gay marriage revisited (англ.)

[avva]

Вот (англ.) наиболее рассудительная и убедительная из статей против гомосексуального брака, из тех, что я видел в последнее время.

Далеко не со всем так согласен, итп. — но почитать стоит. Хороша, кроме прочего, тем, что в ней честно и подробно описываются другие точки зрения и (некоторые) аргументы противной стороны.

Comments

[avva.livejournal.com]

Steve,

Will reply at length later, but first, a request: can you answer posic's question above?

[angerona.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with what Steve said, and igorlord and I just went through out own version of "well, then, shouldn't you allow polygamy?" -- personally, I think that we should, but polygamy should be much like any other marriage: all people who enter into it are going to be married to all the other people in that marriage, with corresponding consequences during the break-up of it.

So, in a way, the polygamous marriages in Utah are not truly marriages by that definition (because there one man is married to a number of women, but those women are not married to each other. When the man dies, all of them are considered widows, as opposed to still being married to each other. I wonder if they would enter into that marriage realizing that, upon divorce (all right, say the man dies and they want to get divorced), there is a chance that they won't get custody of their own children, etc..).

How will it work? it's a hard and confusing question, with many repercussions, but so is straight marriage.

[avva.livejournal.com]

So, how about incest between consenting adults?

[angerona.livejournal.com]

You and igorlord must really have similar minds. That was the next question from him, verbatim, and there I drew the line. My argument (arguably still not entirely thought-through) was that "with future medicine, it will probably be possible to have kids that have genetic make-up of any two adults, regardless of their sex, but I am still against closely related people having kids with their genetic make-up (because of the danger to the child), and marriage is still very much an institution designed for kid care").

But maybe, really, that's my own close-mindedness, and even incest is ok between two consenting adults (or, maybe, I'm missing a better argument that will separate incest from gay marriages and polygamy). But, really, the way I see it, the arguments for drawing a line between straight and gay marriages are no better than my attempts at drawing a line between polygamy and incest.

[avva.livejournal.com]

I am still against closely related people having kids with their genetic make-up (because of the danger to the child), and marriage is still very much an institution designed for kid care

Well, you seem to agree with Steve when he dismisses as bullshit all arguments that have to do with children, but somehow children function prominently in your argument against incest. Will you allow incestual marriage between consenting adults who promise not to have children? if one of them is sterile?

But, really, the way I see it, the arguments for drawing a line between straight and gay marriages are no better than my attempts at drawing a line between polygamy and incest.

But if you see it that way, you ought to be against gay marriage; if indeed your attempts at drawing the line between polygamy and incest are convincing enough for you to advocate allowing the first, but restricting the individual liberties of consenting adults with respect to the second (think of the anguish of people in love! think of the discrimination they will suffer, being unable to enjoy the benefits bestowed upon married people by our society!), then the attempts to draw a line between straight and gay marriage don't have to be better than that for you to argue against gay marriage — just as convincing will do.

[(Anonymous)]

You mean, why Jews love to answer a question with a question? Oh, wait, I guess you mean about polygamy. This is a red herring, like Congressman Santorum's insane suggestion that acceptance of gay sex will lead to men being able to have sex with dogs. This is not about polygamy or incest or dog love, it's about gay people getting married, end of story. If miscegenation were still illegal, you could make the same argument about that (and people doubtless did): if you let blacks and whites marry, [fill in appalling non-sequitur conclusion]!! It's just more bullshit; sorry to sound like a broken record, but it's true. People are so terrified of homosexuality they come up with whatever crazy arguments occur to them. Don't think I'm being superior; before I moved to New York I had all the usual prejudices and ignorant ideas. (I was so naive in grad school I thought the Sanskrit professor, a real flamer, couldn't be gay because he was always surrounded by women after class!) I thought gay men were necessarily effeminate, lesbians were ugly truck-driver types, and the whole idea of gay sex was disgusting. Amazing how actually knowing people of any sort dispels ignorant prejudice. That's why it's so important for gay people to come out; when everyone realizes they have gay family members, friends, and coworkers who seem pretty much like everybody else, the whole issue will deflate and vanish except for a few idiots. [end of PC rant]

Steve

[avva.livejournal.com]

I don't think you're being superior, but I do think you may be misjudging the opposition to gay marriage that is "out there" and some of the reasons or arguments underlying it. Without presuming to generalize, consider my example. I'm strongly opposed to gay bashing and stereotyping, and have spoken forcefully against homophobia and gay-bashing on many different occassions. I feel overt displays of homophobia to be about as sickening and appalling as overt displays of racism. I'm not at all terrified of homosexuality or homosexuals. I'm strongly in favor of sexual-orientation-blindness (boy, does that sound awkward) and equal treatment in all walks of life except possibly gay marriage (where my opinion is still fluctuating, but is much, much closer to contra than pro). It appears that in your worldview I simply ought not to exist!

Perhaps many (though of course not all) "polite" opponents of gay marriage are a lot closer to the worldview outlined above and exemplified by yours truly, than they are to your slightly paranoid (I beg you not to take any offence at this adjective) picture of unreformed bigots having learned to hide their appalling bigotry behind the mask of polite argument.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't worry, I don't take offense -- it's impossible to have discussions like this if everyone is constantly being offended! In my initial rant I was reacting to the article under discussion and similar pieces I have seen, not to your own attitude, which I didn't really know anything about. It's not that I think you (and other gay-friendly opponents) ought not to exist, it's that I don't understand how you think. Homophobia I understand; gay-friendliness I understand; a person who is "strongly in favor of sexual-orientation-blindness... and equal treatment in all walks of life" and (I presume) actually knows gay people and interacts with them on a friendly and equal basis, but who's willing to tell those gay people "I'm sorry, I don't have anything against you and I know you love each other as much as we straight people do and I know you suffer from the current situation, but nonetheless I don't think you should be allowed to get married"... this I don't understand. I'm not so much paranoid as uncomprehending. I've never seen an argument on the contra side that didn't boil down to "if we allow this... something terrible is going to happen!" It's the kids, or the institution of marriage, or civilized life in general, who knows? There's never a concrete explanation of what exactly will happen (we're not talking here about the primitive "gays molest kids" homophobes), just this certainty that it's wrong. And I can't accept that as a rational argument. So when I see a rational person on that side of the argument, I'm puzzled. I look forward to seeing your position laid out more clearly.

Again, I do not think, or wish to imply, that you or anyone here is an "unreformed bigot"!

[avva.livejournal.com]

and (I presume) actually knows gay people and interacts with them on a friendly and equal basis

Oh, most definitely!

So when I see a rational person on that side of the argument, I'm puzzled.

I understand your puzzlement; in fact, I share it to some extent. That's why I keep probing the issue, keep weighing arguments pro and contra that occur to me, or those I read somewhere.

I don't think I'm ready yet to lay out my position as clearly as I'd like it to be laid out; that'll probably take some more thinking and pondering about the issue. But I'll certanly write about it here when I feel up to it ;)