One recent addition to the same-sex marriage debate is the claim that by advancing arguments that civil marriage ought not to become gender-neutral, conservatives have “blood on their hands,” having committed the polemical equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater, especially given the tragic recent suicides of gay sexual harrassment victims.
As the argument goes, young gay teens witness the battle over the public meaning of civil marriage, and conclude that traditional marriage threatens their future—even the worth of their own lives—causing depression and suicide among the emotionally vulnerable. In other words, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes might describe it, it’s a case of deciding whether advocacy for the status quo on civil marriage constitutes a “clear and present danger” to public mental health.
There are at least three preliminary objections to the “clear and present danger” argument. First, it is highly dubious to claim that proposals for same-sex marriage have a logical connection to the gay rights movement. The nuts and bolts of same-sex marriage, after all, merely propose that civil marriage law be changed so as to be indifferent to gender; this in turn refocuses the purpose of marriage on adult preferences, and away from solidifying the archetypal environment for child-rearing. This setup is logically not “gay marriage,” because two men civilly marrying need not identify as gay for the contract to be recognized.
There are no plans to test prospective couples for gay self-identification; this, among other things, would discriminate against groups like bisexuals, or the arguable majority of others who take their “nontraditional” sexual orientations to be more fluid than to fit into strict categories of attraction. It is true, of course, that gender-neutral marriage is conducive to the novel kinds of family structures many public intellectuals are now positing, but the broad identification of same-sex marriage with the ordinary human rights of self-identifying gay people is simply a logical mistake.
The second and third objections are more pragmatic and political. There’s the obvious fact that the accusation of blood on conservatives’ hands is an appealing way to shut down reasonable argumentation about marriage law, reframing the debate as one between advocates of toleration and parties complicit with violence. And then there’s the further shame of using suicides as a fulcrum on which to swing an inherently political debate.
There’s still another objection, brought to bear by Maggie Gallagher yesterday in the New York Post, which garnered a vicious response in New York Magazine, and a positively depraved set of reader comments, some with intimations of violence against Gallagher.
In the piece, she mentions that in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been the legal norm for years, gay suicides remain unchanged, as well as the other social woes particular to the group. In particular, she points to the fact LGBT youths’ suicide attempt rate remains four times higher than other students, pointing to the continuing problem of anti-gay bullying—not the same-sex marriage debate—as the real culprit.
San Francisco just filed a brief in the Prop 8 case, saying 7 million Californians who voted to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman are responsible for high rates of suicide among gay people.
Apparently, either we all agree that gay marriage is good or gay children will die. . . .
The deeper you look, the more you see kids who are generally unprotected in horrifying ways that make it hard to believe — if you are really focusing on these kids’ well-being — that gay marriage is the answer. . . .
Whether you are looking at their faces or looking at the statistics, one thing is clear: These kids need help, real help. They should not become a mere rhetorical strategy, a plaything in our adult battles.
October 20th, 2010 | 6:58 pm
Is this column a joke? The nature of the discussion surrounding same-sex marriage perpetuates the feelings of inadequacy on the part of young gay people (and gay adults, too). Of course Maggie Gallagher has blood on her hands: she and her NOM thugs are fighting against the right of gay couples to have their relationships legally recognized. The message? Straight Supremacy is alive and well in America! That’s all this fight is about, straight supremacy. And yes, young gay teens are paying attention and are getting the message loud and clear: hide your sexual orientation or be prepared for second-class citizenship and fear for your safety.
October 20th, 2010 | 7:03 pm
shame on you.
October 20th, 2010 | 7:06 pm
Instead of being a know-it-all, no way, absolutist, consider what its like being a gay closeted teenager.
I’m delighted that the federal court system is handling gay related issues, because the collective mentality of most AmeriKans is extraordinarily low, and they can’t handle it.
October 20th, 2010 | 7:41 pm
Wow, a conservative manages to defy rational thinking and logic yet again with this mind-boggling column.
October 20th, 2010 | 7:58 pm
Interesting how so far none of these comments deal with actual facts — such as the unchanged suicide numbers in MA, where homosexual unions are already civilly recognized. These commenters appeals are solely based on emotions, which catch the attention but wilt upon rigorous scrutiny.
The feelings of inadequacy of homosexual teenagers absolutely should be taken seriously, but seriously in the sense of these teens needing help dealing with the disordered nature of their same-sex attractions and how those attractions, disordered as they are, do not define their value as persons. The false “help” from the homosexual community, demanding from and accusing others who speak of homosexual activity as immoral, only masks the actual problem.
October 20th, 2010 | 8:51 pm
Erin, the fact that Gay marriage exists in Massachusetts does not mean that anti-Gay rhetoric has become non-existent in that state. Nor does it mean that Gay teens (or adults) living there are not exposed to the fight against it going on else where. Do you think last years battle in Maine was not reported in Massachusetts? In this day and age battles in one state are broadcast over the internet and read all over the world. Do you think Gay people anywhere in America are unaware of Uganda’s kill the Gays bill? Do you think that the anti-Gay tirades of Christian fundamentalists is only heard in the pews of their churches? What Gay people do not need is “help” from people like you who feel they are disordered and immoral. Those types of attitudes are exactly why so many Gay people try to kill themselves. Not because the Gay community is working to gain equal justice under the law. For you to state, that being Gay in no way defines a persons value in one breath and then call them disordered and immoral in the next, is hypocritical.
October 20th, 2010 | 8:53 pm
Great column. I think the proactive sexual culture is responsible for much confusion and depression among young people. Sex exists to make kids, not for kids to practice. Encouraging young people to be active is merciless, whichever “orientation” is involved.
Erin: thanks for the first intelligent comment.
October 20th, 2010 | 10:06 pm
Perhaps the statistics are unchanged because no one of any value has actually seen them…
I for one would love to see these data sets she seems to have for which to draw my own conclusions…
October 20th, 2010 | 11:01 pm
What if a man kills himself after discovering his wife in bed with his brother? Does it follow then that the moral condemnation of adultery is the culprit, that the man would still be alive if only society had not been condemning of adultery, for a society with open marriages would be less condemning?
That is, of course, a completely stupid argument, but no less stupid than “moral criticism of same-sex acts” is the cause of suicides by people who commit these acts. After all, in the case of the Rutgers students, one can think of it as a case of distributing pornography. So, perhaps the proximate cause for the suicide was society’s obsession with privacy and keeping sex in that realm. So, perhaps the victim in this case should have been tolerant to voyeurs, who perhaps, through no fault of their own, enjoy watching others have sex in much the same way that homosexuals enjoy having sex. Who is to say that voyeurism is wrong? If gender does not matter, why should privacy?
October 20th, 2010 | 11:34 pm
All I see are excuses, not a single legitimate objection.
October 21st, 2010 | 12:09 am
How can we be sure that the “closeted gay teens” in question are being tormented by the traditional marriage crowd exclusively?
It’s also possible that they may be disheartened about the general demographics and health stats associated with the gay lifestyle (20% Aids, 60-year lifespan, off-the charts domestic violence levels).
The suppression of statistics is an imperative part of our nation’s mental health! Nothing else will do!
Who’s with me?
If you aren’t, then you’re a hater, just sayin’.
October 21st, 2010 | 2:42 am
Well, look how race-related lynchings in the US dropped dramatically after Loving v Virginia in 1967.
And consider how many condom-using heterosexuals get beaten up by skinhead thugs as a direct result of popes and bishops condemning artificial contraception as “unnatural”.
October 21st, 2010 | 3:51 am
This http://tinyurl.com/252m54h likewise suggests that those who publicly denounce pedophiles should be held legally accountable for the consequences of their actions. Geoffrey Robertson first, perhaps…?
October 21st, 2010 | 4:26 am
It’s totally unfair to think that Maggie Gallager doesn’t feel bad that those homosexual children died. I mean, after all, if too many homosexuals died, there wouldn’t be any more need for her NOM group, and she would be out of a fat paycheck.
October 21st, 2010 | 4:34 am
Kevin you wrote: “Is this column a joke? The nature of the discussion surrounding same-sex marriage perpetuates the feelings of inadequacy on the part of young gay people (and gay adults, too).”
I’m going to disagree. First, in places like Holland there’s wider acceptance of “gay marriages” and still high numbers of mental illness.
But you don’t speak for all gay people. Many homosexuals oppose “ame-sex marriage” for libertarian and conservative reasons and are not sheep. Thus, I think you should encourage more free speech, open your ears more, and consider that you’re stereotyping.
October 21st, 2010 | 8:02 am
There is no doubt that membership in a minority group causes sadness and feelings of isolation. I know from personal experience that this is true. Believing as I do that fundamental moral concepts (not religious doctrine) applicable to all persons exist; that these concepts have been handed down through the generations; and that their abuse through ignorance and misunderstanding is the cause of much evil places me in a subgroup or class which is subjected to marginalization at best or contempt and abuse at worst.
Should I be protected from this loneliness, contempt, and abuse by law. My answer is no, I should not be and cannot be if our society is to remain free. I must have the courage of my convictions and be willing to civilly defend them when asked in spite of the fact that I may suffer for proposing ideas that are not widely accepted.
A Catholic physician who will not provide abortion services or referrals may lose her eligibility for federal health insurance payments. If a pharmacist she may be forced to dispense preparations and remedies that offend her conscience. A merchant who does not remain open on Sunday may go out of business. In fact if I offer any public service I must tailor it to the law or close it. This is the sometimes very high price one pays for having convictions.
I do not think that those who advocate forcing approval and affirmation of homosexual marriage have understood that other minority groups exist and that the members of these groups also have feelings and can be injured, even psychologically harmed, by lack of acceptance. Should these citizens also demand protection from the courts. In their opinion, should I.
As faith cannot be forced or required by law, so also love of neighbor. We can teach mutual respect and consideration within difference while accepting the pain that is unavoidable in a society of free citizens. The alternative – that of life as subjects of a tyrannical oligarchy – is not, to say the least, a solution to our problems.
October 21st, 2010 | 8:23 am
Kevin Staley-Joyce,
I find this piece to be lacking Christian charity because of the presumption here:
“the battle over the public meaning of civil marriage, and conclude that traditional marriage threatens their future—even the worth of their own lives”
Marriage equality activists do not make that argument. That’s your argument and you might want to note that it isn’t polite to place words in other people’s mouths. As Maggie Gallagher’s oft-cited statistics note, children do best when raised by their married biological parents and it is likely that the majority of marriage-equality advocates were raised in traditional families. We see the traditional family as a public good and we want to be part of that good institution.
If you would have said:
“The political battle waged by Christianist political forces to prevent the legal recognition of same-sex marriage (or any gay-right for that matter) takes a psychological toll on GLBT people, their friends and families causing them to question their future and the value of their own lives.”
Then that would have been an accurate statement. I know because I continue to find myself traumatized by the ugly things said about me and my family by the Virginia Family Foundation, VA Concerned Women for America, the Virginia Conference of Catholic Bishops and a host of other organizations that banded together not only to pass a Constitutional amendment in Virginia but to make it clear that GLBT are not welcome in this state.
October 21st, 2010 | 9:33 am
If same-sex unions are made legal, on what grounds would we reject the claims of commited bi-sexuals that it is discriminatory not to be allowed them to marry a person of each gender? Afterall the law would then be standing between them and their personal fulfillment and a full acceptance of their basic humanity (as homosexuals claim the opposition to their right to marriage now does).
And so it would inevitably be the law of the land that bi-sexuals be permitted two spouses. And then what objection may be formed to polygamy at large? So that is then affirmed as well for the sake of self-centered personal fulfillment…..
October 21st, 2010 | 10:07 am
What Maggie fails to address is the rhetoric surrounding the anti-gay marriage issue.
Of course she attempts to paint the situation in an “innocent” advocacy light. WRONG.
The ads and messages they are running goes way beyond marriage, calling homosexuals a threat to the nation, immoral, dangerous.
These messages are meant to exaggerate an issue to mobilize people to voting booths. It also mobilizes them against gays on the streets.
She does have blood on her hands. She is involved with dirty fear mongering politics and is seeing the harvest of the hatred she has sown. She is guilty and wreaks of corruption.
October 21st, 2010 | 10:13 am
“I know because I continue to find myself traumatized by the ugly things said about me and my family by the Virginia Family Foundation, VA Concerned Women for America, the Virginia Conference of Catholic Bishops and a host of other organizations that banded together not only to pass a Constitutional amendment in Virginia but to make it clear that GLBT are not welcome in this state.”
Traumatized!? I bet it just gives you the vapors! Those people are so icky!
October 21st, 2010 | 10:15 am
Even without the suicide issue, a case can be made for equating certain forms of speech with action, for speech creates the social environment in which all have to live. This is clearly the case with speech that fosters a climate of opinion that privileges some and disadvantages others, for example, by legitimising the denial of equal regard and treatment on the grounds of ethnicity, gender identification or lifestyle preference. For those living in the hostile environment thus created, the suppression of such speech is a liberation. It may well be that only in this way can equal respect and validation become a reality of social life and equality become more than a legal fiction.
I wouldn’t find it particularly convincing myself, being rather to the right of Joseph de Maistre, but it seems a fair enough argument, if one accepts liberal presuppositions.
October 21st, 2010 | 10:39 am
My son was bullied into serious depression last year because a bunch of kids at his school decided, on no evidence whatsoever, that he is gay. The parents of ALL of the bullies are conservative Catholics and loud opponents of gay marriage. Their kids learned that “gay = icky” and used that to mistreat my son, who now has no friends in school at all and spends his lunchtime reading in the library. (We have a therapist.) For all of you who think that your rhetoric about gays being “disordered” is loving and kind, please consider my experience. I am now a fervent support of all gay rights measures in the hope that if gays become accepted generally in society, the use of the name will no longer work to harm children.
October 21st, 2010 | 11:04 am
Thomas Aquinas –
Um… consent?
Bangwell Putt –
Advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriage is not the same as ‘forcing approval and affirmation’. For example, every single advocate of same-sex marriage has been adamant about not forcing ministers to perform marriages that go against their convictions.
(Oh, and many same-sex marriage proponents were for civil unions. Then the Michigan and Virginia ‘defense of marriage’ amendments banned civil unions, too. If you don’t leave your opponent a line of retreat, don’t be surprised if it turns into an all-or-nothing battle…)
October 21st, 2010 | 12:07 pm
Kevin, you state that “The nature of the discussion surrounding same-sex marriage perpetuates the feelings of inadequacy on the part of young gay people (and gay adults, too).”
Is it the “nature of the discussion” that promotes the inadequacy, or the very nature of the reality of being gay that (quite naturally) promotes the recognition of that inadequacy? Gay couples cannot have children naturally, after all–quite unlike traditional marriages. Many/most infertile heterosexuals grapple with feelings of inadequacy (rightly or wrongly) when they discover they can’t have children.
No matter how much wishful thinking involved, that fundamental truth of the universe can’t be refuted. It is clear logic and reason that shows “homosexual marriage” and “heterosexual marriage” are not and can never be said to be of the same essence and kind.
One must separate the issue of marriage from the issue of unjust persecution of those struggling with homosexuality, for those are two different issues.
October 21st, 2010 | 12:42 pm
“Forcing” an issue does not involve only the clergy and churches, although the case involving Catholic Charities and adoption in Boston is a case in point. “Forcing” an issue such as marriage between two men or two women involves everyone since marriage and the family are fundamentally important to a culture (unless one supports some form of state-run facilities for children who are deprived of their mother and father). Ordinary citizens of conscience and good will are no less concerned than like-minded members of the clergy.
To the mother of the boy who was mistreated at school: My children were opposed to abortion. Several of them also retreated to the library. This did them no harm. Other students were there too. They learned a great deal, developed inner strength, and became courageous adults. I would not however have left them in a situation where they were completely isolated.
October 21st, 2010 | 12:55 pm
Regarding civil unions: In many states, efforts were made to provide carefully structured civil union statutes. Only after these were enacted did it become clear that establishment of civil union laws was only a first step in the struggle to re-define marriage. California is a case in point.
October 21st, 2010 | 1:33 pm
If you were all coming up with reasons why gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed that didn’t involve denigrating gay people and basically calling them the scum of the earth at every turn, then it would be a different story. It’s not that anti-gay-marriage speech necessarily correlates with higher incidence of depression – it’s that nearly all anti-gay-marriage speech is at its core anti-gay speech. That is what causes the depression. And yes, there is higher depression in the Netherlands – and guess what, there is still plenty of hate speech there, regardless of what their laws actually are. And if you practice hate speech, you are culpable. I’m sorry you don’t like the fact that your speech is characterized as hate speech, but the fact remains, that it is hate speech. Either accept the consequences of your actions, or don’t accept them and change. I would prefer the latter but you’re free to do both. Fortunately for you, this country freely allows people to say the most horrible things about each other. Unfortunately for you, this country doesn’t necessarily allow you not to get called out on it.
October 21st, 2010 | 2:17 pm
Mr. Weiss,
I will defend with my blood and life (if need be) the dignity and well-being of a person who is homosexual and being physically attacked because of his orientation (even though I don’t endorse his lifestyle). He/She is a child of God and loved in spite of their particular sins, just like the rest of us.
But you engage in something worse than hate-speech when you say a person has no right to disagree respectfully with a homosexual lifestyle, or when gay advocates try and force churches and ministers to violate their very conscience by forcing them to marry them. Such is the very definition of tyranny and slavery.
October 21st, 2010 | 2:26 pm
I am willing to say that my most important non-faith based concern about homosexuality is also my concern regarding heterosexual promiscuity. Both practices are unhealthy – associated with diseases that are, in some cases, incurable. These diseases are often contracted before a young person has time to integrate his or her sexuality into the wholeness of his or her personhood.
Another concern is this: The desire of homosexual persons for children has led to practices such as laboratory production of children using life-giving material from a mother and father who will never be known to the child. That is in my opinion a grave injustice – a practice that takes control of another person’s life without his or her consent.
I actually hate no one; I have never hated another person. I understand that life is difficult. I do not think I have all the answers and am willing to engage in civil discussion.
October 21st, 2010 | 3:17 pm
Saying something is good and right — or affirming it or putting it into law — does not make it good or right, for society or for the individual. I remember being told by a mental health therapist that my depression-driven promiscuity was good and right, nothing to be ashamed of. I felt completely devastated. I was looking for help, not affirmation! I finally found help and healing in the Church.
October 21st, 2010 | 3:44 pm
Has anyone other than me noticed that the whole “clear and present danger” nonsense is based on the notion that homosexuals are so hypersensitive and weak-willed that the opinion of others about their sexuality actually causes them to commit suicide? Isn’t that exactly the stereotype of the sissified “fag”?
October 21st, 2010 | 10:26 pm
Fred: Indeed so. I once noted elsewhere on this blog that it doesn’t help the cause of getting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed for gay campaigners to claim every close male friendship (eg JH Newman) as homosexual with an emphasis on the sexual. I suspect it also doesn’t help that cause to argue that “Gays are horrendously traumatised, sometimes even driven to suicide, by people reading from Leviticus in public… but other than that, they’ll make fine soldiers.”
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:22 am
How shameful. No responsibility for your words? How about the years during which Mr. Perkins and his “Focus on the Family” has been opposing the “Day of Silence” – an attempt by kids to address bullying in schools – with a “Day of Truth”? Oh yeah, and the “Day of Truth” was all about preaching to your classmates about how the “Day of Silence” was an attempt to preach a “gay agenda”.
You folks have no shame whatsoever. And when you’re caught with your pants down, its the old “wide stance” defense.
Who was it who said “whatever you do to the least of your brothers, that you do unto Me” and “whatever you fail to do for the least of your brothers, that you fail to do for Me”? Someone in this conversation seems to have forgotten.
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:31 am
To someone above who wrote that what we need to address is something very Catholic: “The feelings of inadequacy of homosexual teenagers absolutely should be taken seriously, but seriously in the sense of these teens needing help dealing with the disordered nature of their same-sex attractions and how those attractions, disordered as they are, do not define their value as persons. The false “help” from the homosexual community, demanding from and accusing others who speak of homosexual activity as immoral, only masks the actual problem.”
Yes, that help is called “Gay Pride”. You don’t help people by telling them how “disordered” they are and then offering them no alternative other than to spend their entire life without love or companionship or understanding. Some of you probably think you can offer a “cure”, but no professional anywhere believes that a cure exists, and all the research just shows that those who attempt some sort of “conversion therapy” merely end up more depressed. Its just cruel to offer people false hopes.
Sir or madame, I’ll tell you from my own experience and that of every one of my gay friends: the kids who survive middle school and high school and come to terms with their sexualit will eventually look back at the religion that misunderstood and mischaracterized them. And they will recognize that that religion, in fact, lies, and it will be gone. Because they will no longer believe. They will recognize that those like you really don’t know what you’re talking about, that those religious leaders are just clueless frauds, and that is religion is false.
And you, sir or madame, have taken that away from them.
October 22nd, 2010 | 1:04 am
Amazing how many people miss the point, both in the comments here and in the linked Gallagher article.
The point is that it seems regardless of the societal acceptance or not of gay marriage specifically, gay youths still are dealing with intense emotional issues and trauma. Therefore the legality or not of it specifically doesn’t seem to help.
That isn’t a strike against it, but instead suggests that neither side should really focus on it as much as they do. The converse is true: despite gay marriage being legal, Massachussets hasn’t devolved any worse than any other state in terms of the death of traditional marriage. Gallagher’s relentless focus on it is not all that needed.
The disturbing thing is that if these statistics are true, in a culture which is about as close to tolerance as legally can be done without criminalizing doctrines, GLBT teens are STILL cast adrift in increasing numbers. If the poster mentioning Holland is correct, even in a culture that casts off the number one bugbear of gay rights advocates, Christianity, they still are troubled.
I think this shows the limits of purely political changes.
October 22nd, 2010 | 12:27 pm
Sorry TJ, Homosexuality is at best a disorder, at worst a willful perversion. Actually, it is probably a continuum with one of those possibilities as a pole at each end. For instance an otherwise perfectly heterosexual male prisoner who has sex with other male prisoners because that’s what’s sexually available is clearly making a choice. At the other end of the continuum are homosexuals who do seem to be biologically different from heterosexuals, indicating some genetic component similar to the genetic predisposition to alcoholism (The fact, by the way, that alcoholism is partially genetic in no way makes it more desirable, more healthy, or less of a disorder). Many individuals move across that continuum in various ways to varying degrees. I forget the exact percentage, but a fairly substantial number of heterosexuals have some homosexual experience then go on to lead normal heterosexual lives. There is also bisexuality, which seems to defy simplistic “geneticism.” So for you folks to claim some biological imperative that makes you a separate “race” similar to such genetic features as black skin or the epicanthic fold, is at best a half-truth and at worst utter nonsense.
October 23rd, 2010 | 9:02 am
Kevin Staley-Joyce,
Chris Rovzar’s article summed it up nicely and there has no response except to justify “the behavior” that perpetuates institutionalized discrimination. You may want to take the quote below to heart and spend some quiet time in prayer and meditation.
“She’s [Maggie's] not just opposed to gay marriage. She’s working as hard as she can to create an environment that delegitimizes the gay lifestyle, claiming that it “takes away freedom” from other people and threatens America’s very way of life. Institutionalized discrimination reinforces personal prejudice, that’s just a fact.”
If you do respond to the above observation, please send me a note and I’ll be sure to read your response.
October 24th, 2010 | 7:14 pm
“All my days I’ve been searching, to find out what this life is worth, through the books and babbles of time, I’ve made up my mind. Love is my Religion”
If only we were curious in a way that we could seek to understand one another as appose to curiosity sought to judge our brothers, we would find true happiness in co-existence with people distinct from us.
Love conquers all, Jesus Christ said “love one another, as I have loved you”
October 25th, 2010 | 10:03 am
To those advocates and or defenders of Gay
marriage is there an acceptable way to disagree with your position and not be labeled a hater or be accused of having blood on our hands, not that I would expect you to make the argument for me but is it actually possible.
You do know that in the USA there are approx.30,000 suicides a year of which about 8or 9 thousand happen to young people between the ages of 14 and 29. The reasons given range from depression, bullying to break-ups etc. Most are not related to homosexuality.
In the course of my life I have seen kids and adults being picked on for many reasons; from the color of their skin to their height, to being fat, being in the band, being a greaser, not being greaser, doing well in school , not doing well in school or just not being in the right clique. and so on. By your reasoning theres a lot of blood out there This does not even begin to address the more serious issues involving ethnic, Religious, philosophic and life style positions on any number of subjects.
You seem to want to have both ways, one, that this is a very serious issue which needs to be addressed and on the other hand oppossing points of view are not to be tolerated.
It would seem that this attempt to alter the sexual ethos of a society, with help from others, is a serious thing due serious consideration. Given the messines of our body politic there will be extreme voices on both sides. It is easy to pick the more egregious voices from either side(the straw men) and pretend that they represent the best arguments, they don’t. The problem deepens when one realizes that the best arguments will be ignored, so we are left with appeals to emotion and the basest of all ploys, power. This movement, gay rights, represents a seismic shift in our society and most people do not know how to deal with it so they acquiesque, shrug there shoulders and move on with there lives. Maybe the Edenesque world envisioned by the proponents will come to pass and people years hence will wonder what all the noise was about. But regardless there will be change and since this issue represents one of the organizing principles of cultures for millenium changing it to mean something else will have effects far beyond its proponents intentions but what the heck we want it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact