Obama finally comes out as pro gay marriage

[naswanji]

The problem with the gay marriage debate, and the reason both sides seem to talk past each other, is that marriage exists on two levels: the legal level and the social/anthropological level.

The legal level constitutes the rights and benefits granted to a couple through marriage, such as tax status, visitation rights, health care benefits, etc. As other commentators have noted, it is unfair to deny these rights to gay couples. The problem with this line of argument, though, is that these rights and benefits do not constitute the essence of marriage. To use philosophical terminology, they are "accidents" - they are not what make a marriage a marriage. The rights and benefits associated with marriage vary from state to state, and from country to country, and are almost an afterthought in anyone's definition of marriage. Moreover, all these benefits are available through civil unions. (And contra the "separate but equal" analogy, in many jurisdictions civil unions are available to heterosexuals as well).

More fundamentally, marriage is an organic social institution that is independent of whatever legal recognition it receives. If the government ceased to recognize marriage at all, and granted no special benefits to those who called themselves married, would people still get married? Most certainly, yes. But in this case, marriage depends on a collective social recognition of what marriage is, which is not so simple as just signing a piece of paper, or having a court uphold your rights. It depends on a minimum consensus from the community as a whole as to what marriage is about.

The problem with the tactics currently pursued by gay marriage activists is that they aim to gain access to the social recognition of marriage by way of the legal arguments. It's a bait and switch move. They argue that they should have access to the same rights as everybody else, but when they were offered civil unions as a solution, they rejected that. Why? Because what they really covet is the social cachet that marriage enjoys. However, this is not the government's to give, and legalizing gay marriage does not alter people's intuitive sense of what marriage is about. As I mentioned, marriage is an organic institution, and carries with it the accumulated associations, intuitions, and myths of thousands of years of human civilization, and these are not altered so easily as the tax forms.

So what is this intuitive understanding of marriage, and why are homosexuals excluded from it?

First off, let's take a step back and simply absorb how uncanny it is that marriage is a nearly universal institution. Every society has come up with its own form of marriage, and they have done so more or less independently of one another. How is such a thing possible? How do so many different societies converge at the same idea? If we compare marriage with other rituals that are similarly universal (for example, most cultures have some sort of rite by which newborn babies are initiated into the community), it becomes clear that these rituals are cued to the biological rhythms of human life, and the major life changes. In this way, marriage is one of the natural superstitions of the human race; it gives meaning to and sanctifies a biological development, in the same way that a puberty initiation rite gives tangible expression to the onset of sexual maturity.

So what is the biological development that marriage ritualizes? It is the transformation of the unrealized potential of virgin sexuality into the fertile sexuality of adulthood. Or to put it more prosaically, the central event of marriage is the girl's deflowering. As we all know, the most valuable thing for a civilization is a woman's womb (men are expendable, women are perishable, and all that), and so naturally the moment when that womb begins to take up its reproductive role is of the utmost sanctity.

In order to underscore the value of this womb, and ensure that a woman's fertility is not squandered incubating the random spawn of numerous wastrels and lowlifes (and to restrain woman's natural hypergamy), traditional societies took every measure to make the line between married and unmarried life as black and white as possible. Hence, no sex before marriage for women; for men, only children they had within marriage would be legitimate. The only sexual relationship that was legitimate in the eyes of society was within the bounds of wedlock; it was the only sexual relationship that could be avowed in public and recognized by the community. All other sexual relationships were confined to the margins of society, and were either shamed (fornication, adultery) or tolerated only in secret (prostitution, homosexuality). Why? Because they are either detrimental to marriage's implicit goal -- i.e., ensuring that wombs are used in the best possible way -- or they are irrelevant to that aim (as is homosexuality).

