benefits of doing so."
Righto. So, let's create domestic partnerships. But, when we do, let's make those partnerships available to all deserving persons, regardless whether they are involved sexually.
If marriage is not, essentially, the joining of two unlike persons into a committed whole, then on what basis can you be assured that the resulting relationship will be... COMPLETE?
Again, more undefined terms. How do you define a relationship as "complete"? By what standard is one relationship "complete" and another "incomplete"? I think the only thing that really matters is that the relationship is fulfilling and meets the needs of the two people who enter it of their own free will. They get to decide whether it's "complete" or not.
If marriage can include two men, then the unique strengths, virtues, etc. of WOMAN must not be necessary for the formation of a marriage. Likewise with two women.
Virtues are unique to individuals, not to genders. Individuals have unique strengths and virtues, and if two men find fulfillment, love and a desire to make a lifelong commitment to one another, then a woman is not, in fact, necessary for the formation of that marriage. Your mileage, of course, may vary. Mine certainly does. What separates me from you is that I don't presume that everyone else has to find fulfillment in the same kind of relationship that I have. I think they can decide for themselves where their fulfillment lies, and I think their choice is every bit as respectable as mine is and therefore deserving of the same protections mine is. I am absolutely prepared to say that gender doesn't matter for some people in some circumstances. No one in their right mind would say it doesn't matter at all in any circumstance.
AJM said, "If marriage is not, essentially, the joining of two unlike persons into a committed whole, then on what basis can you be assured that the resulting relationship will be... COMPLETE? If marriage can include two men, then the unique strengths, virtues, etc. of WOMAN must not be necessary for the formation of a marriage. Likewise with two women. . . . In other words, gender isn't necessary. . . . Are you really prepared to say that?"
I have a feeling Ed IS ready to say that. Because I know AJM and debate with him everyday at his and my blogsites, I know that he'll have a well-thought-out answrer to Ed. I look forward to it.
Here's my answer. AJM comes at the question of marriage from an orthodox Christian view. I'm willing to bet that he will posit the argument that Man and Woman complete each other in physical/spiritual/essential ways that other couples cannot. That Man and Woman unified is the "natural" (read, God-driven) state of "marriage." Therefore, the implications of which he speaks tend more and more to the other-than-natural or other-than-Godly. But I don't want to speak for him.
I tend to agree, being a heterosexual man married to a heterosexual woman, that that arrangement has compelling natural attributes. The two genders complement one another in many ways and the results are (can be) wonderful.
However, I'm sure that homosexual partners complement each other in ways that I neither know about nor understand. I believe that God "made" or "created" or otherwise "manifested" homosexuals as homosexuals, just as a person with red hair rather than blonde hair simply has red hair. And they can love and commit as well as anyone else.
I don't think that acknowledging whatever goodness there might be in a union of two men or two women has anything to do with the "virtues of woman" or the "virtues of man" as much as the "virtues of loving, caring, compassionate, thoughtful humans".
That said, I tend to be more comfortable with the idea of legally recognized gay unions, accompanied by benefits and rights associated and reflective of good, loving, committed unions.
If AJM and Ed cannot agree on gay marriage, can they find any common ground on legally recognized gay unions?
The Accipiter can speak for me. He gives my convictions graceful treatment.
Yes, I favor domestic partnerships (or civil unions) as long as qualification for them does not include sexual involvement. I think ALL loving, committed persons should have access, including aged siblings, disabled persons and their caretakers, etc.
I tend to agree, being a heterosexual man married to a heterosexual woman, that that arrangement has compelling natural attributes. The two genders complement one another in many ways and the results are (can be) wonderful.
However, I'm sure that homosexual partners complement each other in ways that I neither know about nor understand. I believe that God "made" or "created" or otherwise "manifested" homosexuals as homosexuals, just as a person with red hair rather than blonde hair simply has red hair. And they can love and commit as well as anyone else.
I don't think that acknowledging whatever goodness there might be in a union of two men or two women has anything to do with the "virtues of woman" or the "virtues of man" as much as the "virtues of loving, caring, compassionate, thoughtful humans".
I agree with this completely. To me, gender is simply irrelevant to the question of finding one's soulmate. When I see what Jason has written about Scott and their relationship, what he feels is no different than what exists between me and Lynn. The love is no less deep or profound, the commitment no less unbreakable, and the relationship no less deserving of the same legal protections that you and I take for granted merely by virtue of being straight. I simply cannot justify denying to them what I have myself.
As far as civil unions are concerned, I don't see that there is any point in having the same protections under a different name, but I'd rather have that than not have any protections at all. Those who oppose gay marriage but are willing to go along with the same thing under a different name are unwittingly admitting that their objections are irrational and based purely on symbolism.
ajm states (and then reiterates)
"let's make those partnerships available to all deserving persons, regardless whether they are involved sexually."
