At the always superb Public Discourse, Matthew J. Franck and Gwen Brown have a great essay on why same-sex marriage is becoming more “accepted”:
In the 1993 Seinfeld episode “The Outing,” a female reporter mistakes Jerry Seinfeld and his friend George Costanza for homosexual partners. When her misunderstanding dawns on them, they vehemently deny that they are gay, yet constantly punctuate their denials with the rote expression “not that there’s anything wrong with that!” As heterosexual men, Jerry and George are both keen to be taken for what they are, but there’s more to it than that: they can’t entirely inhibit revulsion at the idea that others think they are homosexual, and perhaps revulsion at the very idea of being homosexual.
Their repeated exclamation “not that there’s anything wrong with that!”—invariably uttered with far less passion than their denials—is a socially conditioned response. Somewhere they have learned that it is unacceptable to cast aspersions on homosexuality, and that the politically correct response is to say (as Jerry does at one point, albeit rather too excitedly), “People’s personal sexual preferences are nobody’s business but their own!” Jerry and George struggle to suppress what they really think with what they have been taught to think is “enlightened opinion.” Call it the Seinfeld Effect.
Seventeen years later, the advocates of same-sex marriage are making “people’s personal sexual preferences” everybody’s business, and are counting on the Seinfeld Effect to suppress what most Americans really think about same-sex marriage.
August 30th, 2010 | 11:57 am
Seinfield and George are now the older generation. Although their reflexive “not that there is anything wrong with that” was somewhat enlightened for their day, it is not for this more modern era. For those of us who are younger, we are much more comfortable and accepting of homosexuality, as reflected in the passion for gay causes often seen amongst my generation. We grew up an unprecedented number of openly gay couples and individuals in our intimate midst that was unprecedented in any previous generations. We go on double dates with same sex couples, go to proms with them, vote gay and bisexual students as class president, and rally for gay rights more than any other cause on campus. Our favorite tv shows (true blood, real world, degrassi) don’t just show lots of gay and bisexual people, but show same-sex affection as a normal, integrated part of society. ANd the polls reflect our embrace of our gay and bisexual brethren.
Yes, amongst my generation,k Seinfield’s view is now quaint and old fashioned.
August 30th, 2010 | 12:09 pm
I KNEW the gay activist side was manufacturing people’s consent.
So it just boils down to each of us not being afraid to say what’s up next time a debate over this takes place at the local bar?
August 30th, 2010 | 12:25 pm
This is an important paragraph in the article:
A CNN/Gallup poll released on August 11 found that 52% of respondents supported and only 46% opposed same-sex marriage—a result widely trumpeted as the first time a majority expressed this view. But in an important finding, a North Carolina firm called Public Policy Polling discovered that its method of automated polling or “robo-calls,” in which respondents interact on their phone with a computer-controlled interview system rather than a human interviewer, yields significantly higher numbers of Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. [end excerpt]
In other words, some people are even unwilling to admit their opposition to same-sex marriage to a person they don’t know. That’s how socially unacceptable opposition has become. Sean is right — we all have to speak up when we get the chance.
August 30th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
One interesting thing that current polls show besides that young Americans are strongly in favor of same-sex marriage is that Independents are nearly as or just as supportive of same-sex marriage as Democrats. Opposition to same-sex marriage is not a winning position for Independents. Further, several recent polls have revealed that Latinos now support same-sex marriage at essentially the same level as Whites. In fact, some more recent polls have shown that Latinos support same-sex marriage EVEN more than Whites!
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
August 30th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
Article on growing Latino support for same-sex marriage:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/us_catholic_latinos_liberal_on_gay_marriage.html
August 30th, 2010 | 2:09 pm
Javier, this thread is dedicated to lamenting people like you, please stop spamming it.
August 30th, 2010 | 4:28 pm
The gay rights movement says they want tolerance, which they have, but they really demand approval. And no one is entitled to demand another person’s approval, anymore than they are entitled to tell another person what to think.
And to all the enlightened heterosexuals out there who approve of gayness, I just want to point out that if you wouldn’t do it yourself, then you really don’t approve of it.
If the gay rights movement really wants to work for tolerance, they should agitate in the Muslim world where there is true intolerance, instead of heaping calumny on the Christian West, disapprovingly tolerant as we are, the same people in many cases who have died in wars to secure the freedom of gays and everyone else.
