and then there are the ads…here’s a brilliant ad in which GOP incumbent (played really well by Kelsey Grammar) comes out for gay marriage, based on a random comment from Costner.
…there’s more…
and then there are the ads…here’s a brilliant ad in which GOP incumbent (played really well by Kelsey Grammar) comes out for gay marriage, based on a random comment from Costner.
…there’s more…
The ad for “gay” marriage is typically Hollywood. There are lots of coherent objections to such arrangements, raised my Maggie Gallagher’s IMMAP and the National Organization for Marriage (NAM). Essentially, if the opposition isn’t willing to grant the fundamental context (child rearing) then it boils down to a perquisite that’s being denied on the basis of sexual preference, and an issue of “acceptance” regarding sexual preference. But that’s actually a mind-numbingly narrow perspective. Clearly marriage has always been about child-rearing, for literally thousands of years. The ad obviously accepts the “preference” designation, but who says that has anything at all to do with the marriage as a social institution?
Same sex marriage is less about the preservation of marriage than a symptom of its dissolution into meaninglessness. Child-rearing is no longer something we give a damn about. Of course, I could be totally wrong. Perhaps homosexuals will actually increase the social legitimacy of marriage?
But I have my doubts. And I think, at the very least, the burden of proof should be on the other foot.
Quick, how do we get this on Fox News?
That’s the kind of movie I would not ordinarily consider seeing, in case I was going to get preached to. There’s a lot of movies, like _American History X_ (1998), that I’ve given a pass to over the years, even though friends said they were quality movies, because of that sinking feeling that someone was going to give me a lecture. (Likely along the lines of “don’t become an American Nazi you dumb white moron: white racism is _bad_. Or in this case “don’t cast your vote for trivially base reasons, fool, cast it for enlightened reasons: there, that’s some advice that’ll change your life, bet you dumb-a$$es in the front rows never thought of _that_.”)
_Swing Vote_ (2008) carries the additional burden of being _heart-warming_. _Heart-warming_ is not good. I don’t need anybody, especially cocaine-blasted, bitter and cynical doctrinaire Hollywood liberals, giving me compulsory tenderness and glad feelings about things they think I should be tenderly reverent and glad about.
Still, I’ll give it a look now, when it comes out in Australia. And when it does, if I think you’ve sent me to a dog, I’ll tell you so.
Demosophist: I would say that marriage is about two people making a commitment to participate in society as a family. One of the many important things about a family is that it is larger than any of the individuals within it, and its welfare is more important than the welfare of any individual within it.
Some families have children, some don’t. Some include children from the beginning, as when a parent marries.
The stability of the family is important to children within it, but also to the society it participates in. Therefore, the commitment that two people make (possibly along with existing children) is important. Their ability to keep that commitment, even when things get difficult, is important.
I agree that the family is in trouble these days. But I would attribute that trouble to two trends. First, the increasing belief that the commitment of marriage is more a matter of convenience. There’s a problem when two people go through the legal ceremony without making an honest and mature commitment. And second, the increasing number of people who create children without the support of a family. (Kids are a lot of work. It’s not impossible to be a single parent, but it’s really tough, on the adult and on the kids.)
The thing I don’t see as a threat, separate from the above, is the creation of families where both adults are the same gender. If two men, or two women, make and keep the same promise that my wife and I have made, I don’t see the problem.
Britney Spears is a bigger threat to the family than same-sex marriage.
Whoa, I agree with Beard for the second time in a week. Pardon me while I go check the skies for piglets….
Done. Ribs are on the grill.
Just from the trailer – Costner plays the “typical” bitter, drunken, red neck clinging to his guns, fishing rod and prejudices.
He is:
bq. a lovable loser, who is coasting through a life and has not a political thought in his head,
That is from the “Wiki article”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Vote_(2008_film) on the film.
This was partially filmed at home. Whoopee!
Thanks, I’ll pass.
Thanks, Tim. We’ll be over with the beer and potato salad.
Meanwhile, Demosophist, do you actually know any same-sex couples who are married, or seriously want to get married? I do. By and large, these are the most socially conservative, family-oriented people you can imagine. They hunger for the little house with the picket fence in the ordinary neighborhood, getting together for ribs with the neighbors, just like everyone else.
The last thing they want to do is to destroy the institution of marriage. They just want to be able to have an ordinary married life, just like everyone else.
But they are being told to sit in a special section in the back of the bus, or even to get off the bus entirely. Is it a big surprise that some of them get a little steamed about this? Wouldn’t you?
Robo – don’t skip it – go see it. The film is not the typical Hollywood indictment of “rednecks as a class” at all…
A.L.
Beard #4:
I noticed that children doesn’t appear anywhere in your definition of “family.” That suggest that you simply aren’t willing to concede the basic point… hence there’s no real point in continuing the discussion. I’m going to just suggest, however, that if it weren’t for the naked potential for people to inadvertently produce offspring, and the capacity of the father to neglect duties owed to such mishaps, there’d be no such thing as marriage. Moreover, there’d be literally no point to the term “family.” The whole point here is to train “baby starts” (as Bucky Fuller used to call them) and give those starts a decent chance at being something other than a net drag on society. I think the chances of same sex couples producing these accidental babies is so small that society can afford to ignore the consequences.
Of course, there are reasons why we might be willing to “expand the franchise” to others in the society, but that isn’t remotely the argument employed by the advocates. “Gays” aren’t suggesting anything of the sort. They’re demanding inclusion in a set of perquisites the design for which simply has no rational relatioship to them. Yes, the institution includes the elderly, and others who are unlikely to accidentally reproduce, but such inclusion clearly does no serious harm to the original purpose. (How could it?)
I’d suggest that the ethic that informs this expansion of the marriage franchise has absolutely nothing to do with children, and everything to do with a postmodern ethic of entitlement and “personal fulfillment.” I simply do not agree that this ethic has the slightest thing to do with the original or over-riding purpose of marriage. Nothing at all.
Finally, I don’t think the negative consequences of expanding the franchise are necessarily all that large. But the ‘burden of proof’ is being place on the wrong party. The negative consequences of redefining the purpose of marriage, are another matter. They could have profoundly negative consequences. What consequences? Well, simply maintaining the family unit until children have reached the age of three would erase the “race IQ gap” within two generations. It currently stands at a standard deviation. This surmise is based on studies like the “longitudinal study of youth” conducted by the US military, which demonstrates an advantage of a half a standard deviation in IQ if we simply eliminated divorce or single parenthood until after children have reached that age. This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the rate of family dissolution, and that happens to disproportionately impact black families. The great social scientist, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, noticed this effect during the Nixon administration.
The point being, this empty gesture of acceptance potentially has a cost, because it could contribute to “family dissolution.” Perhaps the contribution isn’t huge, but it’s more a signal of the general decline of marriage than a cause. And no one in the gay community seems the slightest bit worried. Why not? Aren’t their futures as dependent on the success of the culture as anyone else’s?
Finally, once the effect of family dissolution has advanced to a certain stage it may be impossible for the society to recover. The effect is to create a permanent underclass who serve as the “lifetime clients” of the state, much as slaves were once the permanent clients of their masters.
Finally, I suppose it’s possible for this shift to be either innocuous or positive in its effects. That’s the point of J.D. Rausch. This ought to be the argument posed by gays, but it isn’t. And the reason it isn’t is that it places the burden of proof on them, and doesn’t imply that those in the opposition are necessarily bigots. I wonder if it’s ever occurred to these folks that there are gays who oppose “gay marriage?”
OK, there were three “finallies” in that post. Got a bit carried away.
There actually are gays who oppose gay marriage for perfectly rational reasons, but they’re often ostracized.
And “fourthly finally,” Rausch and a number of others make the argument that “civil unions” do a lot more harm than “gay marriage” because it creates a kind of “marriage lite” that weakens the glue of the marriage bond. That’s a pretty reasonable position, but Rausch’s basic argument is that divorce is intended to be “difficult.” If we expand marriage to include gays, we should also pay some attention to making marriage dissolution more than an afterthought. The freedom to dissolve inconvenient marriage should be limited if there are children under the age of three. That sort of “hardship” appears to be unacceptable to most gay marriage advocates. I wonder why?
David Blue:
You’re missing a pretty good film with a great performance by Edward Norton. Yes, there’s a lecture in it – in the last half hour they do some PC catch-up and equate opposition to affirmative action with proto-Nazism. Otherwise, the cultural libs might be too confused to find the exits. Still well worth the time, IMO.
I don’t mind the heart-warming so much. It’s the “One man’s journey” to get his stupid heart warmed that bores the hell out of me.
Demosophist [#9,10]:
bq. [I’ve been saving up answering your long message as my treat for finishing a particularly long chore. So thanks.]
I’m pretty sure that we agree about the importance of families for raising children. Although I do not _define_ families in terms of children, in order to embrace rather than exclude childless families, my statement in [#4] should be pretty clear about this.
However, you seem to think that the potential for _inadvertent_ creation of children is somehow central to the concept of family. I find this quite strange. This would suggest that, if we find ourselves in a world where contraception is perfect, and all children are conceived deliberately, then “there’d be no such thing as marriage”. And, “there’d be literally no point to the term `family’.”
Surely, this can’t be what you believe. I certainly don’t. I believe that families are essential to raising children. We may need special supports when children arrive unintended, but raising them requires families no matter what.
bq. [Gotta go, but this is a start. More later.]
Beard:
Not defining child-rearing (which isn’t the same as reproduction) as the critical function of marriage… to the point that without it marriage wouldn’t even exist, is like attempting to define the state without reference to power or sovereignty.
BTW, I was referring to Jonathan Rauch. Mispelled the name slightly.
The function of child-rearing is so critical that radical changes to the institution of marriage without seriously considering the impact on that function seems, well… immature. It’s the sort of thing teenagers might do, but not adults. That said, it’s entirely possible that SS-marriage won’t have a significant negative impact on the function. It’s just that this speculation should not end the argument, but merely start it. And yes, no-fault divorce has been far more destructive than SS-marriage could ever be.
About gay couples… those I know of, while serious about their commitment (so they say) they do not seem to really give a hoot about traditional marriage… in any sense. They just tend to regard the arrangement as one of many options. I’m also not sure that once there’s a cure for AIDS the impulse for monogamy won’t just largely disappear among homosexuals, although I tend to think women may find it more attractive than men. The only evidence we have about that comes from Scandihoovia, and it involves civil union rather than marriage. And, of course, AIDs continues to be a problem. Not that anyone in Scandinavia cares very much about marriage.
By the way, the Greeks went about as far as any culture towards accepting and institutionalizing same sex relationships… but they never thought it prudent or advisable to make marriage part of that social convention. I suspect it appeals to people in this culture only because we’re so far removed from survival considerations. To put it simply, we’re just self-indulgent.
Demosophist [#9]:
bq. _Of course, there are reasons why we might be willing to “expand the franchise” to others in the society, but that isn’t remotely the argument employed by the advocates. “Gays” aren’t suggesting anything of the sort._
I agree with your “Of course” clause, and I think your “but …” clause is simply factually wrong. Where are you getting your information? From Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?
If you go back and read your own argument, you will see that the big problem that is bothering you is “family dissolution”. You and I agree on that. Kids need families. Families need to stay together. There are always extreme cases where the previous statement doesn’t hold. There’s a tough question about how to balance those two things, but very likely we have gone too far toward making divorce easy (though this is certainly controversial). My view is:
bq. Once there are kids, there is no such thing as divorce. There are only larger and more complicated families, some of whom don’t get along.
I know that there are lots of same-sex couples who don’t want some sort of “marriage lite”, because it amounts to sitting in the back of the bus. They just want to be in the same bus as everyone else. (Go back and read my [#7].)
Let me go a fair way out on a limb here. Based on your statements, I believe that your fundamental values here are: (1) kids should have families; (2) if two people make a kid, they should make a family for that kid; (3) marriages should be hard to dissolve.
I think you have gotten sucked into opposing same-sex marriage by demagogues exploiting stereotypes that have little or nothing to do with the actual situation. And the connection between same-sex marriage and your fundamental values (1,2,3) is tenuous at best. Furthermore, based on sentences you have included in [#9, paragraphs 2,4,5,7], I think you actually know this already.
Demosophist [#13],
bq. [Our previous messages “crossed in the mail”.]
Essentially all of the problems you are seriously concerned with apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.
These days, many couples of all flavors consider marriage to be one of a number of options. Demographically, marriage is falling out of favor, with or without kids, and I don’t think that same-sex marriages have much, if anything, to do with it. Likewise, if STDs (including AIDS) are not a problem, monogamy becomes less popular in all types of couples. So focus on what matters, not just the out-group.
Also, many same-sex couples do have children, and raise them with the same sort of loving concern (and probably make as many mistakes) as opposite-sex couples.
Finally, same-sex couples who seriously want to make and try to keep the same promises that my wife and I have made and try to keep, are contributing to saving the institution of marriage that you and I both value. They are not advocating “radical change to the institution of marriage”. They want the same institution. They just don’t want to be locked out of it.
What, precisely, does locking out that type of person contribute to your marriage?
Is it acceptable to say, “I don’t really know what is gained or lost by keeping marriage what it always has been; but I don’t feel comfortable changing the basic nature of social institutions that are as fundamental as marriage. It seems like there is much we don’t understand about society and human nature, and so when we have through the experience of centuries found a thing that works well, we should strive to protect it.”?
Without meaning any ill to anyone, I do agree that this is a radical proposition. It is altering the marriage concept from “a way to unite existing families to form new ones, and to perpetuate civilization, by joining men and women” to “a way to provide legal rights to couples for as long as they want them, by joining anyone who wishes.”
If anything, I think we should be moving in the other direction: to limit divorces and reaffirm that marriage is about an eternal commitment (with very few escape clauses). Continuing to refine its limitations downward, or outward, seems unlikely to secure or strengthen it.
The fact that we cannot finally answer the question, “What is gained?” or “What is lost?” doesn’t seem to me to be dishonorable. There are very many questions we cannot answer; but even in those matters where we lack perfect knowledge or fuller understanding, we must choose as best we can. It seems reasonable to answer, “We don’t know what might be gained or lost: but we know this is important to everything we hold dear, and so we should be careful with it.”
Wow, fellas, Who’da thunk that a slapstick Kevin Costner movie would be so pregnant with meaning, that it would stir this much debate on the State of the Nation?
McCain must have been on to something using those two young girls as symbols in his fight for America’s soul.
Perhaps it might be more helpful if – since the Republican candidate in the movie is in favor of SSM – if you could tell us about which conservative political positions were exposed by the Democrat candidate in the movie. (or the Republican candidate)
Well, the Democratic candidate winds up opposing immigration and abortion, for starters…
A.L.
Grim [#16]:
We agree totally on the proposition that we necessarily have incomplete knowledge of the implications of our actions, and therefore we must act carefully, particularly when our actions affect things we know to be important.
However, you caricature the position I was arguing for by describing it as “a way to provide legal rights to couples for as long as they want them, by joining anyone who wishes.” In my argument, I have emphasized the importance of families in caring for children, the importance of commitment to families, and I’ve expressed cautious support for making it more difficult to get out of marriages. (That is, I’m generally in favor of it, but I have little confidence that I’ve checked adequately for unintended consequences.)
I won’t repeat the arguments I made previously in favor of allowing marriage for single-sex couples who are making a serious commitment. (But please go back and read them.)
However, I will take the opportunity to take on your more general point:
bq. _It seems reasonable to answer, “We don’t know what might be gained or lost: but we know this is important to everything we hold dear, and so we should be careful with it.”_
Indeed, it’s hard to disagree with this, but it certainly isn’t absolute. For example, . . . To stimulate discussion with kids, I would sometimes take the position of a slave-owner in the 1850s, arguing about the importance of property rights, the historical tradition of slavery over the centuries, and not allowing runaway slaves to undercut the very concept of property rights (essential to civilization) by stealing _themselves_ from their rightful owners.
bq. (This is intended to sound absurd, so if it doesn’t, smack yourself upside the head. It makes a certain kind of specious sense, that requires some thought and care to argue against. Makes a good teaching tool.)
Caution and tradition certainly have value, but so do human beings and their rights to make genuine commitments to love each other and create families. There are times when accepted wisdom needs to change. This is one of them. (Read Acts 10-11, too, in case the Bible carries authority with you.)
Beard:
I guess I wasn’t sufficiently clear. What I meant was that gays regard it as an entitlement to which they have a right on the basis of some fundamental principle of equality. That is, it amounts to something like a “natural right.” Such an attitude reveals that they aren’t willing to concede the very purpose of marriage, but are seeking to change the context (or at least promote a post-modern conception of relationship). As Tammy Bruce (who is herself gay) put it, such an attitude betrays an ironic disrespect for the institution.
I think this is just wrong-headed, although it sounds nice. The issue isn’t that the people don’t get along. The issue is that the “issue” are being raised in a way that, on average, stagnates neuron growth during the critical toddler period. Many animals have what’s called “brood monogamy” where the parents stay together only for a relatively brief period during which the offspring attain the physical attributes necessary for later survival. Granted, breakups at later stages create behavioral problems, delinquency, etc…. but if we could just re-institutionalize “brood monogamy” that would be a giant leap in the right direction.
To me SS-Marriage is an indicator rather than a cause. It indicates that the institution is in critical condition, and may not survive.
They sometimes have children, but rarely “by accident.” Moreover, the percentage of children being raised in households with two same-sex parental figures is a diminishingly small proportion of the population (less than a half of one percent) according to the latest census. By and large the children in these households are not “at risk” in the sense I’m talking about anyway, so the marriage is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, by and large.
Again, my goals are pretty modest. I’m not shooting for eternal unions, I’m just trying to keep the mommies and daddies together for a few more years.
Demosophist [#21]:
bq. _my goals are pretty modest. I’m not shooting for eternal unions, I’m just trying to keep the mommies and daddies together for a few more years._
I’ve got no problem with that goal, or with your rationale. But, as you explicitly recognize, this has little or nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Furthermore, if it is an indicator variable rather than a causal variable, then by expending effort in fighting against same-sex marriage, you are grabbing the wrong end of the lever. (Personally, I’d say it’s neither: it’s an independent variable, but we’ve already argued that.)
Beard #22:
My “prior” isn’t that there’s no relationship or correlation. Quite the contrary. I’m just not sure it’s a “causal relationship.” SS-marriage, in other words, may be an effect of a switch to a post-modern marriage ethic… but the latter is causal. And it’s already having some pretty serious effects.
However, if SS-marriage has a recursive impact on post-modern ethics and morality then I don’t think you can simply presume it’s a benign change. I think Grim’s point is essential. This is a situation where the burden of proof ought to rest on those promoting change, and they’re not really offering any. Their entire strategy rests on a “rights” notion that shifts the burden of proof to the conservative approach. I think this is deceptive and misguided.
Demosophist,
Let’s unpack “post-modern marriage ethic”, since that’s a banner phrase that very likely means different things to different people, and is mostly intended to mean “bad”. (Just as “rights” is a banner phrase that means very different things to very different people, but is mostly used to mean “good”.)
I think that what you are really arguing against is marriage as a feel-good, lightly committed relationship that lasts while it’s easy and comes apart when it gets hard. Kids sometimes come along, and are treated as partially-disposable inconveniences. Right? I couldn’t agree with you more, that this is a Bad Thing.
Kids need parents who are committed to creating and maintaining a permanent family around them. Things will get tough. (Anyone who doesn’t know this is clueless.) I believe that we’re still in agreement here.
Given a concept of marriage like this, involving serious, long-term commitment, if a same-sex couple wants to make this kind of commitment, to each other and to kids in their family, I don’t see a reason to deny them. And every reason to support them in their commitment, and accept their support for mine. (Obviously, here is where we diverge.)
The argument you actually have is with the slip-in/slip-out feel-good concept of marriage (though why these people bother with the ceremony at all is beyond me). So criticize those relationships, whether same-sex or opposite-sex.
That’s the fundamental value. I would certainly line up with you on that one.
bq. (though why these people bother with the ceremony at all is beyond me).
They want to live the fantasy. They like the glamour and pageant (if it’s a “wedding dress” wedding) or at least “the statement” that marriage creates: friends, family, career all are different / “easier” if you have a wedding and the ring. It’s “expected”. Want to get anywhere, and be perceived as a solid figure, especially in politics or business? Etc.
And of course there are the appurtenant aspects too numerous to enumerate, including community property, tax filing, employer medical coverage, citizen / resident status, automatic citizenship for progeny, the simple fact of “legitimacy” for their kids — out of wedlock == bad, broken home == accepted — and on and on.
Now here’s an interesting wrinkle re the next-to-last point:
Two women, married, can make a baby that gets automatic US citizenship. Two men cannot. Hmm.
bq. _Two women, married, can make a baby that gets automatic US citizenship. Two men cannot. Hmm._
I’ll clue you in to a secret: a woman can make a baby. A man cannot. That might have something to do with it. 😉
Launching off from this point, one might observe that there are two different sex acts.
The Little Sex Act: two adults put their sex organs together, and things happen.
The Big Sex Act: one adult grows an entire human being inside her body, after which the new one emerges.
Most of us can engage in the Little Sex Act, and many do, numerous times throughout a lifetime.
Only about half of us can engage in the Big Sex Act, not all do, and even those only do it a few times in a lifetime.
When we talk about this society becoming obsessed with sex, notice that it is only with the Little Sex Act. Perhaps people should notice that they are missing out on the Big Sex Act.
NM [#25]: In general, I agree with your main point, except that I don’t believe marriage is required for the child to become a citizen. As far as I know, the child just has to be born on US soil. Hence my snarky reply above.
#20:
I don’t mean to caricature your position, Beard; I just can’t see the change you advocate as anything other than a fundamental alteration of the institution’s basic nature. What was about joining organic families together would instead be more about the transmission of legal powers.
I understand that people want to be able to get into the hospital to see people they care about, and want to be able to pass benefits and other things to loved ones, etc. I don’t really have a problem with the idea of expanding people’s access to those powers, or making it easy to build nontraditional families.
For that matter, mine isn’t a “conservative for its own sake” position. For example, I’m not opposed to polygamy — we know what the consequences of polygamy are, and like them or not, they are at least predictable. What you’re advocating is a genuine revision of a basic social institution in a fashion never before attempted.
That’s the core danger to major social innovations. Even your 1850s-slave-owner dialogue breaks down here: slavery as an institution had existed for all recorded history, but in a vitally different form from the slavery of the early to middle 19th century. Aristotle wrote a defense of slavery, but the slavery he knew how to think about was nothing like the agricultural slavery of the Industrial Age. Race-based chattel slavery on an industrial scale was still an innovation in our society. (And look how well _that_ turned out.) One could easily say in reply that the 1850s slaver had departed from the traditions of slavers past; and therefore the slaver had left behind what we understood, and now was meddling with powerful forces he didn’t know how to control. Nor would he be likely to argue! If the slavers of the 1850s had a fear, it was fear of losing control: they were riding the tiger, and knew it.
Gramercy for the Acts citation, but as Kierkegaard pointed out, for a believer anything is licensed if it’s the direct word of God. That’s just what the Apostle has there that we don’t have here.
Of course, this was “only” an angel, and we are warned to remember that we well know who can array himself as an angel of light. Angel or devil, I haven’t yet received any direct instructions from beings of light — neither on this subject, nor any other.
Grim: What Acts 10-11 tells me is that even God can change His mind. Peter interpreted the dream to mean that, even though God (through Moses) declared certain foods to be unclean in the Torah, He was quite prepared to declare them clean now. And Peter had better pay attention. (The entire Church has endorsed Peter’s interpretation of the dream to mean that the Gospel could be brought to Gentiles, not just Jews, even though that interpretation is nowhere explicit in the dream.)
Anyway, you say about my view of same-sex marriage,
bq. _ I just can’t see the change you advocate as anything other than a fundamental alteration of the institution’s basic nature._
I think we disagree on the institution’s basic nature, since I believe I am preserving its essential nature.
I see society as having a hierarchical structure: individual, then family, then community, then larger groups that are real but less germane to this discussion. Fundamentally, a community is maintained by the families within it.
When two people marry, they create a family, and commit not only to each other, but to participate as a family in the larger community. When and if they have kids, those kids are part of their family, and they are committing, not only to raise and protect their own kids, but to help protect everyone else’s kids. (That’s part of living together in community.)
Even childless families participate in maintaining the structure of community. This is true for families that never have children, and for those whose children are grown and on their own. (Those who haven’t yet had children, too, but they are often still learning to be families, and not just individuals.)
Many of the legitimate problems that you and Demosophist are reacting to seem to me to be people failing to recognize that marriage means creating a family, with a role and responsibilities to the community. We need to make that clear and public. People who see their role as supporting their community by making a family, even a same-sex couple, are to be endorsed and appreciated, rather than forbidden from helping.
So: I look at the history of marriage, and I see a functional structure that I want to preserve against certain modern trends of individualism and selfishness. I am eager to enlist others interested in supporting the same thing, even if they happen to have the same gender. Seems to me that I am being conservative!
#27: And my point is (in part) that if you’re the progeny of two citizens married under US law, you can be born anywhere in the world and citizenship is conferred. Adoption, not so much, AFAIK. Sorry if I didn’t unpack that, I thought it was clear that that’s part of the deal about married USans abroad.
#29:
“What Acts 10-11 tells me is that even God can change His mind.”
OK — I have no problem with that concept; it’s implicit in Jesus’ mission that rules and arrangements can change. Still, I wasn’t talking about religion’s impact on the subject: I get that, in America, so long as their beliefs don’t harm others, people often need to be able to act on their own religious beliefs whether or not they compound with my own. (I have no strong religious beliefs about gays anyway.)
What I am looking at is the question of balancing liberty with the long-term good of society. That’s why I said I can accept polygamy, for example: whether or not you (or I, or ‘the majority’) like it, we know it’s a stable system, probably the most common form of marriage historically. We can make a balancing-point decision about the liberty to do what you want with your life v. what it will cost the whole society.
I’d like to say that there is nothing preventing gays from “marrying” forever; but I don’t want us to be in the first wave of people trying it. Let’s see how the first wave does over a generation or two, and if there are limited costs, then I have no particular problem with it. What I want is to know which of us is right about what the cost will be: will it fundamentally revise the basic structure of society over time, as marriage comes to mean something else? Or will the costs be few, if any? Once we know that, we can make a better call.