It's interesting that you feel this is such an important issue, given that as far as I know, sexual activity is not a required part of heterosexual marriage. Widely assumed, yes. Widely practiced, of course. Formerly much more formally acknowledged than today, yes. I'm unaware of it being part of the modern legal requirements, however.
Sexual activity is hardly the sine qua non of gay marriages. I love my siblings dearly. I love other relatives dearly. I love many of my friends dearly. The quality of the love that I have in these various relationships is significantly different from the one that I share with my husband. Our sexual relationship is separate from this. My love for him much more strongly resembles the love that I saw my parents share. It would not change were one of us to become sexually incapacitated- though I would certainly mourn that loss.
Yes. The difference between you and I is that I am convinced that marriage is not marriage unless it includes a man AND a woman. Unless the differing strengths, weaknesses, characters, atrributes, and virtues of MAN and WOMAN are included in a lifelong commitment, the commitment is not marriage. It may be good. It may be something other than marriage. But it can never be marriage.
If marriage is not, essentially, the joining of two unlike persons into a committed whole, then on what basis can you be assured that the resulting relationship will be... COMPLETE? If marriage can include two men, then the unique strengths, virtues, etc. of WOMAN must not be necessary for the formation of a marriage. Likewise with two women.
Just wondering what you feel about marriages for the intersexed. By your contention, many current marriages would be automatically nullified, including (according to one of my college psych professors) the marriage of actress Jamie Lee Curtis, who is reportedly genetically male.
The reality is God has not created humans into male and female halves. Although most humans are into those two groupings, there are millions of humans who are not - they are of no specific gender (despite some physical appearances - silcone really can be a wonder material). Therefore, according to your definition of marriage, they are incapable of ever being married even though someone like Ms. Curtis clearly feels and acts like a woman.
Even in marriages that are supposedly of "opposite" genders, there is no guarantee that the individuals involved (as Ed noted above) will fit the gender stereotypes and only bring gender-specific skills and abilities to the relationship. I do not believe, for instance, that my sister's marriage is somehow defective because her husband does the cooking and she does the driving.
Ed,
It's clear to me that you are not interested in engaging on the merits of the question. Thanks for pointing out my unwitting admission of irrationality. That's helpful.
CPT Doom,
I am at a loss. You got me there.
It's clear to me that you are not interested in engaging on the merits of the question. Thanks for pointing out my unwitting admission of irrationality. That's helpful.
Note that I did not say that you are irrational, I said that allowing the same reality just under a different name shows that the anti-gay marriage sentiment is irrational - and I mean literally non-rational. How could it possibly be anything but that? If you are willing to provide the exact same set of legal protections for gay relationships, only refusing to allow them to use the same word for it, then you are implicitly declaring that the arguments you offered against gay marriage are not really substantive arguments at all. Because if you really believed that to do so would "declare gender unncessary", then that argument applies just as validly to civil unions as it does to civil unions under a different title. It's nothing more than rhetorical slight of hand, proving that what you are really interested in is preserving something purely symbolic - the word itself, not the reality of what the word represents. It is not intellectually consistent to make arguments against the substantive reality of legal protections for gay couples, then on the other hand be willing to provide those protections under a different term. It can only mean that those substantive arguments aren't true in the first place or you wouldn't be willing to go along with the same substantive reality. And pointing that out IS "engaging in the merits of the discussion", because it engages directly the question of whether your substantive arguments are based on objective reasoning or mere rhetorical symbolism.
For someone who accuses his opponents of "drinking the koolaid", of being "intolerably inane", and thinking with their "hearts" instead of their heads, you are incredibly thin skinned when it comes to even the mildest substantive criticism of your position. I would politely suggest that there is a bit of projection going on here, wherein you feign outrage at how you're being treated specifically to avoid engaging the merits of the question.
we just had a wonderful interview last sunday with a lady named thresea . we disscussed everything from her long term denial that she was in fact a lesbian , her coming out her family ,relationship with her ex husband and kids . her upcoming marriage etc etc .. it certianly was enlightening
Are you really prepared to say that? Have you thought through the implications of such a claim? I am not sure you have.
Huh? Who cares? Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't say anything about thinking through the social implications of enforcing civil rights *real* carefully...
Either we provide equal protection or we don't. We don't have license to dither about whether it would be "a good idea" in the people's eyes. Well, I guess legislators can, but then they shouldn't be surprised when the judiciary smacks them down hard.
Ajmac main argument against gay marriage is that it is an oxymoron. Good, that is I always sustained that marriage should not be recognized as a form of legal union. Let the state recognize civil unions and each church define what they understand for marriage (I wonder if ajmac has considered that not all churches and religions will oppose the idea that marriage can include to persons from the same sex).