1. Disagree strongly. People who have an investment in society are stable in direct proportion to that investment. A committed monogamous relationship whose financial and social aspects are recognized and honored by said society is something most are unwilling to risk. Why is this different for gays?

2. You should get out more. Most "bisexuals" are conflicted gays, caught between instinct and society. "Bisexual" is a word like "progressive" -- a polite euphemism for most who use it.

I know a number of gays and they react very differently to visual cues and situations than I do. While there are some people who are genuinely confused, their existance does not impact the debate. That some may indeed choose does not mean that many do.

You are simply factually wrong to the point of willful ignorance.

3. I guess this is like arguing that immigration to America hurts the institution of America, as it pollutes the fabric of society with undesirables.

How exactly do demands to be included in an institution harm it? Offhand it seems that it would strengthen it.

If this is about sacrament feel free to say so.

----

The myths are in your answers, not the propositions.

Dafydd,

Love your writing, and while this is one of the few areas where we disagree, I do disagree strongly.

Myth 1 and 2 are irrelevant and completely open to opinion and everyone can have their own. How it affects us, is not a question for his matter. If our rights are not directly violated than its irrelevant. This is how the absurd notion of "privacy" as a right outside of the specific outlined protections came about. Because people had an objective and worked their way backward.

(i.e. The right to not have your marriage affected, no matter how absurd the notion is in this case, does not exist, nor does the right "to be civilized".)

The only question is whether gays have a right to the same legal protections in their personal relationships as straights. Everything else is clutter.

Once marriage had LEGAL benefits beyond church or religious matters it then became a legal question and not a social or church question.

The only relevant bit of data is myth 2. Is homosexuality a choice of action or a feature of birth?

If the former, then the right to marriage does not exist. If the latter, there is no legal or moral reason to restrict the same rights everyone else has.

Unfortunately, this is currently a matter of opinion, but I believe science will come down on the side of nature and we will no longer be able to prevent gays from having the same legal protection everyone else has.

If you haven't read it, you may find Lee Harris' essay on the transmission of cultural values helpful as you develop your thinking on these issues.

It would seem to me that those people who are willing to consider ideas -- to observe their ramifications in the long term -- are least likely to ossify into either/or positions and also less likely to throw up their hands and become nihilistly relativist. The former are treated with great fear and hatred by the latter. The latter are those whom Thos. Sowell refers to as "The Anointed."

Here is Harris' essay:

http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/harris.html

I think you're totally wrong here, Dafydd. I explain why here.

*sigh*
Dafydd, how can you be so untrue to your sterling pedigree? Consider Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Line marriage arose to pressure in the population due to lack of females. Cultural institutions evolve as a result of environment. Has no one ever explained to you that there is a biological basis for all behavior? Polygamous marriage was a result of environmental influence. Monogamous marriage became favoured over polygamous marriage when the environment changed. The process is called sociogenesis, or "the process of cumulative cultural evolution".(Tomasello, The cultural Origins of Human Cognition)
I will argue that there is an emerging need for an institution of gay marriage, and this is surfacing in our society.
The reason that it is surfacing, is that we are discovering more data to support the hypothesis that homosexuality is organically determined. Sheesh, homosexual brains are different both morphologically and functionally from the brain of either sex.

Dafydd,

I agree. All human sexuality is learned. Humans essentially don't have instincts, which are essentially hard wired behaviors. Since human sexuality is learned, it is chosen. For humans, biology is not destiny.

the lively (and very legalistic!) discussion in the comments page

Very good of you to acknowledge the efforts of your readers, but you can blame the inappropriate legalisms on yourself.

Having seen these tossed out before

The derivative and reactionary response to my comments is noted.

always recited as if everyone already knew them to be true

Now you are projecting like a Leftist. Everybody knows our society is becoming less tolerant, you say? Hahaha

1. Civilizing Effect

this claim is that it is purely defensive

Defense is an appropriate response to attack. Are you willing to deny that Marriage Apartheid is not an attack on homosexuals? ((Please say yes.)) More importantly, as a guest, it is not my place to counter-attack you. So be happy.

the nervous premise that gays need to be civilized

Nothing nervous about it. Gays are a subset of humans, and all humans need to be taught civility and socialization. Why do you insist that Gays doe not exhibit human behaviors?

interesting ... purely ... nervous ... amazing ...

If you had a point to make, you would make it without the hystrionics. Do you think that Huffingtonesque modifiers can camouflage the rational void? Moving along ...

if the gay lifestyle were fine as it is

"It" = what? Did you intend to write that Gays generally brag about the superiority of their nature? Or their indulgent "lifestyle?" That is transparently dishonest. Facing (or hiding from) discrimination 365 days a year is not fun. And you can't cite a single instance of anyone claiming that homosexuality is superior. In fact, most Gays would tell you that some of their best friends are Straight.

But maybe you should explain your concept of the Gay Lifestyle. Are Gays wealthy or poor? Are they Conservative or Liberal? Are they generous or greedy? Do they buy or rent? Oranges or grapefruit for breakfast? Pepsi or Coke? Are they patriots or anti-Americans? Animal, vegetable, or mineral?

why would it be so urgent to offer them the possibility of solemnizing their relationships by legally marrying?

Why does any human want to be married? There is your answer--unless you are willing to admit that you view Gays as sub-human. Can you state that Gays are real humans? ((I didn't think so.))

this position assumes the fact that there is something inherently wrong with behavior in the gay community which needs fixing

If the shoe fits, wear it. Just don't assume that everybody is bigoted.

Exactly where do we find this "Gay Community." Is it on the wrong side of the tracks, or the fashionable salons of 5th Avenue? Do they have phones and indoor plumbing? Gas or electric? Co-ops or condos? Are they allowed to keep pets? Fish?

Is the Gay Community a Bad Thing? Is the Black Community a Bad Thing? Is the Italian Community a Bad Thing? How about Jews and Irish and Armenians? Are they allowed to form communities in America?

Guess what I note about your writing "in passing."

the burden of proof

Hahaha, look who's getting defensive now. Hahaha. Not to worry. Americans will carry that load, if you can't.

want to change 200+ years of American tradition

You need to take care when you cite tradition. I've already clobbered you on that. The answer is yes. Equal Protection is the new American tradition. Want to abolish civil rights legislation because it changed 200+ years of American tradition? hmmmm?

(n)ever bothered trying to prove it (certainly not that I've seen

When is the last time you asked someone to open your eyes the destructive effects of intolerance? Let me guess--never.

the point fails at inception

Allow me to decode your twisted prose. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist. Your "logic" is delightfully counter-persuasive.

mensch I am!

On the other hand, your self-deprecation works fur me.

It's facially dubious.

More archetypical language of the Inarticulati: 'I can't explain it, therefore it exists.'

gay men already date each other and live with each other

... but heterosexual men don't shack up, right? Hahaha

Being openly gay appears to exacerbate promiscuity.

Wrong. Your studies only show that Gays males brag. Poor males do too. Wealthy females do too. Black males do too. Remember Wilt Chamberlain's "20,000" conquests?

What we really know is that being male certainly does exacerbate promiscuity. A reasonable person would conclude more correctly that males in traditionally disadvantaged populations tend to be more promiscuous and braggadocios and ostentatious. It's what you do when you can't brag about your business, or yacht, or beach house.

Ok, you've demonstrated 2 things here--you are not a scientist, and you know how to perpetrate a fraud through selective use of Fundamentalist literature. Congratulations. For example:

94% of traditionally married heterosexuals had only a single sexual partner within the preceding year

You want us to think that you believe that? Hahaha. In Utah? Hahaha

There is not a shred of evidence

Boldly stating the unprovable. Nor is there a shred of evidence to refute the belief that life exists only on Earth. Your persistent mal-logic says more than your Christian sex researchers.

... that gay men will moderate their behavior if they are allowed to legally marry

And this contrasts with the 50+% divorce rate among legally married heterosexuals???

Sorry, but that's the truth

See above note on Inarticulati.

There are several European countries where "gender-neutral" marriage is the law

... but you fail to mention the infinitesimal period of time we have had to observe the effects of same-gender marriage. So your statement is transparently misleading. If you have a point to make, you could make it honestly. But you don't. Instead, you contradict your earlier point that our society is not becoming more tolerant.

And furthermore, you fail to explain why birds are not falling from the sky in places free from Marriage Apartheid. Show us how heterosexual marriage has been destroyed. Show us the disintegration of these societies. Show us an atom of harm. To your shame, you can't.

2. Sexual Preference Is Fixed From Birth

Want to know how badly your write on this topic? In 4 paragraphs, you fail to address the title of your essay. You just skip the origin of sexuality, and plow into your fear of homosexuality. You cite potential dangers of a larger "gay community," but fail to provide any substance from the places free from Marriage Apartheid. This is the mechanism of bigotry.

But it gets funnier.

It certainly seems to be true that the lion's share of heterosexuals never had any homosexual experiences

This is a blunder common to novices. Virtually every person who thinks of themselves as heterosexual, has had many homosexual experiences. It's called Masturbation.

Most heterosexual people are in deeeeeep denial about this, so I'll preempt the typical responses. Try to claim that masturbation is heterosexual sex, or try to claim that you don't masturbate. Or you could try to impersonate Clinton by claiming that it isn't sex at all.

Please oh please, I'm begging you, try. Nothing amuses me more than someone trying to deny that he hasn't had a homosexual experience. "Not one time!" ((You should wave your finger with authority, when you say this.))

Just to throw another wrench into the works for sport, you seem oblivious to the significant population of asexual people. Take a stab at pontificating on that as "nature or nurture."

There's your 2nd chapter in shambles. For contrast, here is a bit of truth: Our sexuality is very complicated. There are genetic and environment elements that combine in infinite ways we may never understand. Binary thinking and blind hatred can't get you any closer to this wondrous thing. So give it up.

cdquarles:

All human sexuality is learned

What the tanj are you talking about? If reproduction isn't the prime directive, i dunno what is!!!!!
the reproductive drive is instinctual.
And that means sexual behavior.

Dafydd,

Your posts on geo-political issues are generally excellent, and I admire them greatly, but here you have misfired. The "myths" you cite may indeed occur in the debates you are reading, but they are totally irrelevant to the whole question of Gay Marriage. So what exactly is the point of exploding them, espeically when you don't do a very good job it. {For example, those survey numbers on promiscuity are entirely bogus.)

Since you took the time to explode these irrelevant "myths", I must conclude you have little if any idea what the real issues involved with Gay marriage are.

So what are they, please? If you could post exactly what you thought the critical issues were and present your arguments for or against them, you would be doing a useful service. But "clearing the air" by failing to explode myths that don't matter is just silly.

Myth 3: How Could Same-Sex Marriage Affect My Marriage?

This is hysterical. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your opinion is now officially a complete write-off.

Three myths exploded.

No, that would be the sound of three toilets flushing. Ha.

When studying social questions, the proper approach is statistical

Spoken like a true Stalinist. I've noticed that you take the same approach to moral questions. FYI, this is America, dammit.

This argument is structurally identical ...

What argument?

those who smoke are at much higher risk of lung cancer

Once again, you overreach. This ranks among the most tortured metaphors in the history of the English language. Attempting to link same-gender marriage with cancer, in any way, is stunningly gruesome.

Have. You. No. Shame. Sir!

Of course, to be completely scientific

... the meta-message being that you have been sorta scientific. Closer to the truth--your commentary on this topic is nothing less than buffoonery. Yet another obvious example:

It's beyond the scope of this particular response to argue the case that same-sex marriage damages the institution of marriage; that argument will come later.

This is your entire proof of your theory that same-gender marriage damages "My Marriage."?!? This is your promised mythological explosion???

Wimpy said, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today." So we can believe your nonsense, because you tell us you will reveal your explosive theory sometime in the future?

there is no need to prove that any specific marriage is directly damaged by some measurable quantum

Ooooh, hypnotic physics jargon.

My eyes are starting to glaze over ... measurable ... scientific ... I'm getting sleepy ... quantum ... Ddd be smart ...

Give it up. Yur clueless. The "three myths exploded" produced a lot of heat, but no light. Be happy for me. This is most extensive fisking I've ever accomplished in one sitting. Really didn't know I had it in me.

Helen:

Be careful about the personal attacks: I don't allow them against other commenters, and I don't allow them against any of the blog authors, either.

This comment is unacceptable: "Closer to the truth--your commentary on this topic is nothing less than buffoonery." The rest is reasonably interpreted as attack on the idea, which is allowed.

Be more careful in the future, please.

Dafydd

In regards to the third question, I look forward to reading what is to come in a later post, but so far you haven't exploded this myth. You're being asked for specific examples because you haven't provided any statistical evidence that same-sex marriage damages the institution of marriage. Perhaps you will present this evidence in a future post, and the question will then be reduced to "nonsense," but until then your readers are asking for the next best thing: case studies and anecdotes.

Nels Nelson:

Perhaps you will present this evidence in a future post, and the question will then be reduced to "nonsense," but until then your readers are asking for the next best thing: case studies and anecdotes.

Give that man a cigar! You are absolutely correct that I have not yet argued the "damage to the institution" point; that will be a later column (not blogpost). The myth I exploded in this post was only that if you can't point to one, specific marriage that was damaged, therefore there was no damage to the institution as a whole.

I'm not in a rush on this issue; it won't come up on the ballot in California until the primary election at the earliest, which is D-Day, 2006, more than eight months from now. I really don't want to turn the Lizard's Tongue column into an "all-SSM, all the time" screed... so I will have other topics to cover in the meanwhile.

But I have notes on that issue; it may or may not be the next SSM column I do, but it will either be next or second-next.

Dafydd

Be more careful in the future, please.

I will.

Thank you Ddd, for you valuable feedback. I am in your debt, hopefully to be repaid in more positive and supportive comments.

I apologize unconditionally for that remark. I would erase more words from your page if I could, but I will certainly strike the b-word from my vocabulary.

Your comment policy benefits me more than anyone, and I applaud you for enforcing it. Please accept my further regrets for imposing this administrative burden, which is perfectly contrary to my intent. "If you behave in a way that offends the people you're trying to deal with, they will stop dealing with you."

((Would you believe that I watched an interview with Judith Martin this morning?))

The myth I exploded in this post was only that if you can't point to one, specific marriage that was damaged, therefore there was no damage to the institution as a whole.

Aha, retrenchment. Unfortunately the smaller point is so small, it adds nothing to the discussion. And the logic is still bad. The phrase "can't point to one" does not equal "can't point to all," which is the case you needed to prove to have any meaning.

When this most ethereal straw man was coupled to ballistic allusions, there is no wonder why no-one could appreciate the point. One could spend his days exploding the myth that the lawn is not mowed, just because we can find no individual blade of grass uncut.

Now I see you leading us to the incorrect notion of "no minimum safe threshold." This is a concept employed in Industrial Hygiene and Health Physics. If we expose a human population to some physical or chemical insult, the general health of the population may decline, even when we cannot link any specific symptom to any specific insult.

To the deficit of your argument, life goes on. We still get x-rayed, we still pump gasoline, we still gobble up french fries. Do we ban Burger King ice cream when a Wahabi has a panic attack about the design if it's packaging. Of course not ... whoops ... when one of its customers has a heart attack? Can we justify Marriage Apartheid when bigotry becomes the common wisdom. No, not in America.

I have a far better metaphor. Let us think of homosexuality as sunshine--a natural part of our world that gets a lot of attention, but has little substance. Some people get skin cancer from exposure to the sun. We don't know who, and we can't tell when, and there is no threshold of exposure we can identify. But we should all wear hats anyway.

To the proponents of Marriage Apartheid, same-gender marriage is the wind that blows off our hats. Somebody will surely die, ever time a Gay couple kisses on a church alter.

Ha, I laugh at myself. This goofy idea is no goofier than anything we get from the gay bashers.

Dafydd,
I had posted on this topic on Saturday but your blog apparently has refused my track back. I will surmount my disappointment and comment here. On all three "myths" you are addressing some fundamental tenets of PC thought. First of all, despite protestations from some, the etiology of homosexuality remains extremely complex and unclear. To say there is a genetic component in most cases and a large developmental component is a tautology; however, to say gender identification and object choice are inborn is not supportable by any data, anywhere; the question of how much is nature and how much is nurture (and how the two interact) remains an open one.
Whether same-sex marraige is "civilizing" would depend on the quality of object relations of the parties involved, which is another extremely complicated topic; essentially, to legalize gay marriage would be to commit our society to an open-ended sociological experiment, which leads to the third point.
You are on firmest ground talking about unintended consequences. Same sex marriage proponents invariably need to take the position that same sex parenting is as good as, or better, than heterosexual parenting, and here there are lots of unintended consequences. I would suggest one of the unintended consequences is to relegate large minority cohorts to permanent under class status and I expand on that in my post today.
So there is my $0.02 times 3.

ShrinkWrapped:

Uh-oh... was there an error message? Can you try the trackback again? What blogging software are you using?

Have you tried manually inserting the trackback, or were you using autodiscovery? The trackback URL for this post is http://biglizards.net/mt32/mt-tb.cgi/47 .

I am very not happy if Big Lizards is refusing trackbacks from anyone! (I haven't blackballed anyone... yet! Cue the manical laughter.)

Please try the trackback again, and look for any error messages you may receive; let's see if we can figure out what went wrong.

Thanks,

Dafydd

I am using Type Pad and manually sent the track back. I just tried again; no error messages anywhere in sight. Just for trial purposes I sent the same track back in my post today, though I didn't directly reference this post.
Addendum: I think gay marriage is inextricably connected to the devaluing of the male gender by the radical feminists who hold sway in academia and indirectly control much of the agenda of the left. Whether, ultimately, gay marriage is a net social good is an open question, but we should be careful of doing further sociological experiments with all the unintended consequences that ensue. At the very least we should not mandate approval of gay marriage through the courts; that manner of short-circuiting the democratic process leads to the kinds of problems we still have 30 years after Row v Wade "settled" the question of abortion.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)