So many secular people think that if they could just get rid of puritanical Christianity, what a wonderful free world they would have, not realizing that it is the Christians that are the only thing protecting them from the religious fascism of Islam.
We Christians might not approve but we will fight to protect your right to live by your conscience. The Muslims will just kill you. That’s worth thinking about.
August 30th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
While I think the authors make a useful point, I take exception to the implications of the following statement:
“That the reshaping of marriage to “make room” for same-sex couples leaves it vulnerable to every other claimant who wants similar space in the institution, including the polyamorous—and so the reshaping is, in truth, the effectual abolition of marriage.”
The implication here seems to be that SSM should be seen as a wedge issue, or perhaps the first step on a slippery slope, which will lead to further degradations such as polyamory, and hence usher in the abolition of marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth: SSM itself is the end-game; everything that follows is commentary. Two quasi-brief criticisms:
1st, “Polyamory” is a modern confection that, if it means anything, cannot mean what it intends to mean. “Many loves” is not a neuter form of “many women/wives” (polygamy) and “many men/husbands” (polyandry). Polygamy and polyandry can be coherently spoken of in reference to the institution of marriage because they assume the fundamental complimentary (i.e. sexual) character of marriage. Polyamory is a vacuous term that might refer to how I feel in a room full of friends, or at the counter of an ice cream parlor. This is not a trivial point. Marriage, as a human institution, is not about “amor,” it is about the rational ordering of human sexual activity into a discipline that provides families -> tribes -> nations -> civilizations – simply put: community.
2nd, “Polyamory” might follow “gay marriage” down the path of verbal absurdity, but in so doing, it does not signal the end of “marriage” as a discrete and comprehensible idea (“gay marriage” already does that). But polygamy – if that is what is at least in part meant by polyamory – is not a step further into the abyss, but rather would be a step back in the right direction! Polygamy, as it were, differs from the ideal of marriage by a degree of perfection, whereas “gay marriage” differs from marriage in kind. There seems to be an assumption in the article (a quite common one, no less) that two-ness is a fundamental and necessary characteristic of marriage, which is true but only in a strict and unintended sense (a polygamist, after all, does not marry two women; he marries each of them). Unlike sexual complimentarity, “two-ness” exclusivity is a happy perfection of the public marriage institution, not a primordial characteristic of it.
People are being cowed into supporting SSM – yes, that’s clear. But this is possible only because they do not understand what marriage is. I suggest we cannot win this fight without distinguishing between three levels of meaning in marriage, which necessarily build upon each other:
1. Marriage qua marriage, the core institution of human community (Not just of civilization! Even barbarian societies are ordered by marriage!)
2. The natural perfections of marriage nurtured by religion and sound reason (love, exclusivity, romance, equality, etc. – all the things SSM proponents erroneously try to use to justify their usurpation of the “marriage” term.
3. The supernatural perfection of marriage in sacramentality (Christian marriage).
What we’ve witnessed in our lifetimes is a collapse of the understanding of marriage itself – the “human” or humane (rational) ordering of human sexuality. We can’t afford to be diverted by discussions about the scaffolding; the matter itself is rapidly disappearing from view. Sex is marriage. Marriage is human for sex.
August 30th, 2010 | 7:26 pm
Javier:
Did you not read the linked essay? Your polls are not to be believed. There’s a built-in bias that’s making them report a greater sympathy for same-sex marriage than there actually is—the same bias that’s giving people like you more confidence than you would otherwise have to express your opinions on this topic in public.
August 30th, 2010 | 7:52 pm
I would ask Javier and other enlightened young folk: Would you engage in homosexual sex? If you did, do you think there might be any personal or emotional consequences? Would you want your neice, nephew, brother or perhaps your child to engage in homosexual sex? Would you like your son to marry another man? Are sexual acts, whether straight or gay, of any consequence at all, or are they just morally neutral experiences? Discuss.
August 30th, 2010 | 8:21 pm
Feeney, no to the first, because I am married to a woman and a youth pastor who does wish to commit adultery. As to the rest, sure! My younger brother is openly bisexual and my parents (my father is a pastor) and our congregation accept him and his boyfriend with loving, open arms. As for my kids, I would be cool if one of my kids were gay or bisexual. It’s part of the mosaic of human diversity. As for the morality of homosexuality, the same moral rules apply as to heterosexuality; no double standards. Within the context of a loving, committed relationship, I personally find it a great thing to be embraced, even by those who are not gay or bisexual!
As for JB’s assertion that the aforementioned link proves polls cannot be believed, I object to his unempirical conclusion. While I don’t doubt that there is a growing tendency for people to say they are pro-gay marriage because they sense the tide is turning, the tide is very real. The number of non-gay people speaking fervently in favor of same-sex marriage has skyrocketed just in the last few years to a near tipping point, and I am talking about everyday people I know and hear, including pastors and businesspeople. As a college student, I can tell you that this generation has become amazingly fervent in their support of this issue, even amongst many young evangelicals I fellowship with on campus.
August 30th, 2010 | 9:03 pm
Feeney,
I like to think of myself as an enlightened 32 year-old, not necessarily young nor old. I am a woman who is legally married to her wife in California. Although we enjoy sex, our marriage is not so much about our sexuality as it about our love and commitment for each other. My wife is truly my better half and the one with whom I would like to start a family.
To answer your questions:
1. The personal and emotional consequences of our sexuality resulted in a loving and lasting relationship….which then lead to intimacy.
2. I would not mind any of my relatives engaging in a heterosexual or homosexual acts. That is his or her business, not mine…especially not yours.
3. If my son found love with another person (woman or man) and wanted a lifelong commitment, I hope they could get married.
4. Sexual acts, gay or straight, should be loving experiences that bring one closer to self and God. The morality of each individual’s sexual experience (gay or straight) is to be weighed by the individual and their Creator…no one else. So, it is not my place to answer that question in full.
I doubt there is any “spiral of silence” or “manufacturing of people’s consent”. More likely, it is biased research funded by The Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute…or the conservative fear of progress. Every day I meet people from across the country who support gay rights before they even know that I am gay.
In this country, people are finally speaking up about their sexual identity instead of hiding it. In turn, friends, families and acquaintances are taking a long look at their values. They are deciding marriage should not be about “government-controlled filiation” (from Pro-Prop. 8 attorneys). Instead, people are deciding marriage means the legal and binding contract of two individuals who love each other, want to build a life together and wish to take on all the rights and responsibilities of their recognized union. Sex is no longer their false idol…love and family is more important.
The problem is that kind of change in public attitude can not be quantified by a religiously-funded institution…so, those institutions must come to convoluted and ridiculous conclusions in order to retain the interests of the zealots who fund them.
August 30th, 2010 | 9:04 pm
Javier, I don’t want to belabor the point, here, but the linked article (which I assume you still have not read) describes the hypothesis of polling bias on this issue and how a North Carolina firm (Public Policy Polling) tested it empirically and found overwhelming empirical confirmation.
On the other hand, the evidence you present to support the claim that “the number of non-gay people speaking fervently in favor of same-sex marriage has skyrocketed just in the last few years to a near tipping point” is drawn from “everyday people [you] know and hear, including pastors and businesspeople … [and] … even … many young evangelicals [you] fellowship with on campus.”
Now, I don’t wish to deny your evidence, but I do hope you understand the difference between an empirical study and anecdotal testimony. If not, I’m sure you’ll run across it soon enough in your college curriculum.
August 30th, 2010 | 9:48 pm
My initial postings had links to lots of empirical evidence, i.e., polls from multiple established, well-known, historic polling organizations.
Regarding the Public Policy Polling, poll and statistics guru Nate Silver has cast considerable doubt on its polling. He says:
Sample variance. In other words, random noise. PPP’s poll consisted of 606 voters, a relatively small sample; CNN’s consisted of 1,000 adults
There is, however, somewhat more evidence that the PPP poll has suffered from sample anomalies. In particular, the age distribution they show is rather flat: just 44 percent of 18-29 year-old respondents said they supported gay marriage, versus 31 percent of registered voters aged 66 and up. By contrast, a Pew poll in August, 2009, which had a much larger (~2,000 person) sample and for which comprehensive cross-tabs are available , had 58 percent of 18-29 year-olds in support of gay marriage, but just 20 percent of those 66 and older. Likewise, the Proposition 8 exit poll in California in 2008, which also had a larger sample, had 61 percent of 18-to-29 year olds opposed to Prop 8 (that is, supporting gay marriage) versus 39 percent of those 65 and up.
Moreover, the PPP poll has only 11 percent of its respondents between ages 18-29, whereas 19 percent of actual voters in 2008 were. And they show essentially no racial split in support for gay marriage, which contradicts virtually all other research on the topic.