This is the origin of the sense that marriage conveys "legitimacy" to a sexual relationship. And it is precisely this legitimacy which homosexuals are trying to usurp through their attempts to legalize gay marriage (and not content themselves with civil unions). The problem is, however, that gay relationships by their very nature are irrelevant to this system of legitimacy. Gay men, insofar as they are men, are expendable to society: they don't have wombs that are going to waste. And since they are not impregnating women, there is no womb to tie them down to as provider husbands. Whether or not they are in committed relationships with each other is irrelevant to society. With lesbians, again, commitment is irrelevant to society when barren sexual acts are involved. In a lesbian relationship, no womb is going to be impregnated by the wrong man, there is little need to hold female hypergamy in check, and there is no male provider to tie down. The whole concept of "legitimacy" in marriage depends on something being at stake for society, but in gay marriage that is not the case. Moreover, legitimacy depends on the existence of its opposite, illegitimacy, and the stigma associated with that. Under heterosexual marriage, sexual relationships that take place outside of marriage are considered illegitimate. Are homosexuals ready to adopt that system as well? I don't think so.

Of course, some will say that this traditional form of marriage that I have described is on the way out, and that fewer and fewer people are adhering to the behavioral code implicit in this model. I agree. But people do continue to get married, and aspire to marriage, and when they do, where do they derive their idea of marriage? From this whole traditional mythology. The bride still wears virginal white (even if she's not a virgin), people prefer to get married in a church rather than city hall (even if they're not religious), there is still the expectation of "till death do us part," and so on. Traditional marriage still enjoys this cachet because marriage as it existed is one of our natural superstitions, it is the optimal and inevitable sexual arrangement given certain unchangeable features of our biology. Technological and social developments have upset this arrangement, for sure, but we still have the need to sanctify and mythologize our biological existence. It is this need to which marriage responds, and it is this profoundly rooted imagination that cannot so easily be overturned by court rulings.

 

[speakeasy]

The problem with the gay marriage debate, and the reason both sides seem to talk past each other, is that marriage exists on two levels: the legal level and the social/anthropological level.

The legal level constitutes the rights and benefits granted to a couple through marriage, such as tax status, visitation rights, health care benefits, etc. As other commentators have noted, it is unfair to deny these rights to gay couples. The problem with this line of argument, though, is that these rights and benefits do not constitute the essence of marriage. To use philosophical terminology, they are "accidents" - they are not what make a marriage a marriage. The rights and benefits associated with marriage vary from state to state, and from country to country, and are almost an afterthought in anyone's definition of marriage. Moreover, all these benefits are available through civil unions. (And contra the "separate but equal" analogy, in many jurisdictions civil unions are available to heterosexuals as well).

More fundamentally, marriage is an organic social institution that is independent of whatever legal recognition it receives. If the government ceased to recognize marriage at all, and granted no special benefits to those who called themselves married, would people still get married? Most certainly, yes. But in this case, marriage depends on a collective social recognition of what marriage is, which is not so simple as just signing a piece of paper, or having a court uphold your rights. It depends on a minimum consensus from the community as a whole as to what marriage is about.

The problem with the tactics currently pursued by gay marriage activists is that they aim to gain access to the social recognition of marriage by way of the legal arguments. It's a bait and switch move. They argue that they should have access to the same rights as everybody else, but when they were offered civil unions as a solution, they rejected that. Why? Because what they really covet is the social cachet that marriage enjoys. However, this is not the government's to give, and legalizing gay marriage does not alter people's intuitive sense of what marriage is about. As I mentioned, marriage is an organic institution, and carries with it the accumulated associations, intuitions, and myths of thousands of years of human civilization, and these are not altered so easily as the tax forms.

So what is this intuitive understanding of marriage, and why are homosexuals excluded from it?

First off, let's take a step back and simply absorb how uncanny it is that marriage is a nearly universal institution. Every society has come up with its own form of marriage, and they have done so more or less independently of one another.(Speakeasy's note: And notice that marriage between opposite sex only is also universal in all cultures independent of each other. Could this just be coincidence? When people try to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage, they often forget that a ban of IR marriage has never been universal and its use has been staggeringly rare in human history) How is such a thing possible? How do so many different societies converge at the same idea? If we compare marriage with other rituals that are similarly universal (for example, most cultures have some sort of rite by which newborn babies are initiated into the community), it becomes clear that these rituals are cued to the biological rhythms of human life, and the major life changes. In this way, marriage is one of the natural superstitions of the human race; it gives meaning to and sanctifies a biological development, in the same way that a puberty initiation rite gives tangible expression to the onset of sexual maturity.

So what is the biological development that marriage ritualizes? It is the transformation of the unrealized potential of virgin sexuality into the fertile sexuality of adulthood. Or to put it more prosaically, the central event of marriage is the girl's deflowering. As we all know, the most valuable thing for a civilization is a woman's womb (men are expendable, women are perishable, and all that), and so naturally the moment when that womb begins to take up its reproductive role is of the utmost sanctity.

In order to underscore the value of this womb, and ensure that a woman's fertility is not squandered incubating the random spawn of numerous wastrels and lowlifes (and to restrain woman's natural hypergamy), traditional societies took every measure to make the line between married and unmarried life as black and white as possible. Hence, no sex before marriage for women; for men, only children they had within marriage would be legitimate. The only sexual relationship that was legitimate in the eyes of society was within the bounds of wedlock; it was the only sexual relationship that could be avowed in public and recognized by the community. All other sexual relationships were confined to the margins of society, and were either shamed (fornication, adultery) or tolerated only in secret (prostitution, homosexuality). Why? Because they are either detrimental to marriage's implicit goal -- i.e., ensuring that wombs are used in the best possible way -- or they are irrelevant to that aim (as is homosexuality).

This is the origin of the sense that marriage conveys "legitimacy" to a sexual relationship. And it is precisely this legitimacy which homosexuals are trying to usurp through their attempts to legalize gay marriage (and not content themselves with civil unions). The problem is, however, that gay relationships by their very nature are irrelevant to this system of legitimacy. Gay men, insofar as they are men, are expendable to society: they don't have wombs that are going to waste. And since they are not impregnating women, there is no womb to tie them down to as provider husbands. Whether or not they are in committed relationships with each other is irrelevant to society. With lesbians, again, commitment is irrelevant to society when barren sexual acts are involved. In a lesbian relationship, no womb is going to be impregnated by the wrong man, there is little need to hold female hypergamy in check, and there is no male provider to tie down. The whole concept of "legitimacy" in marriage depends on something being at stake for society, but in gay marriage that is not the case. Moreover, legitimacy depends on the existence of its opposite, illegitimacy, and the stigma associated with that. Under heterosexual marriage, sexual relationships that take place outside of marriage are considered illegitimate. Are homosexuals ready to adopt that system as well? I don't think so.

Of course, some will say that this traditional form of marriage that I have described is on the way out, and that fewer and fewer people are adhering to the behavioral code implicit in this model. I agree. But people do continue to get married, and aspire to marriage, and when they do, where do they derive their idea of marriage? From this whole traditional mythology. The bride still wears virginal white (even if she's not a virgin), people prefer to get married in a church rather than city hall (even if they're not religious), there is still the expectation of "till death do us part," and so on. Traditional marriage still enjoys this cachet because marriage as it existed is one of our natural superstitions, it is the optimal and inevitable sexual arrangement given certain unchangeable features of our biology. Technological and social developments have upset this arrangement, for sure, but we still have the need to sanctify and mythologize our biological existence. It is this need to which marriage responds, and it is this profoundly rooted imagination that cannot so easily be overturned by court rulings.

^^^ Truly excellent post. Everyone should read this twice. Deep insight and well thought out. I'm actually saving your text for future reference.

I bolded what I think were the key points. I think the first part of your response bears repeating and is a good explanation of why both sides of the debate talk past each other. The gays want both the legal and anthropological definition of marriage. The wider society only wants to give them the legal definition(civil unions), but retain the cultural/anthropological definition of male/female as the social ideal. This is exactly why gays do not want civil unions. I've said this many times, but their goal isn't merely the "same rights" as heterosexuals. They want the gay marriage respected at the cultural level and they feel that pushing it onto people via the courts will force this. Their ultimate goal is that everyone embrace it as equal in every way(at the anthropological level). There was a time when gays simply wanted to be left alone. Now they've been given an inch and want a mile. They want the whole enchilada.

 

[gringochileno]

One possible explanation is that gay couples who have kids intend to become parents almost 100% of the time (since they have to go out of their way to do it through adoption, IVF, or a surrogate), whereas many children of heterosexual couples are the result of unplanned pregnancies. The result is that there are a lot of heterosexual parents out there who aren't as prepared to raise children as most gay parents. (I don't know whether this explanation actually explains the observed findings, or for that matter whether there actually is anything to be explained--to my knowledge that effect hasn't been conclusively demonstrated.)

For somebody who just lambasted emotional decision-making you sure are making this argument heated. The data show what they show, whether it agrees with your preconceived notions or not. That's why I'm not persuaded when you dismiss over 30 years of psychology literature with a sweeping statement like "They are loaded studies and the sample sizes are so small they tell you nothing" and nothing to back it up. By all means criticize the research if you want, but statements like that don't mean anything if you're not prepared to defend them with arguments and evidence.

By the way, I'd really like to hear your opinion on whether gay couples should be preferred to single people as adoptive parents. By your own argument there's direct evidence that single-parent homes produce inferior outcomes for children, but you've only been able to argue indirectly (and I believe unsuccessfully) for a similar effect in children with gay parents. All 50 states allow singles to adopt children. All else equal, surely gay couples should get ahead of them in line, right?

Not prepared to defend them with evidence? Dude, I am citing family and social statistics based on government census conducted across decades and multiple countries. You are citing loaded studies using small samples. Im not the one holding a contradictory point of view here. You are taking the position that gender does not matter, not me. Im consistent, even when that view is unpopular or uncomfortable. You are inconsistent in your views, which means you either lack principle or you are a dimwit being led around by the short and curlies.

Save the lectures. Psychological studies and literature? Fuck the psychologists, give me crime, welfare, employment and health statistics instead thanks. Lets correlate that with family stats and see what it gives us. I trust that more than I do agenda driven academics releasing loaded studies which present the progressive outcomes they desire. Learn to tell the difference and stop trying to automatically claim moral authority by deferring to "experts" who will prop up your argument.

And no, single parent homes are equally unacceptable. Traditional, nuclear families are best, proven by demographic statistics over decades. I honestly do not give a continental fuck how offensive that is either, nor do I care for "studies" conducted to prove otherwise. Such studies tend to be intellectually dishonest, attempting to rather disprove "hate fact" more often than anything else.

Clearly though, you think you are winning this exchange. Feel free to believe so. As I say, I have bookmarked this thread for future reference. Should any of the four names I listed dare complain about the effects of feminism or the attempts to eliminate the concept of gender, Ill be pointing you back to this thread. Maybe the lecture halls you spend all day in will tolerate your contradictory beliefs, but men hang out and most men dont tolerate inconsistent behavior and bullshit.

Lets just call you four gender denialists and give you a taste of your own medicine. You were all so quick to resort to shaming tactics when you disagreed with Speakeasy it seems, lets put the ball back in your court now. Lets put you guys under the spotlight now.

Bacan, Gringo, Keyser, Old Nemisis = gender denialists

Im calling all 4 of you gender denialists. Please feel free to defend yourself now, or forever go forward with that label. You tap out, Ill assume I was right about you being a dirty gender denialist.

Look man, I'm not going to continue to engage you on this if you're going to keep eschewing facts and evidence in favor of overheated rhetoric. When you say something like "I am citing family and social statistics based on government census conducted across decades and multiple countries" or "you are citing loaded studies using small samples," it means nothing unless you actually have something to back that up. Claims need to be defended with evidence. To my knowledge you've supplied no statistics relevant to the outcomes of children of gay adoptive parents, and you've given absolutely no support for your claim that the studies that have been conducted (and incidentally find no deficiency in outcomes) are all invalid because of "small sample sizes," even though I already specifically addressed that point. Put or shut up dude, you're not going to win this hand without cards. I've already provided multiple literature reviews and primary research articles. Ball's in your court, let's see your evidence.

I understand that you find it counterintuitive to believe that a gay couples can raise a child just as well as a straight couple can. I really do. I promise you, the point you've been making about gender roles has not fallen on deaf ears. But the fact of the matter is, if this were something that had a tangible effect on children's life prospects, we should be able to see evidence of it. People have been looking for that evidence for over 30 years, and along the way they've accumulated one of the most extensive research programs in the entire field of academic psychology. It is nowhere to be found. Sorry man, part of being rational is following the evidence wherever it leads, and if it clashes with your intuitions then so be it.

Finally, on single-parent homes: so given what you said above, and given the fact that all 50 US states allow singles to adopt children, would you support allowing gay couples to apply for adoption and receive preferential treatment to single people during the process? If what you're concerned about is the welfare of children, and if what you say about single-parent homes is true, how could you possibly justify not allowing that?

 

[Hooligan Harry]

You are not reading my posts.

I already stated that I do not support single parent adoption. I also stated numerous times that given anyones involvement in this community, feigning ignorance on gender is absurd. You dont get to choose when you decide to agree with a particular ideology, you either agree or you dont. No in-between, and you certainly dont get to shame those who are consistent

As for not citing particular studies, I was clear that I am not going to spend all day posting links to articles and studies that are commonly shared across the PUA, MRA and MGTOW communities. You are bombarded with it! Its like asking me to cite studies which show being fat is really bad for your health, its the first you have heard of it. I also dont know how many times I need to talk about census figures over decades and multiple countries, but academics are gonna academic.

Your 30 years of fucking research is based on ridiculously low samples and its impossible for any rational person to take it seriously. Jesus, most countries who allow gays to adopt have not even had the legislation in place for a decade. Yet you want to completely ignore and discount decades of census, social and family statistics? You will believe loaded research and studies over god damn census figures and family statistics?

Women work harder than men - study to prove it
Women better leaders than men - study to prove it

Those were psychologists who put that together too. MUST BE TRUE!

Like I said, make damn sure you guys dont complain about feminism going forward. Gender is irrelevant in the context of your argument here, meaning you agree that its nothing more than a social construct.

 

[kosko]

Great post Naswnji! Another home run.

You took a great angle I was reluctant to take in that the natural rhythms, laws, and forces that govern and shape earth and mankind. We have lost our links to these with technology and ignorance but people still have flickrs of these traits within. This is why in public people "support" gay marriage but in the privacy of their own mind or the voters both they reject it. Why? because of the points you brought up there internal mind/spirit rejects the notion of something artificial attacking a natural societal contract in marriage.

Marriage will always be around. Humans ignorance is that we can alter and tweak the natural laws which govern society. But people and civilizations are expendable. Groups whom refused to follow natural orders perished. Simple as that. People don't realize a white wedding dress symbolizes pure virginity in women. Or that the sharing of wedding bands is a ritual that is linked to the forces of Saturn, or that the wine you drink at that wedding symbolizes the man drinking the menstral blood from the birth canal (yea Im dead serious as nasty as it sounds ). Humans think that we can change or alter these traits but they have been around for thousands of years. We can't change the natural order and the notions of being "progressive" means more in my mind decline. Legal and tech progression us different, these are human constructs that we tweak and modify to make better. But natural orders and constructs are things we can't change.

This is the type of stuff that Naswanji highlights. Humans are all connected by there internal mind/spirit which is controlled by the universe and any higher powers you believe in. It's a crazy thing when you just sit and think about it but it's fascinating and important stuff.

 

[Vicious]

I seriously don't get what people are getting so riled up over this (in either faction). In my part of the world gay marriage has been around for quite some time. Most of the time I have to be reminded of it. Then I never seen the overt, flaming homosexuals here that I've seen in the US though.

 

[oldnemesis]

The problem with the gay marriage debate, and the reason both sides seem to talk past each other, is that marriage exists on two levels: the legal level and the social/anthropological level.

You are making exactly the same arguments which have been already made in the courts by the various opponents of the gay marriage court cases. All those arguments were rejected as either not supported by the evidence, or not carrying the legitimate governmental purpose. It amazes me that none of you guys actually read the court rulings, since you repeat the same already rebuffed arguments.

Moreover, all these benefits are available through civil unions. (And contra the "separate but equal" analogy, in many jurisdictions civil unions are available to heterosexuals as well).

The bold quoted portion is a major misunderstanding at best, as this is definitely NOT the case right now in the US. Again, it's a pity you guys do not read the rulings of the U.S. Courts as this point was also addressed.

The problem with the tactics currently pursued by gay marriage activists is that they aim to gain access to the social recognition of marriage by way of the legal arguments. It's a bait and switch move. They argue that they should have access to the same rights as everybody else, but when they were offered civil unions as a solution, they rejected that. Why? Because what they really covet is the social cachet that marriage enjoys.

Indeed. Gays want to stop the practice of being treated of second class citizens - same as desegregation was really an aim to change the society to stop treating the blacks as the second class citizens. Note that there was no law which stated "blacks must be treated as second class citizens", same as there is no law which states "homosexual relationships are not as worthy as straight relationships", and therefore a direct attack on this discrimination is not possible. This is why the anti-discrimination efforts have to focus on repealing the discriminating laws and provisions.

Basically your whole post could be summarized in one word: the traditions of the society do not favor gay marriage legalization. However as the multiple U.S. Courts have said, traditions or moral beliefs alone, no matter how deep and convincing, cannot be a ground for legalization. You need to prove with the evidence that the legalization of gay marriage would bring some measurable harm besides just hurting some feelings. And this is something no one was able to prove so far.

Now, will some part of society reject the homosexual marriage even if it is accepted by the government? Sure they would - as I said above, some people still do not accept blacks as equal despite the fifty or so years of desegregation. However the majority would accept it, and this is the ultimate goal.

 

[oldnemesis]

This is why in public people "support" gay marriage but in the privacy of their own mind or the voters both they reject it. Why? because of the points you brought up there internal mind/spirit rejects the notion of something artificial attacking a natural societal contract in marriage.

And this is exactly why it is failing in the courts all the way across the country - because your private personal beliefs have absolutely zero weight there.

Anyway I'm leaving you guys for two weeks as my flight to Philippines departs in five hours. Hopefully when I return the 9th Circuit would deny en banc to Prop 8 supporters and we'll get back to read about some important things.

 

[Goldin Boy]

I'm surprised anyone believes anything that American politician say anymore. The just spew whatever the largest voting blocs wanna hear.

 

[speakeasy]

You are making exactly the same arguments which have been already made in the courts by the various opponents of the gay marriage court cases. All those arguments were rejected as either not supported by the evidence, or not carrying the legitimate governmental purpose. It amazes me that none of you guys actually read the court rulings, since you repeat the same already rebuffed arguments.

So what? Not everybody is going to agree with the courts. The courts are just made up of people, probably no smarter than any of us in here. The courts haven't thrown out the Patriot Act either but that doesn't mean there aren't many millions of Americans that have serious grievances with it. The courts also overturn any law that tries to put an end to illegal immigration which you saw with prop 187 here in California and now they're attempting to do the same in Arizona. Just because a court rules in favor or against something doesn't mean they are right in any absolute sense and that there may not even be a majority of people that disagree with the way they interpret the Constitution. Get a different set of justices on the court and they may interpret the Constitution quite differently.

Indeed. Gays want to stop the practice of being treated of second class citizens - same as desegregation was really an aim to change the society to stop treating the blacks as the second class citizens. Note that there was no law which stated "blacks must be treated as second class citizens", same as there is no law which states "homosexual relationships are not as worthy as straight relationships", and therefore a direct attack on this discrimination is not possible. This is why the anti-discrimination efforts have to focus on repealing the discriminating laws and provisions.

Gays are NOT treated as second class citizens as there is absolutely nothing in the law that punishes homosexuals or denies them anything. Whatever laws apply to gays apply to straights equally. The law doesn't recognize gay in the way it recognized black and came up with elaborate ways to define who is black(such as the one drop rule). The law doesn't even define who or what a gay is or what you'd have to do to even be considered one. There are men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women who don't even consider themselves gay. Two straight men may want to marry for immigration reasons. They are banned as well. Gays are not treated as second class citizens. That's bull. Why can't they just get a civil union and have the same rights as straights, and then just go have a private "marriage" ceremony with their friends, family and a gay friendly church? Why the fuck can't they just leave it at that and stop trying to force the wider society to change their cultural idea and redefine what constitutes a marriage??

Basically your whole post could be summarized in one word: the traditions of the society do not favor gay marriage legalization. However as the multiple U.S. Courts have said, traditions or moral beliefs alone, no matter how deep and convincing, cannot be a ground for legalization. You need to prove with the evidence that the legalization of gay marriage would bring some measurable harm besides just hurting some feelings. And this is something no one was able to prove so far.

Well as I said before, then the courts should allow Utah to bring back polygamy because by the same definition above it would pass.

 

[naswanji]

oldnemesis, I think we're having two separate debates. While the rest of us on this thread are debating whether we're for or against gay marriage and why, you're arguing that the US Constitution grants a right to gay marriage, and are asking us to refute that contention. But that's an appeal to authority, and it's shifting the grounds of the debate. It's similar to what guns rights activists do when they appeal to the 2nd Amendment to justify their opposition to gun control. Rather than offer arguments to justify why they think they should have a right to bear arms, or why gun control is bad, they just say that the Constitution grants them that right, end of story. You can observe the same phenomenon in a number of debate in the US: abortion, health care, etc. Everyone wraps themselves up in the Constitution and claims that it upholds their own point of view. But the US is not the only place where this issue is being hashed out, and there are other countries where gay marriage is making strides that don't have the same legal framework and constitutional protections that the US does. So would you be for or against gay marriage in those countries that lack an Equal Protection Clause?

You should also note that the case law on gay marriage in the US is rather divided, so citing a few rulings that have upheld a right to gay marriage doesn't necessarily prove anything. Courts have upheld gay marriage bans in Indiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Washington state and Maryland, for example. Since you're such a fan of court rulings, here are a few that have found there to be a legitimate government interest in banning gay marriage:

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf

http://www.domawatch.org/cases/indiana/morrisonvsadler/Opinion_CourtofAppeal.pdf

However, the real danger in the legalistic approach to gay marriage is that it is leading to a breakdown of societal consensus as to what constitutes a marriage. As I mentioned before, the social recognition that marriage provides arises organically from the community, and it is not the government's to give by fiat. The legitimacy of marriage is dependent on the fact that more or less everyone recognizes the marriages of others as legitimate without question. Now, however, we're moving to a situation where we will have a category of marriages that 50% of the population simply does not recognize as legitimate, that they scoff at or put between quotation marks. Gays won't have marriage, they'll have "marriage." Although this is not the kind of harm that is readily quantifiable, it does seem to me to cause definitive harm to the institution of marriage for it to be fractured into different enclaves, "marriage as understood by the coastal elites," "marriage as understood by middle America," etc.

 

[speakeasy]

This just in folks if you want to see where all this gay activism shit is leading us. The gay thought police are now going after Manny Pacquiao because he doesn't believe in same sex marriage:

http://laist.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacquiaos_anti-gay_marriage_r.php

For those that are locals or have been to L.A. you probably know about a mega shopping complex called The Grove near Hollywood. Well they are wanting him banned from the shopping center because he doesn't support same sex marriage. What a bunch of bullshit. Don't these assholes realize that this is the kind of stuff that will cause an anti-gay backlash? Normal people who ordinarily might not even give a shit about gays one way or another are going to start to get pissed about things like this.

I have nothing against gay people, but I fucking hate their spokespeople and advocates.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Problem is, even if they are pissed off, many are afraid to speak up. You cant speak up because the left is a very vocal minority that throws mud at the first opportunity. Once the accusations of hate speech come, it can cost you your job or even really do some personal damage.

Look at what you just went through when you spoke up. You were perfectly rational, and within a day you had to deal with all manner of character attacks and fake, incredulous disbelief that you could still be so backward. They have hijacked debate completely and I fear that until such time as people either start cracking heads or it becomes socially unacceptable to deny people their right to free speech, this shit will continue.

 

[WanderingSoul]

This just in folks if you want to see where all this gay activism shit is leading us. The gay thought police are now going after Manny Pacquiao because he doesn't believe in same sex marriage:

http://laist.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacquiaos_anti-gay_marriage_r.php

For those that are locals or have been to L.A. you probably know about a mega shopping complex called The Grove near Hollywood. Well they are wanting him banned from the shopping center because he doesn't support same sex marriage. What a bunch of bullshit. Don't these assholes realize that this is the kind of stuff that will cause an anti-gay backlash? Normal people who ordinarily might not even give a shit about gays one way or another are going to start to get pissed about things like this.

I have nothing against gay people, but I fucking hate their spokespeople and advocates.

I am for same sex marriage, but banning Manny from the mall is ridiculous. He has his beliefs just as anyone does, you should not ban him for that.

I pretty much can't stand spokespeople and rights groups for any cause. They come out with ludicrous demands and make themselves, and their cause, look fucking retarded. Generally over very menial bullshit also.

I wonder if a lot of this Manny debacle has to do with the paragraph below from the article, and people thinking Manny said it? At first read I thought Manny said that, and I could understand how people would be super fucking pissed. However, after rereading it, he didn't say that. It is a quote from the Bible, as far as I can tell.

Pacquiao's directive for Obama calls societies to fear God and not to promote sin, inclusive of same-sex marriage and cohabitation, notwithstanding what Leviticus 20:13 has been pointing all along: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

 

[Keyser Söze]

Keyser Soze has been suspended for 7 days due to attacking a senior member with name calling.

Roosh, for the sake of integrity, could you please identify the specific instances in which I engaged in name calling?

If you can't find any, and were just white knighting for one of your friends, fine, it is your site and you may do whatever you want.

Also, here are a couple of instances in which I was personally and specifically attacked and insulted in this thread in clear violation of forum rules, why was nothing done? You will note that I did not take the bait and reply in kind.

post #25: "Keyser Soze, you're a total moron"

post #27: "Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical"


Also, what does feminism and that have to do with this? I don't worry about things that don't affect my life and happiness.

Now, for me personally what would gay marriage actually change?
I have a couple of friends who are gay. Maybe I would travel to one of the weddings and bang one of their hot sisters. Other than that, I can't see any way I would personally be affected.

 

[thekid]

Kinda late to the game...but, if I was grand-master-emperor of these United States, here's what I would do:

1. Take marriage out of the governments hands: no one gets a government document saying you are "married"

Marriage is an inherently religious designation. The government, due to the separation between church and state, should not differentiate.

Therefore, civil unions will be what you get when two people, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, are locked into a financial and domestic binding, and would come with all the benefits one receives when married today.

2. Churches can do whatever the fuck they want.

If you want to get "married" find a church that will marry you. No church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want, but many churches are happy to wed gay couples.

Marriage is a religious institution, and it is bullshit that the government dirties its hands with it.

That said, with marriage being government construct, a legal argument against gay marriage should not hold water in court. The economic effects have been thoroughly debunked, and any "sanctity" argument, has no place in government, where ones definition of "sanctity" is better left in confessional.