Homophobia is extracting a huge price from us all. It is demanding that we set aside our humanity in order to placate the superstitions and religious values of a few.
Homophobia has created a caste system in the United States. While the majority of Americans enjoy the full benefits of citizenship, gays and lesbians must settle for a scaled down version of those unalienable rights.
Homophobia will laugh hysterically at the comedy of Ellen DeGeneres in Finding Nemo and yet adamantly deny her “kind” the right to marry.
If we concede that such 2nd class citizenship is necessary to mollify the intolerant among us, it renders us callous and cruel.
Homophobia springs from the same hateful seed as society’s most loathsome acts. It is spawned by the kind of thinking that justifies misogyny, xenophobia, racism, domestic violence, and child abuse.
Hatred or violence toward one person is consonant with hatred or violence toward another.
The willingness to dismiss the rights of any individual is at the root of injustice, no matter how violent, perverse, or ignorant that injustice becomes. Homophobia does not recognize the equal value of all human beings.
If you doubt this, remember Gwen Araujo and Matthew Shepard.
Homophobia slanders those it does not understand in order to spread its viral fear.
It declares that gays and lesbians cannot be trusted around our children without so much as a shed of empirical evidence to support such a claim.
It is a terrible thing to falsely accuse anyone. It is cowardly to allow it to go unchallenged.
Homophobia is willing to subvert the Constitution in favor of religious dogma and ancient texts. Homophobia argues that granting legal unions to gays (rather than the right to marry) is the only righteous concession possible if the sanctity of marriage is to be preserved.
The Founders, who were primarily Christians and Deists, lived closer to the ancient texts than most anyone in our day.
And yet these same men, after months of debate, delivered a document absolutely free from any Biblical prohibitions regarding homosexuality.
Homophobia claims the “traditional family” is the foundation of society. This is false. The foundation of any society is not based on the family, but rather in human beings seeking to live together in harmony, while defending one another’s rights to peacefully coexist.
The gay couple up the street is no threat to any “traditional marriage” a few doors down. Moreover, no one ever need worry that gay marriage will end procreation as we know it. As long as there are males on this Earth procreation will never be a problem.
It’s better to have a home with a loving parent or parents - regardless of sexual preference - than to live with traditional mother and father figures where abuse and violence thrive.
Homophobia fails to recognize that Constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges protect us all, while a majority rule can easily devour whomever it pleases.
To overthrow such Constitutional protections by means of elections or majority rule is done so at great peril.
What is accepted as the will of the majority today may be quite different tomorrow.
I recently saw a t-shirt which pretty well defines the dangers of homophobia.
The shirt featured the Latin words “Hetero-sapien,” printed boldly on the front. It was worn by a person whom I know embraces homophobic beliefs.
The term “homo-sapien” basically means “wise man” or “knowing man.”
What the poor fellow didn’t understand about his Latin t-shirt is that it basically says, “Un-like wise.”
Perhaps that shirt offers the best evidence as to why homophobia is extracting such a huge price from us all.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
AJCalhoun
mypsyche
Reflections of a shallow pond
Colony of Losers
Persephone13
Rob St. Amant
Salon.com
Comments
You include so many truths here.
Excellent dear.
I like.
I do like this.
Homophobia, of course, runs much deeper than the subject of marriage. We are often thought to be stupid and dishonest. No matter how high the IQ, the grade point average, or the seriousness of our characters, we are distilled into a sort of half-breed zany hardly alive creature.
And we don't know what's best for our own culture.
We need to stop asking for permission from heterosexuals to be legalis homo. I have been denied my rights as a U.S. citizen for 47 years. Time for reparations. xox
Nowadays, the "debate" produces a giant yawn from almost everyone, and I daresay that any pol who tried to change the Civil Marriage Act (2005) would get his or her ass kicked by the electorate. At least, I would hope so.
R
Eloquent piece of writing, Dennis.
R
On the other hand though, the sad truth is that some less than savoury characters use homosexuality as a shield because they know how heavily homophobia is frowned upon (especially in this country).
One such case is a prominent member of the British Gay Pride movement who advocates sex with ten year old boys stating that it is the ten year olds that want to explore their sexuality.
Yeah, like fuck it is.
I love the cogency and rationality of this argument. This is an emotional argument for me on so many levels--I cannot stand the idea that any class of people are discriminated against for simply being, and there are times when my attempts to argue with those who are homophobic just become me, increasingly angry and silent and unable to understand where all that damn fear comes from.
Your argument is simply this. You cannot deny Constitutional rights to people because once you start doing that, bad things happen. (Your argument is much more nuanced, complex, profound, but I'm trying to find the nugget with which I might smote the next Goliath who wants to talk about this.)
My closest friend is a lesbian. It hurts my heart that she cannot "legally" marry her partner. I would defend to the death her right to do that. What are people so afraid of?
See?
I become irrational just talking about this.
Thank you for expressing this so well. I'm in your debt.
Freedom for all of us, or freedom for none of us. That's the way it is.
My hope is that the ridiculous stigma fades with each passing generation. My fear is that I'm not sure my hope justified.
Thank you, as always, Dennis. You always express yourself with such honesty and compassion. And clarity. Remarkable.
Well said, Dennis.
While we're gradually progressing toward less acceptance, at least in public, of expressions of racism, xenophobia and misogyny, our society is still rife with homophobia right out in the open.
Thanks for this beautiful piece.
And yet these same men, after months of debate, delivered a document absolutely free from any Biblical prohibitions regarding homosexuality."
Well . . . there are all sorts of things the Constitution doesn't talk about, but that hardly implies tacit approval. Frankly, same-sex marriage would have been absolutely unthinkable to the fellows who wrote the Constitution.
Dennis: "Homophobia has created a caste system in the United States. While the majority of Americans enjoy the full benefits of citizenship, gays and lesbians must settle for a scaled down version of those unalienable rights."
I assume you're talking about same-sex marriage here. Same-sex couples not being able to marry hardly constitutes a caste system. States have all sorts of requirements for civil marriage, and there are all sorts of couples who can't legally marry. This does not make them of a lower caste.
Dennis: "It’s better to have a home with a loving parent or parents - regardless of sexual preference - than to live with traditional mother and father figures where abuse and violence thrive."
This is always the argument for same-sex couples -- a loving same-sex couple is compared with a dysfunctional hetero couple. Given two loving couples -- one same-sex and one heterosexual, I think the best family situation would be with the heterosexual couple, since each of the genders brings a different perspective to the family, and the most well-rounded experience would be with the hetero couple. In other words, humans are not just "widgets" that can be swapped out regardless of gender. Having two fathers or two mothers is not the same as having a father and mother.
Dennis: "Homophobia fails to recognize that Constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges protect us all, while a majority rule can easily devour whomever it pleases."
That's a nice argument, but unfortunately there has never been a Supreme Court decision holding that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. You may think there should be one, but there isn't one, and don't expect one any time in the near future.
Dennis: "Homophobia is extracting a huge price from us all. It is demanding that we set aside our humanity in order to placate the superstitions and religious values of a few."
Who are these "few?" So far in every state in which same-sex marriage has come up for a vote of the people it has lost. And that's just in the states where it has been voted on. My guess is that in some states it would lose 60-40 or perhaps even 70-30.
Thanks for a fine piece Dennis
I have never understood homophobic nor racism ... as far as I am concerned, we all are human beings just trying to live one day at a time regardless of our culture and beliefs and lives ... and it's unfortunate that there are people too scared to live their lives willing to ruin others'.
This is a beautiful essay ... thank you for sharing it especially the Unwise kicker. LOVE IT!
Ignorance and intolerance destroy freedoms both universal and personal.
And "So far in every state in which same-sex marriage has come up for a vote of the people it has lost. And that's just in the states where it has been voted on. My guess is that in some states it would lose 60-40 or perhaps even 70-30." Just because people voted against it does not make it right. To deny fellow human beings the rights, both intensely personal and legal, that you yourself enjoy, is morally wrong. I am reminded of Martin Neimoller's "When they came for the Communists...." Vote or act outside of the realms of human decency at your own peril. You might be next.
When did we ever vote on permitting opposite-sex marriage anyway?
Why don't Christians listen to the words of Christ? Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. End of story.
If we all take up stones, whether real or just words, to combat where each of us feels another falls short, the earth will be filled with silence.
This is my favorite line: "The foundation of any society is not based on the family, but rather in human beings seeking to live together in harmony, while defending one another’s rights to peacefully coexist."
Thank you so much for writing this. Rated and Amen.
ttfn - thanks for commenting.
mypsyche - Thanks and great point. Maybe it’s time for an “I’m Spartacus” moment.
Mission - thank you for such a kind comment.
Robin - I think your comment distills something so vital and often missed. Why on Earth should gays be required to retain heterosexual approval of their lifestyle? Thanks for your words.
CK - thank you for your kind remarks kiddo. And BAM.
Janie - thank you for your insight and encouragement. It is completely disturbing that anyone - let alone any group - should be concerned or try to take control of another person’s lifestyle.
Boangerges - In this and in several other issues we are, alas, far behind you. Thanks for your comment man.
WAH - thank you very much, though my “wisdom” is much debated and often so.
kb - thanks for your kindness.
ainthatamerica - thank you very much and thank you for the FB nod. I really appreciate it.
Jeanette - I agree with you about the t-shirt. Thank you for your comment.
JK - You folks are way ahead of us here. I hope we can catch up. Quick.
MMckenzie - thank you for such kind words.
myriad - that’s at the heart of my piece as well. Thank you.
Nikki - I really admire your desire to understand beliefs that differ from your own. I cherish doing the same. This one totally baffles me as well. Thanks so much for your comment.
scanner - it does seem incongruous that smaller government advocates take liberties with personal lifestyle choices so freely. Thank you for your comment and your insight.
Stacey - I love your “add and ‘i’” comment. You sir are a poet, gentleman and wise.
Scarlett - thank you for your comment. I cannot understand the fear either.
Lorraine - you struck the chord that troubles me most. Imagine being that child. That, if for no other reason, is why this must change.
sophieh- thank you.
Joan - thanks. I really appreciate your encouragement.
Risa - thank you very much.
John - I hope with all my heart you’re right and believe so as well. Thanks for your words.
JL - a friend once told me that “status quo” was Latin for “the mess we’re in.” Though that is not true your comment certainly is. Thanks.
Lorraineflw - Thank you for such kindness and encouragement. I’ve written before and will continue. I love the metaphor of the small stone to slay the Goliath. The pen is mightier. We will win this.
Frank - see how much I gain from reading you and learning from you? Love you man.
Monsieur Chariot - it is perhaps above all other aspects a wonder to me that anyone’s private life - doing others no harm - has become the subject of legislation. Thank you kind sir.
SW - I edited out a paragraph (for brevity sake) that asked nearly the same question. Adultery for example. Where is the hue and cry?
jim - thank you very much for your kindness. I agree wholeheartedly. We must repeat these truths until they no longer need repeating.
Dr. Ayala - you succinctly stated the case so well. I only hope we see the open homophobia cease and each person enjoying equal rights and protection in our lifetime.
Mishima - I respect your right to disagree and admire that you seek to be thoughtful in doing so. But I will point out that you cannot get to the end of any of your arguments without conceding that gays and lesbians are being forced to accept 2nd class citizenship. And that is always wrong.
Gary - thank you so much for your insight and for your kind words. The argument relies upon all you mentioned and is pursued as a cause with incredible vigor. That alone gives me great pause.
rebelmom - thank you for your kind words and for trying to be the kind of mother that will raise a generation that is free form bigotry of any kind.
Robin - that was very well said.
tre - thanks very much man.
Reid - thank you for your terrific insight on the consequences of ignorance and intolerance.
dolores - thank you so much.
Safe_Bet - thank you.
Melissa - thank you very much for your kind comment and encouragement.
TheGoodDaughter - for some of is it really is that simple. For others it should be :)
paris - thank you for posting that grievous news. I am deeply saddened to know this.
chey - you’re a sweetheart you know that. Right? Thank you for your insight.
Gwendolyn - thank you very much for your kind words. It’s one of my favorite lines too.
An interesting piece to read today. This morning our Governor (of Iowa) gave his Condition of the State address. The 'red-shirts' (shorthand for all the people who were here to protest gay marriage) were here in droves.
Though I'm a lobbyist and should have been here for the speech, instead I went to the county building with two dear friends this morning. They, two men, were applying for a marriage license and asked me to be their witness. They've been together for 22 years and plan to marry next Tuesday. I loved being there with them to be a part of their happiness.
Thanks for this.
As far as I know every state prohibits certain marriages between people related by blood. Other kinds of marriages are not necesarily illegal, but are disturbing, as in the case of Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn:
"Allen and Farrow's only biological son, Ronan Seamus Farrow, said of Allen: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent.... I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen#Soon-Yi_Previn
Dennis writes: "I respect your right to disagree and admire that you seek to be thoughtful in doing so. But I will point out that you cannot get to the end of any of your arguments without conceding that gays and lesbians are being forced to accept 2nd class citizenship. And that is always wrong."
I just think that opponents of same-sex marriage need to be cut some slack. As far as I know, until recently, throughout human history, same-sex marriage was never permitted anywhere, even in cultures in which same-sex relationships were common (e.g., ancient Greece.)
But then suddenly a "right" to same-sex marriage is discovered, and anyone who doesn't embrace it is said to be a "homophobe" and "hater." For the proponents of same-sex marriage five thousand years of human history means nothing, and same-sex marriage must be immediately implemented.
Of course, the Supreme Court has never affirmed this right, and neither have state courts except for a few, based on state constitutions. As far as I can tell, the proponents of same-sex marriage believe that there is such a right, merely because they insist that there should be.
At the same time the proponents of same-sex marriage ignore the possible consequences of same-sex marriage, namely same-sex marriage as step on the road to legalized polyamorous relationships, that itself is a step on the road to the elimination of legal marriage. Once the male-female aspect of marriage is eliminated, there's no particular reason why the two-person aspect of marriage can't be eliminated as well. This is actually the position of a number of radical family law experts and sociologists. In fact, some of these people support same-sex marriage precisely because they believe it will lead to the end of legal marriage.
One might say that this is a "fringe" position, but it isn't. I invite you to check out the "Beyond Marriage" organization, endorsed by a large number of academics, authors, and activists. Their goal is the effective elimination of legal marriage. As they put it "Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal – for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition."
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
These other group arrangements that "must also be accorded recognition" include "Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner," and "Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households."
I hope it is lost on no-one here that mishima’s ‘arguments’ are illogical in that they employ nothing but well known fallacies.
“Given two loving couples -- one same-sex and one heterosexual, I think the best family situation would be with the heterosexual couple, since each of the genders brings a different perspective to the family, and the most well-rounded experience would be with the hetero couple.”
Fallacy employed: non sequitur. It in no way follows that a child’s experience would be most well-rounded simply because mishima thinks it so!
“So far in every state in which same-sex marriage has come up for a vote of the people it has lost.”
Fallacy employed: argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority. When the majority of people thought the earth was flat – it must have been by this argument.
“At the same time the proponents of same-sex marriage ignore the possible consequences of same-sex marriage, namely same-sex marriage as step on the road to legalized polyamorous relationships, that itself is a step on the road to the elimination of legal marriage”
Fallacy employed: slippery slope informal fallacy. Although in some cases a slippery slope argument can be valid, in order for it to be valid it MUST outline a series of verifiable transitions from current state to some final state. Has mishima even hinted at how we get from gay marriage to the elimination of marriage?
“For the proponents of same-sex marriage five thousand years of human history means nothing, and same-sex marriage must be immediately implemented.”
Fallacy employed: just about every one in the logic books. We are not all young earth creationists who believe that mankind was created 5000 years ago. If mishima seriously wants the history o f marriage (even in just as outlined in the Bible) to be taken as normative, then he better rethink his aversion to polygamy while the rest of us can line up to augment our marriages with concubines. Compared to western culture today the Bible outlines marital moral chaos. The marriage of two loving homosexuals would be a beacon of morality in comparison. Then there is the matter of a plethora of ways that other cultures have defined marriage.
Great post Dennis.
So fundamental, yet so hard to grasp by some.
Outstanding, Dennis.
Kent - you’ve done a really great job addressing this subject on your recent post as well. Thank you for your comment.
Mishima - I will standby my former comment, while respecting your right to your opinion and appeal to history (which often chronicles accepted wrongs). You cannot get to the end of any argument you offer without conceding that gays are being asked to be 2nd class citizens.
Mary - thank you my dear friend for your kind words and for the loving nudge ot action. I appreciate it very much.
marc - thanks so much for your comments, insight, and appeal to humanity. Some injustices take longer to be corrected than is either fair or compassionate. This one, to me at least, seems so clear that it astounds me.
You interpret what I write in a way that makes them look like fallacies, though they are not, as a closer reading of what I actually wrote will show:
I said: “Given two loving couples -- one same-sex and one heterosexual, I think the best family situation would be with the heterosexual couple, since each of the genders brings a different perspective to the family, and the most well-rounded experience would be with the hetero couple.”
You replied: "Fallacy employed: non sequitur. It in no way follows that a child’s experience would be most well-rounded simply because mishima thinks it so!"
But the problem with your comment is that I'm not making an argument. I'm simply giving a reason why I think heterosexual parenting would be preferred over same-sex parenting, all other things being equal.
I said: “So far in every state in which same-sex marriage has come up for a vote of the people it has lost.”
You replied: "Fallacy employed: argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority. When the majority of people thought the earth was flat – it must have been by this argument."
I wasn't saying that a majority vote somehow proves that same-sex marriage is wrong. I was responding to a specific comment by Dennis that opponents of same-sex marriage were placating "the superstitions and religious values of a few." My point is that when opponents of same-sex marriage consistently prevail in the popular vote, they can hardly be considered "the few." In fact, they are clearly the majority.
I wrote: “At the same time the proponents of same-sex marriage ignore the possible consequences of same-sex marriage, namely same-sex marriage as step on the road to legalized polyamorous relationships, that itself is a step on the road to the elimination of legal marriage.”
You replied: "Fallacy employed: slippery slope informal fallacy. Although in some cases a slippery slope argument can be valid, in order for it to be valid it MUST outline a series of verifiable transitions from current state to some final state. Has mishima even hinted at how we get from gay marriage to the elimination of marriage?"
Such a transition is easy to imagine, and those who advocate the elimination of civil marriage have no trouble imagining it. In a 2003 article on same-sex marriage Stanley Kurtz noted that there are a number of people who defend polygamy based on their support of gay marriage:
"Writing in the Village Voice, gay leftist Richard Goldstein equated the drive for state-sanctioned polygamy with the movement for gay marriage. The political reluctance of gays to embrace polygamists was understandable, said Goldstein, "but our fates are entwined in fundamental ways." Libertarian Jacob Sullum defended polygamy, along with all other consensual domestic arrangements, in the Washington Times. Syndicated liberal columnist Ellen Goodman took up the cause of polygamy with a direct comparison to gay marriage. Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board, defended polygamy in the Tribune and in Slate. The New York Times published a Week in Review article juxtaposing photos of [polygamist] Tom Green's family with sociobiological arguments about the naturalness of polygamy and promiscuity."
As I said before, once the opposite-sex requirement of marriage is eliminated, it is not clear how one would offer a principled defense of the two-person aspect of marriage. If the argument is that love is all that matters, and three, four, five, or more adults all love each other, then why shouldn't they be able to be married to each other? If the argument is that people who want to marry have a civil right to be able to do so, then what about the civil rights of polyamorists?
In other words, the arguments for same-sex marriage work equally well for group marriage.
I wrote: “For the proponents of same-sex marriage five thousand years of human history means nothing, and same-sex marriage must be immediately implemented.”
You responded: "Fallacy employed: just about every one in the logic books. We are not all young earth creationists who believe that mankind was created 5000 years ago. If mishima seriously wants the history of marriage (even in just as outlined in the Bible) to be taken as normative, then he better rethink his aversion to polygamy while the rest of us can line up to augment our marriages with concubines. Compared to western culture today the Bible outlines marital moral chaos. The marriage of two loving homosexuals would be a beacon of morality in comparison. Then there is the matter of a plethora of ways that other cultures have defined marriage.
Actually, I don't believe in creationism nor am I making a religious or Bible-based argument. My point was this: given that in the history of humankind (however far back you want to go) there is no instance of any society adopting same-sex marriage, we should not be surprised if people today are not in favor of it. It just seems weird to me that people who do not rush to embrace gay marriage are denounced in such strident terms, given that gay marriage is a very recent issue, and only recently adopted in a few countries and states.
Dennis writes: "You cannot get to the end of any argument you offer without conceding that gays are being asked to be 2nd class citizens."
Question: Since bisexual triads and other kinds of polyamorist groups cannot legally marry, are they also being treated as 2nd class citizens? If not, why not? And if so, should they also be allowed to marry?
Seriously? Google “argument dictionary”. You will see that a reason is one of the definitions of an argument.
Mishima writes: “Question: Since bisexual triads and other kinds of polyamorist groups cannot legally marry”.
Seriously? How many polyamorist groups do you think have had a marriage request turned down? How many are writing posts here telling you their pain at being made a second class citizen?
Mishima writes: “My point was this: given that in the history of humankind (however far back you want to go) there is no instance of any society adopting same-sex marriage”
That may be true but you conveniently ignore the loooong history of other types of marriage that you admittedly are fearful of, including polyamorous and even incestuous relationships. Are you sure you want to look back in history for moral guidance on today’s issues of civil rights? How do people long dead have more credence on today’s social issues than those currently alive? For what other social issues shall we turn back the clock?
Mishima writes: “I wasn't saying that a majority vote somehow proves that same-sex marriage is wrong”
So here’s your chance to make yourself clear. Are you agreeing that this issue should NOT be decided simply by the majority?
Mishima writes: “"Writing in the Village Voice, gay leftist Richard Goldstein equated the drive for state-sanctioned polygamy with the movement for gay marriage”
So what? All organizations have fringe elements with agendas outside of the norm. It would be just as fair to argue that the anti gay marriage constituency is really fighting for the stoning of gays because among them are a few biblical literalists. In other words bullshit.
Mishima you wrote earlier that “I just think that opponents of same-sex marriage need to be cut some slack”.
The reason why they aren’t is because they don’t have any arguments in support of their opposition that will stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. And when the arguments are so obviously weak and contrived the conclusion most people jump to is that there must be a another reason for their opposition. A hidden reason. An ugly reason.
Try this for an experiment if you want to bring OS in on this: write a post on Open Salon advocating full marriage rights for polyamorous couples, based on their civil right to marriage. See how many people here disagree with you.
But more to the point, you fail to answer the question. I'll repeat it for you: Since bisexual triads and other kinds of polyamorist groups cannot legally marry, are they also being treated as 2nd class citizens? If not, why not? And if so, should they also be allowed to marry?
Very simple questions. I look forward to your answer.
Mark: " . . . you conveniently ignore the loooong history of other types of marriage that you admittedly are fearful of, including polyamorous and even incestuous relationships."
I'm not saying that history should be the ultimate guide to how things should be done today. I'm saying that given the total absence of same-sex marriage throughout history, we should not be surprised if a majority of people today don't support it -- and it doesn't mean that they are "haters."
Mark: "So here’s your chance to make yourself clear. Are you agreeing that this issue should NOT be decided simply by the majority?"
The opposite. I'm saying three things -- first, that the issue should be decided by a majority vote, since this is the society that "we the people" have to live in. Second, that since there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the issue should be decided by the voters. And third, that a popular vote either way would not determine the morality of same-sex marriage.
Let me give you an example. I think there is no constitutional right to be able to gamble. That said, I think it is the right of the people to approve of gambling (or not) through a popular vote. I also think that organized gambling is immoral, regardless of whether people voted for it. In other words, people have the right to determine what kind of society they want to live in. I may agree with that choice, or I may disagree with it. But the people have the right to decide. That's democracy, and sometimes it affirms my desires and sometimes it does not.
Mark: "All organizations have fringe elements with agendas outside of the norm. It would be just as fair to argue that the anti gay marriage constituency is really fighting for the stoning of gays because among them are a few biblical literalists. In other words bullshit."
You say that approving of legalizing polyamorous marriage based on gay marriage is a fringe position. Not in my observation. Just in our little community here in OS I can't count the number of times that people here have said that it doesn't matter who gets married to whom, and that government should get out of the "marriage business" altogether, and that marriage should be a private contract between two or more people.
If you would like to be one of the first to argue against that, I'd love to hear it. In other words, I'm getting back to the question that I asked earlier.
Mishima writes: “But more to the point, you fail to answer the question. I'll repeat it for you: Since bisexual triads and other kinds of polyamorist groups cannot legally marry, are they also being treated as 2nd class citizens? If not, why not? And if so, should they also be allowed to marry?”
And this is why the anti-gay marriage lobby has their herd use the slippery slope fallacy because it segues so nicely into a straw man fallacy.
But doesn’t go unnoticed that you try to turn the discussion from gay marriage to a completely different topic.
I didn’t answer for the reason I pointed out for two reasons. Your argument is fallacious and my opinion on that unrelated topic as nothing to the discussion at hand.
If you want to claim that gay marriage would lead directly to polyamorist marriage PROVE it. Show me how it has happened in my country. Show me how gay civil unions have lead to polyamorist civil unions. Show me the man who married his goat in Sweden. That is your responsibility if you want to invoke a slippery slope argument and it is exactly what you can NOT do.
Mishima writes: “The opposite. I'm saying three things -- first, that the issue should be decided by a majority vote, since this is the society that "we the people" have to live in. Second, that since there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the issue should be decided by the voters. And third, that a popular vote either way would not determine the morality of same-sex marriage.”
Well you are wrong on the first point and half-wrong on your second point(s). Of course there is “no constitutional right to same-sex marriage”, just like there was no constitutional right for interracial marriage.
Your founding fathers warned of the tyranny of the majority. Your Congress was designed with two houses of different proportions as a means to safeguard against majority rule. This two house system also meant (assuming senators represent their states) that smaller states couldn’t get bullied by more populous states since a majority of states must approve a proposition not just a majority of voters. Even your electoral college ensures that your president must have widespread support and cannot be support by a simple majority of voters in more populous states.
Mishima writes: “I'm not saying that history should be the ultimate guide to how things should be done today”
No you are saying that you want to ignore the entire history of marriage except for the one example that you think helps your argument. And history should guide us just on that point. Pretty selective.
Rated.
"Estimated amount the US military has spent since 1994 to replace service members discharged for being gay: $364,000,000. "
Ghastly.
Unrelated? I'm talking about marriage, and about bringing into the structure of civil marriage relationships inconsistent with the male-female, two-person standard. I'm not saying that gay marriage is going to cause rabies or auto accidents.
Concerning the slippery slope: if the argument for something at the top of the slope works equally as well for something at the bottom of the slope, then it is not unreasonable to assert that we may very well end up at the bottom.
In the essay I referred to earlier, Kurtz talks about a proponent of polyamory who understands that point:
"Taking a leaf from the gay marriage movement, [Joy] Singer suggested starting small. A campaign for hospital visitation rights for polyamorous spouses would be the way to begin. Full marriage and adoption rights would come later. Again using the gay marriage movement as a model, Singer called for careful selection of acceptable public spokesmen (i.e., people from longstanding poly families with children). Singer even published a speech by Iowa state legislator Ed Fallon on behalf of gay marriage, arguing that the goal would be to get a congressman to give exactly the same speech as Fallon, but substituting the word "poly" for "gay" throughout. Try telling polyamorists that the link between gay marriage and group marriage is a mirage."
Note that the arguments for polyamorous marriage and same-sex marriage are so close that one could substitute "poly" for "gay" and end up with a new speech in favor of polyamory.
Mark: "If you want to claim that gay marriage would lead directly to polyamorist marriage PROVE it. Show me how it has happened in my country. Show me how gay civil unions have lead to polyamorist civil unions. "
A slippery-slope argument is an argument that some prior factor can lead to a subsequent factor. What you are insisting upon as "proof" is that I have to show that we've already gone down the slippery slope -- that it has already happened.
But we are still in the very early stages of gay marriage. Nonetheless, even how we can see how things could develop -- and right in your own country.
Here's an article from January 2009:
"Defense for polygamists cites gay marriage
Lawyers: Canada's step to legalize same-sex unions will help in trial
"VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.
"The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws.
"Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.
"But Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.
"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776588/
Again, the implications of gay marriage are not lost on the advocates of polygamy and polyamory.
Shortly before the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada, the government authorized a study on the potential legalization of polygamy:
"A new study commissioned by the federal government recommends that Canada legalize polygamy and change legislation to help women and children living in plural relationships.
"The paper by three law professors at Queen's University in Kingston argues that a Charter challenge to Section 293 of the Criminal Code banning polygamy might be successful, said Beverley Baines, one of the authors of the report.
" . . . The Martin government commissioned the $150,000 study into the legal and social ramifications of polygamy just weeks before it introduced divisive same-sex marriage legislation. Same-sex marriage was approved last June.
"Critics said at the time that the study underscored a deep concern in the federal government that legalized homosexual marriage could lead to constitutional challenges from minority groups who claim polygamy as a religious right."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=8451dc17-5b5f-4ea4-a05f-71f7c758662a&k=52900
But as I said, when it comes to same-sex marriage we are still in the early innings of the game, and it is unclear the extent to which it may become legal throughout the U.S. When and if it becomes the law of the land, it's going to be virtually impossible to discriminate against polyamorous relationships with respect to marriage.
Changes in social policy take time, sometimes a lot of time. In Canada, don't be surprised to see polyamorous marriage legalized in the next one or two decades. Of course, when that happens, the argument will change, and you and others will say "oh, that's just Canada. It would never happen in the U.S."
First of all polygamy has been happening in Bountiful (community involved in the case you cited) largely unchallenged since 1946, well before our Charter of Rights. It’s a pretty big stretch to show any connection to gay marriage rights there.
To make a slippery slope argument that A leads to D, you must be able to show that A is causal of B, B is causal of C and C is causal of D. You have not only failed to layout a conceivable sequence from gay marriage to polygamy you’ve shown no causality.
The vast majority of court cases involving the defense of polygamists or the challenge of polygamy laws have involved either the interpretation of constitutional documents (your Constitution, our Charter of Rights) and/or the expression of freedom of religion. Are you equally concerned about these instigating factors?
To mix some metaphors, if you are looking for the first domino on a slippery slope to polygamy look no further than the much married prophets of Old Testament.
In order to reduce the likelihood of polygamy perhaps instead of fighting gay marriage you should be fighting the teaching of the Old Testament.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that gay marriage activists successfully argued that the constitution gives them the right to marry.
You need to prove that gay marriage itself would cause some particular effect that would then cause polygamy to be legal in some logical chain.
It is not enough to say that polygamists will use the same arguments that gay marriage activists successfully used, because if those arguments are valid they are valid regardless of whether gay marriage existed or not.
Ok, but there are different kinds of slippery slope arguments. The argument you describe relies on a cascading series of events, casually related to each other. An example of this was the "domino theory" popular during the Vietnam war. The idea was that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, eventually all of Southeast Asia would fall to them as well. As we know now, that didn't happen.
The proponents of same-sex marriage also utilize a kind of causal-based slippery slope argument. For example, in this discussion OS member Good Daughter offered this argument:
"To deny fellow human beings the rights, both intensely personal and legal, that you yourself enjoy, is morally wrong. I am reminded of Martin Neimoller's 'When they came for the Communists....' Vote or act outside of the realms of human decency at your own peril. You might be next."
http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_knight/2009/12/21/homophobias_price_tag#comment_1167431
But my argument is not of that sort. In a paper on slippery slope arguments, author Wibren van der Burg accurately describes my argument: "[An] argument holding either that there is no relevant conceptual difference between A and B, or that the justification for A also applies to B, and therefore acceptance of A will logically imply acceptance of B."
Note that in that version of the argument there is no causal chain of events. The connection between A and B is conceptual, not causal.
This version of the slippery slope argument appeals to the ethical mandate of "universalizability" -- that if we approve of A, and the argument for A also supports B, then we must also approve of B. Now in the real world, it may be that we decide not to approve of B. That simply means that we are being inconsistent.
My argument is that if we approve of same-sex marriage, then to be consistent we must also approve of polyamorous marriages, since the arguments for the former also work for the latter.
Mark: "It is not enough to say that polygamists will use the same arguments that gay marriage activists successfully used, because if those arguments are valid they are valid regardless of whether gay marriage existed or not."
The issue is not whether the arguments are valid, but the extent to which they are able to move people from one position to another. Starting out with polyamorous marriage is a larger conceptual step than gay marriage. But once you have gay marriage it's easier to move on to poly-marriage, since the conceptual groundwork is already in place.
By the way -- just curious here -- would you even care is we ended up with legalized poly-marriages? The reason I ask is that because in a number of conversations on this topic, a large number of OS members have stated that they wouldn't care. In fact, many of them say that they think government should get out of the "marriage business" altogether, and at most what we now call "marriage" would be a limited-duration, renewable contract between two or more people. I wouldn't say that's the majority view on OS, but I have heard it expressed a number of times.
I’m familiar with that concept of the slippery slope and although many consider it the same as the causal version, this interpretation is precisely why I also included the following:
"It is not enough to say that polygamists will use the same arguments that gay marriage activists successfully used, because if those arguments are valid they are valid regardless of whether gay marriage existed or not."
Now, you claim it doesn’t matter if those arguments are valid because they will move public opinion, and while you may be right about public sentiment, I think that is a red herring. These matters will be decided in courts (likely of the Supreme kind) and it will ONLY matter if the claims are valid.
The Boundiful example that you brought up previously is a good example of why gay marriage is the least likely impetus for legalization and for the reason I mentioned previously: religion. These people believe they have a biblical mandate for polygamy and freedom of religion is a much more powerful argument than any gay marriage precedent.
Mishima writes: “By the way -- just curious here -- would you even care is we ended up with legalized poly-marriages?”
Since you press, I’ll tell you that I honestly don’t have an opinion formed on that issue. I don’t know any people in polygamist relationships and I don’t understand what it would mean to them to be married. I do have some gay friends and acquaintances and for the one couple that is married, I know exactly what it means to them.
I do know that gay marriage here in Canada hasn’t stopped the opposite sex marriage world from spinning. I don’t take my vows any less seriously and I don’t take the raising of my children as a less important task just because other people in love have gotten married.