Different sample frames. PPP’s poll is of registered voters, whereas CNN’s was conducted among all adults. Since adults who are not registered to vote tend to be younger, and younger people tend to be more supportive of gay marriage, that might account for a couple points’ worth of difference.
Since it has become somewhat “politically incorrect” to oppose gay rights, it’s possible that the automated surveys are relatively more immune from social desirability bias.
While there may be some truth to this, I don’t think it entirely explains PPP’s results. The reason is that their poll also showed fairly low levels of support for marijuana legalization: 34 percent in favor and 52 percent opposed. While that’s not an enormous outlier, the average of the four live-operator polls on marijuana legalization since the start of 2010 have shown an average of 41 percent support for its legalization.
As I explained at length here, you’d expect social desirability bias on the marijuana question to run the other way, i.e., people might be more willing to express support for legalizing marijuana to an automated script rather than to a real person on the other end of the line who might be a mother, an impressionable teenager, etc. And indeed, there is some evidence that marijuana rights poll better on automated surveys. But this one was an exception, which leads me to wonder whether it simply drew a non-representative sample.
August 30th, 2010 | 10:07 pm
FWIW, I think Javier is right in his assertion that support for SSM is growing rapidly. Irrespective of some 10% of the population too chicken to publicly express their timid dissent from the popular movement, there is quite evidently a cresting tidal wave of support for what would have been seen as transparently absurd only 40 years ago. Of course, Javier and his ilk fancy themselves enlightened – and 50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong, right? But a basic truth about the human condition is being suppressed by a culture infatuated with adolescent philistinism – at a terrible loss to our youth.
At least among those raised in the Contraceptive era, marriage is largely no longer understood as a normative institution, adapted to society, which individuals enter into publicly as part of a social compact. Marriage is now understood as a kind of badge of social respectability conferred by public authority at the request of a couple (?) who seek it as an attribute of their “relationship.” The boundaries of legitimate sex no longer involves marriage (how quaint!), but some sentimental variation on “loving commitment.” Friendship, in other words, is now the legitimate boundary of sex, and marriage is no longer a normative social institution, but a kind of optional fancy garnish upon “personal relationships” (friendships) that involve fornication (where children are welcomed only when ‘wanted’). Marriage, in other words, no longer exists as a functional social institution – even though it can still exist in particular cases.
August 30th, 2010 | 10:38 pm
“Sexual acts, gay or straight, should be loving experiences that bring one closer to self and God. The morality of each individual’s sexual experience (gay or straight) is to be weighed by the individual and their Creator…no one else. So, it is not my place to answer that question in full.”
God has revealed in the Bible that he is offended by homosexuality and other forms of fornication, just as he is offended by lying, cruelty, etc. Just because you feel loving when you fornicate does not make it OK in God’s eyes. If you call yourself a Christian, I caution you not to set yourself up as the arbiter of right and wrong, in effect playing God and worshipping yourself. That would be a truly tragic mistake.
August 30th, 2010 | 11:23 pm
Javier * Thanks for your response. That’s quite a world you live in. Not exactly my cup of tea, but thanks anyway. Just Breathe * Thank you too for sharing your fantasies.
August 31st, 2010 | 7:27 am
Regarding my fantasies, I meant to say that I “do NOT wish to commit adultery.”
August 31st, 2010 | 9:08 am
Part of the reason for the increasing support of gay marriage I think is the tendency towards dishonesty on the part of gay activists like Javier here. The guy claims to be a married heterosexual youth pastor, which is transparently false on all counts, but important for giving himself what he imagines is some kind of authority to speak here. And people take him at face value.
Y’all gotta stop taking the gay activist crowd at their word, they’re about as honest as those early pro-choicers who made up their own statistics about back-alley abortions. Stop being rubes.
August 31st, 2010 | 9:47 am
Sean, you obviously don’t know much about modern mainline Christianity or current campus ministries. You speak as if you were caught in a bygone era where such things were unheard of.
August 31st, 2010 | 1:12 pm
Javier,
For myself, if your expressions are indication of the state of it, I thank GOD that I know very little of ‘modern mainline Christianity’. I’ll take the words of Christ (translated and paraphrased of course) that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman for life. That this is the only sexual relationship blessed and approved of by GOD the Father and that we were created for this relationship ‘from the beginning.’
