I won’t address all your points. Reconstruction? Doesn’t matter. Reasonable disagreement? You don’t see the difference, I’m not willing to show it to you. It’s not central except to the question of who should decide SSM–the legislature or the judiciary.

Fairness and sexual complementarity are more on-point. Take the second of these first. Discomplementarity (meaning, self-evidently, physiological and biological discomplementarity) is how St. Paul describes the wrongness of homosexual acts. You are denying that bodily complementarity has any functional or natural purpose or point. You seem committed to denying that the perpetuation of the human race is natural to the created order–as opposed to being just a matter of God’s will–in which case you are embracing an extreme form of theistic voluntarism. (Do you also believe that God could, if He chose, make square circles?)

Couldn’t God have built into creation the command to perpetuate the human race? Yes, and most Christians believe He did. But you don’t. If you did believe that, you would recognize that sexual complementarity has a moral and anthropological purpose.

And if, as you say, complementarity is not a generally applied idea, so what? Neither is “let there be light.” Sexuality, like the creation, has a strong element of singularity. It’s unique. That’s why complementarity has special force in this one context and not so much elsewhere.

Tragedy and justice: I think it is tragic but not unjust for same-sex couples not to be able to get married in civil law. Society has a duty to ameliorate some tragedies (the tragedy of drug addiction) but not all (the tragedy of bad luck). Same-sex couples are more like the latter. It is just their bad luck that their desires make them unfitted for real marriage, just as it’s my bad luck that, unlike my father, I could never be a pilot, due to deafness. I don’t see the injustice of society saying to me: “No, Ken, we don’t want you flying commercial airliners.” It’s tragic, but not unjust–just as it’s tragic but not unjust that same-sex couples, who are as unfitted for marriage as I am for flying commercial airplanes, cannot enjoy civil marriage. Maybe I can be allowed to fly small private aircraft under certain conditions, but same-sex couple are similarly allowed to marry under certain conditions–in religious ceremonies recognized by a church.

Speaking of football, same-sex marriage is like saying, “from now on, football shall be *flag* football” so that people who are physically incapable of playing traditional football can enjoy this socially approved sport and bask in its glory. If flag football replaced helmet-and-pads football, it would be fair to say that it abolished football by abandoning *real* football, just as same-sex marriage abolishes real marriage.

The passage you mentioned in your previous comment (in I Cor. 6) should be interpreted in light of Romans 1:26-27, not in opposition to it. I’m not enough of a Bible expert to know how to interpret the passage you cited, but I do know this basic rule of interpretation: Reconcile seemingly conflicting passages if that is possible, and if it’s not, try to decide which passage is more important in light of the whole. Since you evidently think the two passages are irreconcilable, why do you think the passage from I Cor. 6 matters more than Romans 1:26-27? Especially since the former’s teaching about homosexuality is vague, while the latter’s teaching is not.

Why, incidentally, do you think it’s good that homosexuality be perceived to be like idolatry? I don’t get that.

“You brought up Reconstruction and Yankees”

I think you’ve lost the context of the reference. You complained that the “legalization of same-sex marriage is the result of judicial diktat, not the democratic process.” Usually, when conservatives complain about judicial activism, they point to the civil rights acts of the 1960s as examples of good legislative process. Conservatives typically argue that judicial actions on civil rights were at least based on sound legislation as manifested in the Reconstruction Acts.

My point is that the Reconstruction Acts were the result of a grotesque act of tyranny, with martial law replacing the democratic process. I think today that conservatives and liberals alike celebrate the victory over segregation. But when conservatives argue that this victory shows the proper use of the legislative and judicial branches, they seriously distort history. Like blacks once were, gays are a despised minority. It will take a combination of legislation and judicial action to secure gay rights, just as it took a combination to secure civil rights for blacks.

“I don’t care for the Republican Party of the 1860s. It was imperious and self-righteous”

On the other hand, they passed the Reconstruction Acts. Nobody is perfect. If they hadn’t passed those acts, what would the civil rights acts been based on?

“I know the words of his that you quoted are inherently funny, at least to non-liberals.”

Do I really need to look up the poll data on how many Americans believe Obama is Muslim? I’d like you to ask a conservative Muslim whether he finds Hank’s words funny. How many conservative gays are laughing? How about the columnists who have written on First Things about their same-sex attraction? Do they find Hank funny? I wonder how much imagination it takes to see that the world isn’t divided between liberal and non-liberal.

“Against condoms in public secondary schools; against marriage-undermining same-sex marriage; against hard-core pornography (Hustler, not Playboy), against bathhouses; against no-fault divorce, etc”

I think you can find plenty of liberals joining conservatives on one or more of these issues. Lots of liberals like the v-chip and parental controls. Many liberals would support more light forms of censorship if they could be sure conservatives would restrain themselves. No more banning 1984 and Catcher in the Rye, etc. The other problem, of course, is the polarization that depicts all liberals as one way and all conservatives as another. It’s hard to draw precise lines around issues of censorship and community standards when people are running around talking about wars on Christmas and wars on women.

“Or who says having complementary sex organs is a necessary condition of sexual complementarity? Can you show they are wrong?”

As I say, I don’t know what complementarity means except that gay sex is wrong. The term is not used in any other context, and it is so vague that all it really means is that only one kind of sex act is allowed or considered central. It is hard to take seriously a concept whose sole purpose is to act as a trump card. It makes the argument circular. It boils down to saying gay sex is wrong because it isn’t straight sex.

“It refers to moral disagreement, or to conflicts of value–disagreements that implicate worldviews or basic moral beliefs. There is reasonable disagreement in this sense about abortion but not about federalism or gun control”

Ok. This sounds like jargon to me. Why is this distinction important to you?

“Robert Gagnon’s 500-page *The Bible and Homosexual Practice* is definitive–and magisterial”

Ok. Why is his book relevant? Does he agree with me that Paul was resolutely opposed homosexuality? Does he believe that homosexuality is more like drunkenness or idolatry?

“We have separate but equal for Native Americans on their reservations”

And that’s a good thing?

I probably would have been ok with civil unions, but the possibility didn’t stay alive for long. It’s strange to have a form of union where the only distinguishing feature is what kind of sex the couple has.

“Is justice and fairness what you say it is? Aren’t you assuming that it is, in fact, what you say it is?”

That’s not the point. My point is that people—real people, not philosophers—consult their guts, not abstract principles. In the old days, a lot of people in my congregation were against homosexuality, and they hewed to principle. Then they got to know real gay Christians, and they understood their principles differently. Some of the most powerful witnesses to our history as a congregation are by those who talk about how bigoted they once were.

“You don’t agree, but I’d like to know how your side responds to the book I recommended above.”

I can’t speak for anyone but myself. I think the full Christian tradition is very clearly against homosexuality. Thus, I’m likely to agree with Gagnon. My agreement means that any change has to be taken slowly and prayerfully. I think we’re there.

“Unfair, in matters of reasonable disagreement, because judges are unaccountable to the people”

It seems to me that conservatives in the 1850s would have argued that slavery is a matter of reasonable disagreement, so I just don’t know how the distinction is useful.

“we would have a reasonable chance of agreeing whether a cheating game was going on here, and how this affected the prospects of same-sex marriage.”

Let’s assume that I read the accounts and decided that Nussbaum was lying, why would I change my mind about gay marriage? My opinion on the question doesn’t hinge on what either Nussbaum or Kennedy thinks. My fellow congregants would still be who they are.

“Similarly, I defend traditional marriage despite the tragedy for same-sex couples of not being able to have civil marriages.”

Why do you think it is “tragic” that gays can’t marry? Why don’t you think it is just?

“Btw, that was my old high school that beat your Texas powerhouse school, Euless, last week”

Sorry. I don’t follow Dallas ball.

Shifting from the 1950s to the 1860s: You brought up Reconstruction and Yankees.

“Odd way to describe Reconstruction”: As carried out, Reconstruction was Carpetbaggery, not a fair public policy. I don’t care for the Republican Party of the 1860s. It was imperious and self-righteous.

Hank Jr’s wit: I don’t know anything about his beliefs, but I know the words of his that you quoted are inherently funny, at least to non-liberals. Btw, no one should miss slats grobnick’s hilarious August 24 comment. Now that’s how to make fun of liberals!

Legislation that conservatives would like to pass to keep sex from becoming a destructive force in society: Against condoms in public secondary schools; against marriage-undermining same-sex marriage; against hard-core pornography (Hustler, not Playboy), against bathhouses; against no-fault divorce, etc.

Sexual complementarity: What about someone who says the function of the male and female sex organs is a clear sign of the order of creation as instituted by God? Or someone who says this in a more secularized natural-law way? Or who says having complementary sex organs is a necessary condition of sexual complementarity? Can you show they are wrong?

Reasonable disagreement: It refers to moral disagreement, or to conflicts of value–disagreements that implicate worldviews or basic moral beliefs. There is reasonable disagreement in this sense about abortion but not about federalism or gun control.

St. Paul on homosexuality: Robert Gagnon’s 500-page *The Bible and Homosexual Practice* is definitive–and magisterial.

Civil Unions: We have separate but equal for Native Americans on their reservations, and (tendentiously but undeniably) for gender-segregated bathrooms. Separate but equal is a problem for liberals whose arguments for SSM can be considered by opponents of SSM as arguments for civil unions at best–e.g., the argument that socially sanctioned gay sex will be good for the whole society. (The idea behind “at best” being that same-sex couples aren’t properly qualified for marriage, but civil unions might be morally okay.)

People look for justice and fairness, not philosophical reasons: Is justice and fairness what you say it is? Aren’t you assuming that it is, in fact, what you say it is?

The Good News: The Bible says homosexuality is “against nature.” You don’t agree, but I’d like to know how your side responds to the book I recommended above. It’s slightly philosophical, though–the subtitle is *Texts and Hermeneutics*. Dictionary!

Judicial Review of Legislation: Unfair, in matters of reasonable disagreement, because judges are unaccountable to the people and because their decisions are constitutionally entrenched, making reversal difficult, and sometimes practically impossible. (I favor reversing Roe v. Wade because precedent is weak in the face of reasonable disagreement.)

Proxy for our disagreement: Suppose Martha Nussbaum was indeed lying. Would Justice Kennedy, if he knew she was lying in her testimony, have characterized the Colorado legislation as driven by “animus,” a characterization that helped pave the way for Lawrence v. Texas and thus for same-sex marriage? Maybe not–I think probably not. With this down-to-earth (non-philosophical) proxy, we would have a reasonable chance of agreeing whether a cheating game was going on here, and how this affected the prospects of same-sex marriage. But if you are reluctant to do the necessary reading, I confess that I am too.

Generally: I like high school football even though I’m concerned about concussions to young players, when they are most vulnerable to the longterm damage it can cause. Despite this danger, I defend high school football. I value it highly and would not want to abandon it for flag football, despite the tragedy of concussions (which can be minimized by, for example, abolishing the three-point stance, and other rule changes). Similarly, I defend traditional marriage despite the tragedy for same-sex couples of not being able to have civil marriages. I value traditional marriage, and seek to protect it from being effectively abolished, despite this tragic aspect–just like with high school football. (Btw, that was my old high school that beat your Texas powerhouse school, Euless, last week.)

“Lincoln was a racist by today’s terms.”

You seem to have shifted to the 1850s. I thought we were talking about the reasonableness of racism in the 1950s.

“Yankees are the northeastern liberals who persecuted the South during Reconstruction, thereby gravely damaging race relations for generations to come. They are, of course, the very same people leading the way for same-sex marriage and trying to steamroll the “bigoted” opposition”

First, Texans mean something quite different when we talk about Yankees. Second, this is an odd way to describe the Reconstruction. I don’t know how you can differentiate the abolitionists whose cause I presume you support from the Republicans who oversaw Reconstruction and passed the Reconstruction Amendments and who you disparage here.

“Hank Jr. was being hyperbolic and witty, as indicated by the fact that he knows perfectly well that Obama is no Muslim. (At least I hope he knows that!)”

What makes you think he was being witty? How well do you know his music?

“In my view, though, if a person is not “gay-friendly,” that person should not be presumed to be a bigot.”

I agree.

“My point about sexual union as sexual contact was that this is the only way that liberals can make same-sex couples fall under the rubric of sexual complementarity. Do you think these couples are sexually complementary? In what way? How is their joining together physically a “one flesh” union?”

First a general point. There’s rarely an “only way” to understand something.

The idea of complementarity has always seemed like a dodge to me. It seems to offer a vague sense that the sexes are different, and I only hear it being used as a defense against homosexuality.

The union as one flesh is clearly metaphorical and mysterious in Genesis. Women were not literally created out of the rib of the men they will marry. But when you’re with the right person, you feel as if you were finally with your own flesh again. Gay couples can feel that.

“Liberal pundits ignore Sex Week because they buy into the Sexual Revolution plus the Harm Principle”

Some probably follow this logic. Others probably follow the logic I described. I don’t see the purpose of a single, large generalization that you can use to describe all liberals as bad.

“they don’t like making laws to keep sex from becoming destructive”

What specific laws do you want to pass that will prevent sex from becoming destructive? This question gets to something important.

“The role of courts–why do you not oppose judicial supremacy in cases of reasonable disagreement?”

This series of questions rests on a distinction I either don’t buy or don’t understand. Don’t all cases involve “reasonable disagreement”? Why would something become a case if reasonable people didn’t disagree? In other words, can you name a case where one party was unreasonable?

“Romans 1:26-27 says that same-sex sexual sins are of a special sort.”

As you might remember, I don’t think Paul should be reinterpreted to mean anything other than what he plainly meant, which is that he found homosexuality unnatural. I also think Paul was wrong on that score, and you can see that in 1 Corinthians 6 and the Roman catechism: “the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers”

Paul places sodomites in a list of sins that with one exception is accepted universally by societies everywhere. Every society condemns thieves and swindlers, and most societies either reject or place significant restrictions on drunkenness and sexual immorality. Only monotheists, however, condemn idolatry.

Now here’s my question. Every sin except idolatry has clear, demonstrable harms that break other boundaries. The thief will eventually steal from those he loves. The drunkard will eventually hurt others beside himself. The idolater, however, can live a perfectly upright life but still not know the one God.

When gays were kept in the closet, they seemed like drunkards, the kind of people whose sin eventually eats up their whole lives. But now that gays are accepted and live openly, they seem more like idolaters, people who can live perfectly upright lives. As is clear in the revised catechism, even the Roman Church doesn’t see homosexuality as Paul did, as something that has this-worldly harmful effects.

“Would you be satisfied with civil unions instead of same-sex marriage?”

Civil unions are separate but equal, but that hasn’t worked in the past nor in the present.

“You disparage philosophy–you think it’s relatively unimportant.”

I think you put that fairly. Jesus was no philosopher, nor was Paul for that matter. Philosophy can help us understand what has happened or is happening, but I don’t think it creates change. And as a practical matter, I don’t think most people think philosophically. They look not for coherence, reason, or principle; they look for justice and fairness. Most of what Jesus preached and lived is contradictory, but it is sublimely fair and just.

““Hey, here’s Tom! He’s gay and he’s been with his partner for 30 years. Isn’t that great!”

Except I’m not talking about Tom, who is a philosophical abstraction. I’m talking about Gary and Don, who are not measured only by length of their love and faithfulness to one another, but by the consistency of their Christian practice. Remember that we are Methodists, which means that worship is only the beginning of our time together. We participate in devotionals together, we examine the state of our souls together, we work in the community together, we witness together in multiple ways. And this is not one singular couple but one of several. When we talk to other reconciling congregations, they report similar experiences.

The good news was not a philosophical argument; it was the witness of changed lives made possible by grace.

As to blacks, I get your point. Lincoln was a racist by today’s terms. In his day, there was reasonable disagreement about slavery–the Civil War was a theological crisis. But those arguments for slavery were rooted in the Old Testament. The New Testament tolerates slavery the way Jefferson Davis did–it is regrettable but it is here, and getting rid of it is not really high on the agenda–but in due course it would be better not to have it. (Jefferson Davis, like my hero Stonewall Jackson, was an exemplary Christian.) Anyway, you insult me by calling me a Yankee. Yankees are the northeastern liberals who persecuted the South during Reconstruction, thereby gravely damaging race relations for generations to come. They are, of course, the very same people leading the way for same-sex marriage and trying to steamroll the “bigoted” opposition.

Hank Jr. was being hyperbolic and witty, as indicated by the fact that he knows perfectly well that Obama is no Muslim. (At least I hope he knows that!) There must be a rarified liberal kind of humor that tickles your funny bone, but clearly conservative irony does not do it. There is obviously such a thing as bigotry towards homosexuals. In my view, though, if a person is not “gay-friendly,” that person should not be presumed to be a bigot. As an analogy, take someone like me who is very prejudiced against fat women–the more corpulent they are, the more prejudiced I am. And yet I’m perfectly friendly to the fat women I know. So bigotry is a mixed bag in any case.

My point about sexual union as sexual contact was that this is the only way that liberals can make same-sex couples fall under the rubric of sexual complementarity. Do you think these couples are sexually complementary? In what way? How is their joining together physically a “one flesh” union?

Liberal pundits ignore Sex Week because they buy into the Sexual Revolution plus the Harm Principle (“if no one is harmed by it, it’s no business of mine”). They may not want sexual libertinism for their families, but they don’t like making laws to keep sex from becoming destructive. Conservatives do. (It might comfort you to know that I think libertarians–except on the matter of centralized government–are even more foolish than liberals.)

The role of courts–why do you not oppose judicial supremacy in cases of reasonable disagreement? What justifies judicial supremacy in such cases, such as same-sex marriage? Are your beliefs consistent on this point? For the record, I believe the best-known case of conservative judicial supremacy–in affirmative action cases–is not nearly as bad as liberal judicial supremacy in abortion and same-sex marriage. Affirmative action does involves reasonable disagreement, but only about the means to the end (equality is the end). Abortion and same-sex marriage involve reasonable disagreement about the end, not just the means to the end.

Judicially dictating abortion and same-sex marriage is therefore much worse than dictating limits to–or even the end of–affirmative action. Ends are more morally significant than means–that’s why liberal judicial supremacy as we know it is worse than conservative judicial supremacy as we know it. I oppose both kinds.

On the differences between gays and straights. Romans 1:26-27 says that same-sex sexual sins are of a special sort. St. Paul is saying both that homosexuality reflects an unusual degree of estrangement from the created order (“male and female made He them”) and that this estrangement is characterized fundamentally by an illusion (an illusion which extends to revisionist–i.e., liberal–interpretations of Romans 1:26-27).

Would you be satisfied with civil unions instead of same-sex marriage? I don’t favor civil unions. I do think that opponents of SSM would benefit from having an argument about SSM that does not necessarily reject civil unions, or have the implication that they should be rejected. It seems to me–but I could be wrong–that the most prominent anti-SSM argument does incline to reject civil unions. I think this popular argument can be supplemented, not modified, to steer it away from necessarily rejecting civil unions. But the great thing about it is that it would enable us to say about a potent pro-SSM point: “That’s an argument for civil unions at best.” To be able to say that sort of thing forcefully, you don’t want your anti-SSM argument to *inevitably* oppose civil unions.

Michael, I have one big problem with you. You disparage philosophy–you think it’s relatively unimportant. It’s not. What real marriage is depends on being able to think about marriage with some philosophical nuance. It’s not all a matter of “Hey, here’s Tom! He’s gay and he’s been with his partner for 30 years. Isn’t that great!”

Don’t take umbrage. Try to understand that this way of putting it is (1) funny, and (2) true.

“As of the 1950s, at least, no one could reasonably disagree about what rights blacks have as citizens and individuals”

I’m sorry to say this, Ken, but you Yankees can be so naïve. My father and uncle were all very reasonable and well-respected, but they knew full well the so-called limitations of blacks. They learned to be more circumspect about their opinions later in the century, but in the right company they felt comfortable to hold forth.

The change in their conversation about blacks reminds me of the changes made in the catechism, which no longer implies that gays need to marry women but suggests instead that gays should remain chaste forever. Where do you stand on this question? How do you recommend that gays spend their lives—praying the gay away or learning chastity?

“Also, I would not equate even visceral dislike of homosexuality with hatred for homosexuals–”Love the sinner and hate the sin.”

Up the road in Dallas, Hank Jr. explained to an audience this weekend that “We’ve got a Muslim for a President who hates cowboys, hates cowgirls, hates fishing, hates farming, loves gays, and we hate him.”

Would you call this sentiment a “visceral dislike” or just old-fashioned bigotry? In fact, I’m no curious to know whether you think there is such a thing as bigotry toward homosexuals.

“The illusion behind same-sex marriage is that sexual union is mere sexual contact. This is the liberal view.”

One weakness in your arguments, Ken, is that you often distort the views of your opposition. I wouldn’t say that “sexual union is mere sexual contact.” Because I believe sex is much more than that, I’m deeply opposed to premarital sex. I think most liberals agree that sex is never “mere” contact.

“We’re going in circles.”

I don’t think we are going in circles, Ken. I think you drop arguments and shift to others. For example, in this thread, we started by discussing the changing nature of common sense, but you quickly shifted the conversation into a discussion of Yale, which continues to revolve around your overly broad definition of liberalism.

In my last post, I raised several serious issues that you could have discussed, but you chose to focus on lesser issues instead. The serious issues were these:

- The several roots and ideals of sexuality
- The attitude of liberal pundits toward sex week
- The role of the courts in a democracy
- The role of reason in these arguments
- The purported differences between long-term straight and gay relationships

You picked up the role of reason, but I wonder whether you will stick with it.

“Would that be a good proxy for our disagreement?”

This is the second time you have asked for a proxy. I don’t understand why you want me to defend ideas I may or may not hold. Why not just argue what is in front of us?

I haven’t commented on the anti-homosexual comments that you say are on this blog because you and David Nickol are the only SSM commenters I bother to read. In general I do not read stuff that I agree with. I spend vastly more time reading liberal journals than conservative journals. Also, I would not equate even visceral dislike of homosexuality with hatred for homosexuals–”Love the sinner and hate the sin.”

Civil rights for blacks can’t be compared to same-sex marriage in one sense that I think liberals should agree with: As of the 1950s, at least, no one could reasonably disagree about what rights blacks have as citizens and individuals, but one can reasonably disagree about, say, giving a right to marry to people who have no capacity to fulfill the procreative goods of marriage.

The illusion behind same-sex marriage is that sexual union is mere sexual contact. This is the liberal view. (See Paul Weithman’s article in the Martha Nussbaum-edited book–I don’t have the title). The author claims he has refuted John Finnis’ idea of sexual complementarity, but his entire argument is based on the plainly mistaken idea that sexual contact can be considered a “union” of the partners, with sexual complementarity existing whenever there is such a “union.” Crazy stuff, but it confirms my beliefs about the intellectual tendencies of all too many liberals.

Here’s an idea. We’re going in circles. Why don’t we argue about the Finnis-Nussbaum contretemps, in which Nussbaum testified to a court in Colorado (in a case that the Supreme Court later decided–Romer v. Evans) that Plato accepted homosexuality, and Finnis strongly disputed that characerization. My impression is that Nussbaum was mendacious and Finnis was telling it like it is. Would that be a good proxy for our disagreement?

Maybe later, though–read up on it in the meantime and inject that conversation into a future SSM post.

“the same illusional ideal of sexuality, which has its roots in liberal myth-making”

You might consider that there are several roots and several ideals of sexuality, each with their own proposals about how to understand and control sexuality. Just to use figures easy at hand, Tipper Gore’s ideal is far from Yale Sex Week’s. Obama and even Bill Clinton seem to understand sexuality better than either Newt Gingrich or Mark Sanford.

“give me your opinion of the fact that the liberal pundits and academics who are so eager to moralize about the “bigotry” of opponents of same-sex marriage are unanimously unwilling to moralize about Yale Sex Week”

It’s a silly question because you’re asking me to defend an idea I don’t support. If I were a pundit or an academic, I would moralize about both issues. And you’re ignoring all of the issues that conservative pundits and academics refuse to moralize about. Where is the condemnation, for example, of the loud bigotry against homosexuals? You haven’t complained when bigoted comments have been made by fellow conservatives on this site, and you said nothing when I raised this point earlier. Why not? Why should I answer your questions when you won’t answer mine? In fact, you’ve skipped a number of my questions.

The short answer is that I would guess that most liberals don’t think that the activities of sex week are worth bothering about. Kids experiment with sex and grow up and settle down, especially privileged kids who are on the fast track. Liberals tend to worry more about sex and especially violence in entertainment and popular culture, especially kids’ entertainment.

“What are they afraid of? That a porn star–a silly, morally blighted porn star–will denounce them?”

Your contempt of liberals doesn’t reflect well on you. I wish your imagination were larger, more willing to believe that people you don’t agree with nonetheless take stands out of well-reasoned principle. The mark of the culture warrior is that he thinks his opponents are dishonest fools.

“Of course I’m a culture warrior; I have a dim view of same-sex marriage.”

You can have a dim view of gay marriage without thinking its proponents are dishonest fools.

“You need to understand that my culture-warrior indignation is caused largely by the fact that a cheating game is going on. Overwhelmingly, the legalization of same-sex marriage is the result of judicial diktat, not the democratic process.”

The courts are part of the democratic process and exist in part to protect minority rights, and there are few minorities as slim as gays, which make up a scant 3% of the population. Speaking of diktat, civil rights for blacks are rooted in the Reconstruction amendments which were supported by a grotesque act of tyranny. When Southern states voted against ratification, the North dissolved their governments and instituted martial law until the states elected legislatures that would vote the way the Republican Party wanted them to. Hardly an example of the glories of the democratic process.

“I think liberals live in cocoons of the like-minded, insulated from viewpoints that are alien to liberal assumptions. Liberals know such viewpoints exist, but they tend to think those viewpoints are a sign of ignorance or bias, not reasonable pluralism”

Ah, yes, the old assumption that the other guys are blinkered, and your side is not. There are plenty of conservatives who live in a bubble, and the evidence is all around you. I’m skeptical of all claims that one group is more reasonable than another.

“I asked you this question over a year ago; as I recall it, your answer was rather vague, which gave me the impression that, at the end of the day, you are unwilling to credit the opponents of same-sex marriage with having good reasons. Please correct me if I’m wrong”

You’ve asked this question a couple of times, and I’ve given a similar answer each time. I think there are reasonable arguments against gay marriage, and I think there are bigoted arguments for it. I don’t think any side has an exclusive access to reason, and I don’t think any side is exclusively bigoted. I think a lot of conservatives are bigoted against gays. I think others have reasoned and principled stands against gay marriage.

As far as I can tell, you are not bigoted toward gays and have carefully reasoned and logically consistent principles that you apply to gay marriage. I think you might be bigoted toward liberals, but that’s another subject. Is that clear enough?

“Same-sex marriage promotes an illusion.”

You’re wrong. It recognizes the truth that some gay couples have achieved the kinds of union that some straight couples have. Anyone who knows a gay couple that has been together through thick and thin for decades knows that gay unions can be great examples of true love and caring. The long-term relationships and families in my congregation are no illusion. They’re real thing. They might not be recognized as marriages by the state or by the Roman Church, but they’re marriages nonetheless.

I continue to believe that the same illusional ideal of sexuality, which has its roots in liberal myth-making, is common to same-sex marriage and Yale Sex Week. But I’ll be happy to forget about all things Yale if you give me your opinion of the fact that the liberal pundits and academics who are so eager to moralize about the “bigotry” of opponents of same-sex marriage are unanimously unwilling to moralize about Yale Sex Week. What are they afraid of? That a porn star–a silly, morally blighted porn star–will denounce them?

Same-sex marriage is the current incarnation of the culture war. Of course I’m a culture warrior; I have a dim view of same-sex marriage. You need to understand that my culture-warrior indignation is caused largely by the fact that a cheating game is going on. Overwhelmingly, the legalization of same-sex marriage is the result of judicial diktat, not the democratic process. This November, we’ll see if that pattern changes, but even if it does, and if same-sex marriage starts to be advanced legislatively rather than judicially, it will be largely owing to the foolish Supreme Court opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, and so the cheating won’t entirely go away.

It angers me to see judges dictating the outcome of matters of reasonable disagreement like same-sex marriage. Yeah, it’s about the “rights” of gays, liberals say, so judicial intervention is proper. Does it occur to these them that someone might reasonably disagree with that? Obviously not. Maybe this will help you to see why I don’t think much of liberalism. I think liberals live in cocoons of the like-minded, insulated from viewpoints that are alien to liberal assumptions. Liberals know such viewpoints exist, but they tend to think those viewpoints are a sign of ignorance or bias, not reasonable pluralism.

Do you agree with your fellow liberals who think that opposition to same-sex marriage is inherently unreasonable–that any properly informed and unbiased person will favor same-sex marriage?

I asked you this question over a year ago; as I recall it, your answer was rather vague, which gave me the impression that, at the end of the day, you are unwilling to credit the opponents of same-sex marriage with having good reasons. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Same-sex marriage promotes an illusion. It finds sexual complementarity where there is none. It misconceives sexual union as sexual contact. True sexual union requires physical–physiological and biological–unity as the bedrock of intimacy and communion. The unity of bodies can only be achieved in paradigmatic sexual intercourse (and true sexual communion, it may be, in any family resemblance thereto).

To pursue illusions is human, but society should be careful about acquiescing in the pursuit of illusions. In the task of protecting marriage from hideously misguided reformist schemes, I see political urgency.

“If liberalism is as you say it is, name one modern writer who expresses that vision of liberalism, and be sure you can say why he or she would support same-sex marriage”

Your question is too vague. Which vision of liberalism are you talking about? What exactly have I said liberalism is? I’m not even sure why you are asking me to defend liberalism. I didn’t introduce the term into the discussion, and I’ve already made it abundantly clear that I think you are using the term too broadly to name things you don’t like.

“Opponents of same-sex marriage routinely condemn people who criminally attack gays”

But conservatives don’t routinely condemn non-violent attacks on gays. You’ve read some of the ugly things claimed about gays even here on First Things, which tends to be restrained, but I don’t remember you speaking against those slurs. Why not?

“trying to find a liberal academic or opinion leader who condemns the sexual nihilism coming out of New Haven at the beginning of every academic year is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.”

How many liberal Christians celebrate Yale’s sex week? Didn’t the Yale administration just cancel the event? I don’t suppose the administration suddenly went conservative Catholic all of a sudden. I remember when conservatives were making fun of the liberals who were making the Antioch rules and who were anti-pornography feminists. You might remember Tipper Gore’s campaign for profanity ratings on music.

The truth is that there are plenty of liberals and liberal Christians who don’t like sexual or any other kind of nihilism, but there are people who like to play the culture war. Culture warriors on the left claim that liberal Christians, anti-pornography feminists, etc., are playing into the hands of evil fundamentalists, and culture warriors on the right claim that liberal Christians are fundamentally dishonest. Either way, culture warriors get the truth fundamentally wrong.

“Your conservatism analogy fails miserably.”

The terms of my analogy remain true. Conservatives oppose gay marriage. Conservatives murder gays. You only object to these statements because you know that not ALL conservatives murder or even approve of the murder of gays, but you’re somehow unwilling to be generous to liberals in the same way. (Shh. There are also conservatives—even prominent conservatives—who support gay marriage, but let’s not talk about that.)

My analogy was intended to prove a point. You’ve tried to smear me by comparing me to people I don’t approve of, and I’ve pointed out that I wouldn’t think of doing the same to you. You have too much of the culture warrior in you, Ken. Too often you try to score points by painting too broadly or playing guilt by association. Being Christian and pro-life makes me conservative and being pro-gay and pro-big government makes me liberal, and I’m tired of the degraded religious and political environment that seeks to flatten every discussion into a simple opposition of good guys and bad guys.

We were having a serious conversation about how to approach the issue of gay marriage, when you turned the conversation into a discussion of Yale sex week. Why you made that turn continues to escape me.