…all this elite pressure wouldn’t have worked even ten years ago, and certainly not twenty or thirty years ago. How could what then seemed a settled conviction about sexuality (or prejudice, if you wish) disappear so fast?
[ Brendan ] O’Neill has an answer, which seems to me correct. The non-elites proved susceptible to such pressures for a reason, he notes. “The fragility of society’s attachment to traditional marriage itself, to the virtue of commitment, has also been key to the formulation of the gay-marriage consensus. Indeed, it is the rubble upon which the gay-marriage edifice is built.”
I’m sure there’s a certain chilly comfort in blaming the spread of marriage equality on shadowy “elites” bending lawmakers to their will. Yet it seems like an act of denial meant to shield “traditional” marriage advocates from a simpler, harder reality: Over the past few decades, folks have gotten to know flesh-and-blood gays and lesbians, discovering that we’re not demons and looking at our unions through the lens of human compassion and connection rather than the tribal prejudices of the Israelites. That’s my theory anyway.
Ah, the Twilight Saga meme.
QuohelethDC says, “Over the past few decades, folks have gotten to know flesh-and-blood gays and lesbians, discovering that we’re not demons..”
This argument is frequently used, and it’s condescending and downright insulting. Proponents of same-sex marriage seem to assume that those of us who oppose it are just ignorant and think the way we do because we don’t really know any gay people. It’s beyond absurd.
[i]Ah, the Twilight Saga meme.[/i]
Isn’t “Twilight” about vampires? Is that how you view gays and lesbians?
[i]Proponents of same-sex marriage seem to assume that those of us who oppose it are just ignorant and think the way we do because we don’t really know any gay people.[/i]
I didn’t say that, nor would I. I was responding to the article’s theory that acceptance of marriage equality results from the nefarious working of shadowy “elites.” Taking the Occam’s Razor approach, I advanced a simpler hypothesis.
[i]condescending and downright insulting[/i]
Is it any more condescending/insulting than the article’s premise that acceptance of same-sex marriage must come from conformity to “elite” opinion rather than folks’ own thinking?
“QohelethDC” – Actually, no, you didn’t offer a better explanation; merely a different one, buttressed by a gross mischaracterization of the author’s claims regarding the impact of elite ideas on public opinion. He never claimed them to be “shadowy” – he named exactly the sorts of people he was talking about. You also toss in the ridiculous canard that people have changed their minds because of their new discovery that homosexuals aren’t “demons”. Baloney – they always knew that. No change there at all, hence calling into question your claim to be using Occam’s Razor, which is supposed to apply to actual data, not wishful thinking and condescending insults.
As to whether people are deciding the matter for themselves, well of course they are. That would be as true if they were lazily acceding to elite opinion on a matter they don’t particularly care about as if they were carefully considering and accepting the Homosexual Movement’s arguments. The author points to a number of solid reasons to think the latter (I have no idea why you think it simpler) the less likely.
My chief reason for agreeing with him in the main is the sheer dearth of intellectually defensible reasons being given for considering same-sex “marriage” something other than the contradiction in terms it so obviously is. Instead of argument, the entire nonsensical thing rests on preposterous propaganda. Consider the terms “marriage equality” and “gay marriage”. They sound nice, but we’ve always had both. Any unmarried and not-too-closely related man and woman who want to marry can do so without either one’s sexual orientation counting against them in any way. Indeed, if both are homosexual, you have a “gay marriage”. So neither term describes what is at issue in the slightest. Both are mere propaganda and what is happening is that a majority is currently buying the propaganda. Conformism sounds pretty plausible to me.
[i]You also toss in the ridiculous canard that people have changed their minds because of their new discovery that homosexuals aren’t “demonsâ€. Baloney – they always knew that.[/i]
Really? Folks have kept that knowledge pretty well hidden for much of history.
No, Q, Twilight is not about vampires. Dracula is about vampires. Twilight is about narrative. More specifically it is an intentional polemic sounding in the narrative of “difference” and, ultimately, phony aggrievement. Your comment is a pedestrian extension of that polemic- An extension which worked very well ten years ago. Nobody is biting any more, pun intended, so knock off the bear baiting.
[i]More specifically it is an intentional polemic sounding in the narrative of “difference†and, ultimately, phony aggrievement.[/i]
I’ve never read/seen it. What’s the “difference” it explores? Who’s aggrieved and why is it phony?
[i]Any unmarried and not-too-closely related man and woman who want to marry can do so without either one’s sexual orientation counting against them in any way.[/i]
Oh my. I didn’t realize folks were still trotting out that chestnut.
[i]Conformism sounds pretty plausible to me.[/i]
I’m sure it’s a more palatable conclusion than that people are rejecting one’s bigotry.
The heading “Sam Sex Marriage” no doubt represents the new frontier of anti-discrimination. Two people named “Sam” may now marry, whether a heterosexual or homosexual couple.
“I’ve never read/seen it. What’s the “difference†it explores? Who’s aggrieved and why is it phony?”
Having never read it, you seem nevertheless comfortable smearing me as a bigot.
[i]Having never read it, you seem nevertheless comfortable smearing me as a bigot.[/i]
My posts to you have consisted almost entirely of questions. You dodged the first two and ignored the second pair. Whatever.
Are people really reduced to thinking of the Bible as merely [i]”the tribal prejudices of the Israelites”[/i]? What authority exists in the world?
RE: “Over the past few decades, folks have gotten to know flesh-and-blood gays and lesbians, discovering that we’re not demons and looking at our unions through the lens of human compassion and connection rather than the tribal prejudices of the Israelites.”
[roll eyes]
Thank goodness all gay activists aren’t as silly and whiny and over-dramatic as QohelethDC. Heh.
Just to point out the law of contradiction that he violates [unsurprisingly]: “Over the past few decades, folks have gotten to know flesh-and-blood [adult sibling marriages], discovering that we’re not demons and looking at our unions through the lens of human compassion and connection rather than the tribal prejudices of the Israelites.”
Just another guy who wants society to pretend to approve of *his* particular minority sexual-attraction — but none of the others.
So, yeh . . . just another gay activist hypocrite.
RE: “Are people really reduced to thinking of the Bible as merely “the tribal prejudices of the Israelitesâ€?”
It’s a pretty typical stance from those who don’t believe the Gospel in TEC. As a member myself, this is Standard Fare from the lib activists.
Unfortunately, Sarah, gay activism is based upon just the silly, whiney, and untrue arguments offered by this particular advocate. Not all gay people, of choose, over their sexual desires and force everyone to accede to their desperate need for approval. Not all need to exaggerate claims of oppression and misrepresent history. Healthy societies don’t tolerate gay advocacy, shot through as it is with lies, starting with the fiction that gay is in the same category as race. Being gay is not the same as being black.
Not all gay people OBSESS over…
[i]Healthy societies don’t tolerate gay advocacy,[/i]
Interesting. How do they prevent it? Can you gave some examples of such healthy societies?
It’s the lies. The sick, self-serving lies such as you promote.
But really, out of all thar’s been written exposing your nonsense, you have nothing better to say? Did I miss the part where you compared same-sex marriages to mixed race marriages?
No answers to my questions then? I was looking forward to learning where these “healthy societies” are. Uganda perhaps?
Qoheleth, I don’t think you’ve acquitted yourself well at all on this thread and have, in fact, hurt your cause. But I doubt you’d see that.
[i]Qoheleth, I don’t think you’ve acquitted yourself well at all on this thread[/i]
Oh dear. What alternative course of action/discussion would you have recommended?
[i]and have, in fact, hurt your cause.[/i]
Do you honestly think there’s [i]anything[/i] I could have said that would have swayed the antigay posters? If so, what might those magical words have been?
#24 – I understand your frustration. It takes no small amount of courage to wade into a hostile environment and defend others there consider an unacceptable position. In that regard, you have my respect. Your statements above, alas, do not.
In answer to your question, you might have tried acknowledging the rather too-obvious reality that there are sound reasons not to change the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, that the existing definition is not unjust or inequitable (as I note in #7), and that one needn’t be a bigot to disagree with you in this matter. You might then have offered some positive justifications for the redefinition nevertheless, perhaps explaining how limiting the estate to two people still makes sense (if indeed it does) and that the essence of what marriage is intended to achieve is still held intact, despite its being completely decoupled from copulation. Those are the sorts of things your side in this debate owes the rest of us and what we never seem to hear.
As you rightly note, it’s easier to try and make yourself feel better than to actually argue for your position. I might also note that making charitable assumptions about your disputants not only makes your presentation more winsome, it makes for better arguments. I for one am wide open to having my mind changed, but it will take something very much different from making preposterous accusations of bigotry against me.
Best regards – DWM.
DVM: Many thanks for your kind note. God bless!