August 31st, 2010 | 1:33 pm
@Mike – Coming out brought me closer to God. I stopped lying to myself and started living as I was intended. I think it would be in your best interest to stop forcing God’s children to bend to your will…Jesus said nothing of homosexuality. He spent His time preaching about love and respect for your neighbors. So, try it.
@Javier – I enjoyed your responses. I think theses guys would like to live into their bygone era until it fades away…“not that there’s anything wrong with that!” It is certainly their prerogative to live by studies that take their concepts from outdated Seinfeld episodes. It’s actually kind of hopeful…just as it is harder to find Seinfeld on TV because it is increasingly obsolete and irrelevant…the intolerant voices will also become obsolete and irrelevant.
August 31st, 2010 | 1:43 pm
lol @ javier for pretending to be married to a woman just to make a point. Seriously, what straight woman would have you? :P
August 31st, 2010 | 2:02 pm
Mike, would you live the life of a cloistered monk? If not, does that mean you “really don’t approve of” that lifestyle?
August 31st, 2010 | 8:20 pm
When you see him, he won’t ask if you were true to yourself, he will ask if you were true to him.
September 1st, 2010 | 8:58 am
I guess the state does have an interest in what goes on in the bedroom–not that there is anything wrong with this:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2012768889_eastside_woman_accused_of_havi.html
September 2nd, 2010 | 4:02 pm
Homosexual marriage is not about marriage. The underlying and real crux of the issue is to completely normalize homosexuality and equate it to heterosexuality.
So the real question is why have so many people normalized homosexuality, and why did they have this need in the first place?
I have begun to sketch some thoughts to the answer, which is quite long for blog comments (link on my name).
In short:
People who have a need to normalize homosexuality tend to have a sexuality ideology that understands sexuality (including homosexuality) in very ignorant ways, including very stereotypical concepts.
The other interesting characteristic of most people who normalize homosexuality is their own attitude to their views on human sexuality. Most of them see themselves as great authorities on sexuality, no matter how ignorant they are on the subject or any related subject that intersects the realm of sexuality (psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology, political science, history). We don’t see this same kind of arrogant attitude concerning a variety of other subjects (such as astrophysics, for example). It’s rare to see a person who is quite ignorant on physics to claim they are experts, but when it comes to sexuality, everyone is an expert. I would say this is probably due to the profound emotional salience of the topic of sexuality and that fact that, somehow or another, sexuality is always part of an individual’s life experience.
For most people who normalize homosexuality, there is a desperate need to equate homosexuality to heterosexuality and to repeatedly state that homosexuals are exactly the same as heterosexuals, whether we are talking about problems with sexual behavior, relationships, violence, etc. Every study that shows difference and every testimony that presents a difference must be attacked and brushed away from consciousness and cannot be acknowledged.
Tied to the above is the following:
In particular, on the narrower subject of SSM (and not just any other behavior concerning homosexuals), I have never seen any proponent of SSM take the initiative to inform people that homosexuals shun marriage like the plague in countries where SSM has been legalized (only roughly 1% of homosexuals have decided to marry).
It is another way homosexuality fundamentalists lie by omission concerning problems with homosexuals, thus showing their dishonesty. Since the reasons for this marriage shunning involve dysfunctional attitudes found in a good number of homosexuals, the propaganda is put into to place to conceal reality.
There is a good amount of qualitative data on why homosexuals shun marriage. If taken to heart, marriage is incompatible with promiscuity, and non-committed or perverse and exploitative attitudes in personal relationships and sexuality. And that is incompatible with the psychological make-up of a great number of people with a homosexual problem. (Certainly not only a problem concerning homosexuals, but surely a major problem with this population).
Thus what I observe is a highly ridiculous situation. While we have a society with a large number of homosexuals with damaging views and behaviors concerning relationships/marriages and sexuality, all of this is largely ignored or lied about, and endless energy and time is spent on the question of legalizing or not SSM. Not that the latter is a trivial question or one without profound consequences. However in light of all the cowardice to deal with exploitation and violence issues involving non-heterosexuals as perpetrators, it does reflect a larger dishonesty dynamics in the current panorama of American culture, which is in itself part of a larger denial problem to deal with such issues involving heterosexual perpetrators.
Homosexual propaganda fits like a glove in any highly violent and irresponsible society like the US that has endemic and epidemic sexuality and personal relationship issues and where a good number of people are very comfortable in largely pushing these issues to some negligent position of importance, when not dismissing them altogether.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact