Clarification about the horrendous add: a little boy is coming home from school saying "guess what we learned in school today, boys can marry boys!" In the background the concerned parent voice is saying that if gay marriage is allowed their kindergardeners will be taught that "boys can marry boys" and are more likely to be gay. The problems I had with this ad are 1) it is okay to be gay, 2) knowing that gay marriage is legal is not going to increase the likelihood that a child will be gay, 3) what kindergardeners do you know who are taught about marriage in school? The part that bothered me the most was that this was a scare-tactics ad based on parents feeling uncomfortable if their children are gay.
A side note, I did not mean to imply at all that straight couples don't give a lot of thought to having children. My comment was meant purely as a rebuff to the argument that gay and lesbian couples are unfit to raise children. Also, while domestic partnerships and civil unions are wonderful, there is a certain recognition of what it means to be married that doesn't quite follow with only a domestic partnership. After Mama and Mommy were married a lot of their straight friends gave them wedding presents like those you might give a newly wedded couple (i.e. dishware, recipe books) despite the fact that Mama and Mommy had been together over twenty years. Being married was something that their friends understood. I'm not saying that everyone should regard marriage as the pinnacle of commitment and that everything else denotes a lesser devotion to your partner, not at all. I just wish it could be an option for the people who do want to get married.

— Katie Love-Cooksey | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Have your say.

— Peter | Unregistered, Swarthmore

This is a good well-written article. I've got nothing else against it, but am I the only one that thinks it's pretty silly to protest by going to see a movie? Obviously everyone is free to do what they want, but that choice is neither public nor clever, and doesn't seem to communicate much of a message about gay marriage in any sort of intelligent way that might influence others. If only the Yes on Prop 8 people had such poor marketing tactics, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place! I think the worst part of the idea is that it dissuades participation in the protest from anyone who doesn't want to pay however much a movie costs these days. Am I the only one thinking maybe the producers of Milk just found a brilliant way to increase ticket sales?

Also, on the topic of clever marketing, Obama, in all his "Obamaian change" glory, is against gay marriage. Just sayin'...

— Peter '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Agreed, Peter my good man.
Incidentally, did SQU do anything about Prop 8, or did they sit around painting their toenails?

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Toenail painting has long been recognised as a form of protest rivaling movie-watching in its effectiveness.

— Swattie Expat | Registered, Swarthmore

Religion combines all the worst parts of idiocy and hypocrisy. Why do we Americans let the rights of our fellow citizens be trampled on like this? It is pathetic, I used to have a lot more respect for California and their progress in social liberties.

"Incidentally, did SQU do anything about Prop 8, or did they sit around painting their toenails?"

What exactly did you expect them to do, fly to California to protest? There isn't anything that they could have done. I understand from previous posts you have some beef with SQU but at least attack them in valid ways rather than throw in cheap shots like that.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

No, I didn't expect them to fly out to California, I expected them to hold a fundraiser or something. I understand that they aren't in fact an activist group, but maybe they should be.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Many SQU members attended a protest in Philly right after the election. I also think you should not be so shortsighted as to think that gay marriage is the only issue that SQU has chosen to grapple with. Perhaps SQU has been less consumer driven and white/gay male focused/ than much of the current gay movement. perhaps they are focusing on some of the more pressing issues to the queer community like AIDS running rampant in black and latino communities, or the brutalization of trans people of color. i mean i'm just saying to assume that gay marriage is the focal point of a queer group is kind of ridiculous.

also. i think your comment: I, expected them to hold a fundraiser or something.

i personally would be nothing if not frustrated if SQU chose to use it's political power on campus to raise money to funnel funds into a movement that has for the most part appealed to middle/upper-class gay men and women. i am not interested in supporting a movement that does not recognize that perhaps since marriage is failing straight people miserably queer people need to be a bit more creative in the types of partnerships we create. but seriously FUNDRAISE? i just don't understand, as if No on 8 did not have enough money, that money could go to AIDS clinics, to give sex workers the protection they need. for example.

— Anonymous | Unregistered, Swarthmore

The point is about equality, not that all gays think that marriage is the most wonderful form of partnership. Whether you believe in marriage as something you would want for yourself or not, the point is that those who do wish to have marriage should be able to have it without restriction.

And Argos, if you don't approve of SQU, perhaps you should make your own student group. Swarthmore has tons of queer student groups as is, I am sure there is room for another with your vision.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

Dr House: your point is well taken, what I take issue with is the gigantic and disproportionate amount of money being spent on the marriage campaign. I agree that equality is a great goal to strive for, I just wonder what does it say about the values of the queer community that it is more important to gain marriage rights for a few when queer people of color are dying from AIDS, being brutalized and murdered by the police, and there are more LGBTQ homeless youth in the U.S. than ever before. I just think it shows that our priorities are a little mixed up, to say the least.

— Anoynmous | Unregistered, Swarthmore

More money also goes to art than those causes, and to war, and to pornography. You can cite any number of things that people spend more money on than those altruistic causes.

You've proven people are selfish. Congratulations, I think there's a Nobel prize for that one. I don't get what that has to do with this argument though. Did you expect people to only not be selfish in relation to LGBT matters?

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

Anonymous-
In Massachusetts, gay marriage is at this point basically accepted, without much controversy. This is meaningful, and gay marriage doesn't just affect gay people who marry, it affects all gay people. Getting rights under the law is an important step towards being generally accepted--just look at how far race relations have come since the civil rights movement. So don't give me this crap about how gay marriage is just an issue for the gay bourgeoisie, because a general acceptance of LGBTQ people is the first step towards solving all the issues you are talking about.

— L | Unregistered, Swarthmore

@L
Gay marriage doesn't just affect all gay people, but all people who are interested in having equal protection under the law mean anything.

— G | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Dr House: I agree that money is spent poorly in the United States and disproportionately goes to things we don't need (read: war), however, for the LGBTQ community to choose marriage as the most pressing issue, the issue that we will devote millions and millions of dollars to is suggestive of who has power in this movement. The reason I take issue with the fact that we do not focus on the issues above is because those are LGBTQ issues. Yes, they effect LGBTQ people of color disproportionately but they are also the issues that we are (as an LGBTQ community) choosing to ignore and instead opting to focus on marriage. Also I think that your comment: people are selfish, is quite telling. people are selfish, but it IS upper middle class gays who are being selfish here. that is why it is a LGBTQ community issue and why I am not complaining about the war budget not being spent on these issues.

also in terms of "general acceptance," whatever that means, i'm also confused why marriage is the solution to all of the hate and violence perptrated against the queer community? i don't get why marriage will solve any problems, i also just think more generally marriage sucks and isn't working for straight people so I don't know why the LGBTQ community wants it. i feel like this is a great opportunity to re=imagine legal partnerships that include queer families, which look different than straight ones.

— Anonymous | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Dear friends,

I'd take a different stand on these issues, and agree with what I think G is saying.

There are people of all races and sexualities suffering from brutality, poverty, disease, you name it. This doesn't stop other people from fighting for legal equality.

I'm not going to equate the black struggle for equality with that of the queer population, but I'd like to use it as a case study. If you look at the black population in America, both gay and straight, you'd see that they suffer in so many ways -- from increased domestic violence, AIDS, poverty -- but would we tell those black activists who choose to argue specifically for legal equality that they are ignoring their less privileged brethren? That they are selfish? This argument is so problematic. Imagine what the world would look like if we followed this logic: schools would not be integrated, black people would not be allowed to vote, and Obama would certainly not be president.

There's something to be said for legal equality. This is a basic issue of rights and governance. Queer people are not seen as human by the law, this is why they can't marry.

Asking for the right to marry, to have visitation rights in the hospital, to have the same legal regard as straight couples do, that is simply asking to be seen as human beings by the law. Right now queer sex and marriage is equated with bestiality in much of the country.

Wishing to be treated like a human being by the law is not mutually exclusive of working towards equality for all groups of queer people.

Please, think twice before calling people selfish for desiring to be treated equally by the law. Don't tell me that I should "re=imagine legal partnerships that include queer families, which look different than straight ones."

First, all people should have equal rights. They should have choices. I want the choice to live like straight people, to be married if I want. Then I'll go about defining how I'm going to live my life. But at least I'll have the choice, and know that the law sees me like everyone else.

— Clarice | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I agree, gay marriage does affect all people, which is why there was such strong feeling by the supporters of Proposition 8 -- because they accurately perceived that legalizing gay marriage would affect them, if not directly, than indirectly in the years to come and in the society it would create.

Most psychological studies indicate that homosexuality (like most psychological phenomena) is both nature and nurture: so while being raised in a gay or gay-friendly environment does not mean that a child will grow up to be gay, it does increase the likelihood. And being raised in a gay unfriendly environment will decrease that likelihood: the nature part stays the same (which is why there were people who were gay even in highly repressive societies), but the nurture part can change.

It is disappointing that the only opinions expressed in this article were ones in favor of Prop 8. I do know more than 10 people on campus (and probably many more than that, if I went around asking people) who would have voted for prop 8. It would have been nice to hear their opinions. But then again, the fear of the great negative repercussions would probably mean that none of them would be willing to be interviewed. Oh well.

— Chris Green | Registered, Swarthmore

Stolen from Kenyon Farrow:

I, as a Black gay man, do not support this push for same-sex marriage. Although I don’t claim to represent all Black gay people, I do believe that the manner in which this campaign has been handled has put Black people in the middle of essentially two white groups of people, who are trying to manipulate us one way or the other. The Christian right, which is in fact anti-Black, has tried to create a false alliance between themselves and Blacks through religion to push forward their homophobic, fascist agenda. The white gay civil rights groups are also anti-Black, however they want Black people to see this struggle for same-sex unions as tantamount to separate but equal Jim Crow laws. Yet any close examination reveals that histories of terror imposed upon generations of all Black people in this country do not in any way compare to what appears to be the very last barrier between white gays and lesbians’ access to what bell hooks describes as “white supremacist Christian capitalist patriarchy.” That system is inherently anti-Black, and no amount of civil rights will ever get Black people any real liberation from it. For, in what is now a good 40 years of “civil rights,” nothing has intrinsically changed or altered in the American power structure, and a few Black faces in inherently racist institutions is hardly progress.

Given the current white hetero-normative constructions of family and how the institutions of marriage and nuclear families have been used against Black people, I do think that to support same-sex marriage is in fact, anti-Black (I also believe the institution of marriage to be historically anti-woman, and don’t support it for those reasons as well). At this point I don’t know if I am totally opposed to the institution of marriage altogether, but I do know that the campaign would have to happen on very different terms for me to support same-sex marriages. At this point, the white gay community is as much to blame as the Christian Right for the way they have constructed the campaign, including who is represented, and their appropriation of Black civil rights language.

Along with how the campaign is currently devised, I struggle with same-sex marriage because, given the level of homophobia in our society (specifically in the Black community), and racism as well, I think that even if same-sex marriage becomes legal, white people will access that privilege far more than Black people. This is especially the case with poor Black people, who regardless of sexual preference or gender, are struggling with the most critical of needs (housing, food, gainful employment), which are not at all met by same-sex marriage. Some Black people (men in particular) might not try to access same-sex marriage because they do not even identify as “gay” partly because of homophobia in the Black community, but also because of the fact that racist white queer people continue to dominate the public discourse of what “gay” is, which does not include Black people of the hip-hop generation by and large.

I do fully understand that non-heteros of all races and classes may cheer this effort for they want their love to be recognized, and may want to reap some of the practical benefits that a marriage entitlement would bring – health care (if one of you gets health care from your job in the first place) for your spouse, hospital visits without drama or scrutiny, and control over a deceased partner’s estate. But, gay marriage, in and of itself, is not a move towards real, and systemic liberation. It does not address my most critical need as a Black gay man to be able to walk down the streets of my community with my lover, spouse or trick, and not be subjected to ridicule, assault or even murder. Gay marriage does not adequately address homophobia or transphobia, for same-sex marriage still implies binary opposite thinking, and transgender folks are not at all addressed in this debate.

The rest of his piece: Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black? Is here: http://kenyonfarrow.com/2005/06/14/is-gay-marriage-anti-black/

It pretty much sums up what I am arguing.

— Anonymous | Unregistered, Swarthmore

There is so much wrong with that piece I don't even know where to begin. If that is what your argument is based on, I think we will never be able to see eye to eye on an issue like this. Kenyon Farrow seems to be a purveyor of the absolute WORST sort of identity politics.

— L | Unregistered, Swarthmore

This is not a rhetorical question, I actually would like a real response. How does gay marriage affect all people? Does heterosexual marriage affect all people? How is it different when it's two people of the same gender?

Does what two people do in their own family and home have an effect on everybody?

— C | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I'm unclear, chris, as to why the nature/nurture argument is relevant to the question of gay marriage unless there is some concern about whether more homosexuals are going to come from more gay marriages. is this your concern? can you clarify?

and I second C's question, and chris I'd love to hear your POV but i'd also like to hear from anyone else who would have voted for prop 8, how does the institution of marriage, and the expansion of that institution to homosexuals, affect all people? are we talking the religious ceremony, or the legal and economic questions? what society would the failure of prop 8 have created? what is scary or unappealing about that society?

look, i'm not trying to invite people to get flamed but i would really be interested in hearing people's viewpoints since for the most part my friends are of the liberal/dont discuss politics variety. so if you want to share but don't want to share in this space go on and email me- kaizpuru@gmail.com.

— kate | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

To C: Yeah, heterosexual marriage also affects all people. The effects on society of marriage are similar regardless of who are being married. The difference is that some folks think that marriage should be restricted with regards to same-sex couples, because the effects of allowing same sex marriages are viewed as inherently detrimental to certain societal values while those of heterosexual marriages are not inherently so.

It is worth pointing out that effectively everyone has some restrictions they place on marriage: for most liberals, they require some form of mutual consent before a marriage can be entered into; also most people agree that there should be a lower bound on age of participating members. So most folks don't have a problem with restricting what marriage is or who can participate in it, they just have a problem with where those restricts are place or who those people are.

To Kate: For folks who view homosexual as a bad thing (an aberration, a sin, what have you), creating a society in which the likelihood of individuals becoming homosexual is undesirable. That is where nature/nurture comes in. If homosexuality were entirely nature, then social constraints wouldn't make a differences in whether folks were homosexual or not (just like social prejudice can't change the color of your skin).

My point was that for the people who voted to restrict marriage to being between one man and one woman (or, more accurately, to clarify and re-affirm that restriction), their actions were based on an understanding that allowing government-sanctioned homosexual marriage would shift the way in which our society operates. It would move from allowing individuals the freedom to act as they wish in the privacy of their homes, to actively supporting a certain type of lifestyle and relationship which many people believe to be inherently perverse.

Folks who oppose gay marriage will often say (as they have said to me) that they are not advocating a restriction of freedoms, but rather a maintenance of an institution which our nation requires in order to function as a viable society. The nuclear family is still the fundamental unit by which the young of the nation are born and raised, and the fact that men and women are different (not only physically, but psychologically as well) creates a home environment in which children are raised with a proper understanding and appreciation for the unique contributions each makes. As the country has a vested interest in protecting its own future, protecting the basic unit by which we live is necessary.

Of course, there are other elements that also play into the matter: the already-mentioned idea that homosexual behavior is a sin, for instance. The idea that homosexuality is icky. The idea that homosexual marriage has never been accepted in any society in a way similar to heterosexual marriage.

As a result, opposition to homosexual marriage makes sense: marriage is not one of our inherent rights, it is something which (in a really weird way) government and religion both have a say. Therefore the ability to marry is not a right for just anyone to take, it is restricted to some people (just like, say, the right to carry a concealed weapon is not something that just anyone can get). Therefore if there is no obvious need for marriage of homosexual couples, and in fact there are possible dangers (sanctity of marriage, government support of a morally degrading practice), support for marriage to continue to be understood as only between a man and a woman makes sense.

Now, I probably have made many people very angry right now, and they will have already begun to assume that what I just wrote was my view --- I just passed it off to someone else (because naturally it is impossible to write anything but one's own viewpoint). Because I'm sort of tired of folks misunderstanding me that way, let me say a little what I myself actually believe.

And let me start by saying I'm not sure about this issue (I know -- it's unforgivable not to have a strongly held position on every topic). It seems to me that much of the difficulty comes in the mixing of both religion and state. I was just a few weeks ago at a marriage in which the minister, who happened to be my father, pronounced the bride and groom man and wife: by the power invested in him by the church and the state. This causes problems, because the church and the state often do not see eye to eye on matters, and sometimes they should act differently.

I am not one of those folks who misinterpret "separation of church and state" to mean that the church is supposed to go to its own little corner and sit there and play by itself while the state does the actual governing (the clause was originally written, actually, to prevent the state from meddling in the church, a la Church of England), but there are differences, and I have heard compelling arguments that in the case of marriage, they should just be separated completely.

So for instance, the church ONLY does marriages, which have nothing more (and nothing less...it's a lot of significance) than religious significance, and the state ONLY does civil unions, which have nothing more than civil significance. This might solve some of the problems.

I find it reasonable that a homosexual individual should be able to inherit, or should be able to visit the hospitalized partner, or even should be able to (heavens!) adopt children. These are all things which I think should be allowed for anyone (so I and my brother, or I and my friend, or whoever we agree on), whether heterosexual, homosexual, married, or not.

The above position has less to do with being pro or anti homosexual, and more to do with the government not telling folks what they can and cannot do.

On the other hand, I also do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful (this is a complex topic, and one I won't get into here; I'd be willing to talk about it in person), and that marriage as an institution and a title has power and importance which needs to be restricted to heterosexual couples. The above reasons apply. That's why if I had lived in California I would have voted for proposition 8: not because I hate homosexuals (hopefully the homosexual men and women at Swarthmore whom I count among my friends will confirm this), but because I believe that marriage is something reserved for a man and a woman who swear a commitment of their lives to each other.

So, I suppose I support allowing most of the perks of being married to homosexual couples (or any other pair of people who want them). I just want to keep the term marriage distinct, as well as the religious act of marrying people.

Perhaps that is helpful for the folks who were interested. To the others, my apologies for the long read.

— Chris Green | Registered, Swarthmore

Incidentally, though there are rich opportunities present already for the wee conservatives of the campus to express themselves on this forum, they have almost exclusively have restricted themselves to the occasional, anonymous, supportive comment on Daily Gazette articles. Your hope for a conservative response other than mine is, I'm afraid, one that will not be realized. Conservatives here tend to be distrustful of the motives of their peers. It's unfortunate, but can you really blame them?

— Chris Green | Registered, Swarthmore

Chris,

Thank you for offering up an answer to my question. I guess what I really don't understand is the reasoning behind the belief that homosexuality is detrimental to society. I just don't see how two people being in a private relationship, participating in many of the same practices as a heterosexual couple would, not committing any crimes, not trying to force their way of life onto others, are detrimental to a society any more than any other couple. But feel free to not respond to this, as I know it will lead this conversation down a very complex road. I just wanted to explain where my confusion comes from.

— C | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Sorry about the weird wording there, but you get the general idea. Tired eyes and brains make for sloppy writing.

— C | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Chris, thanks for the lengthy and well-thought-out response. I really appreciate it. I guess the issue just comes down to personal belief systems, and personally I just cannot agree with or support many of the ones you described.

i.e.: that homosexuality is an aberration and any environment where people may "become" homosexual is undesirable. I am interested in the nature/nurture debate; if homosexuality is at all the result of nature, it makes more sense to me to say that, rather than someone raised in a gay-friendly will "become gay," they will feel more comfortable accepting the "gayness" that already exists within them and living according to their nature. To me, it is more undesirable for people to have to repress inner homosexuality and try to live as heterosexuals, who thus may be unfulfilled, because of their nurture, but the bottom line there is which scenario ('unfriendly situation leading to repressing homosexuality' or 'friendly situation leading to people living openly as homosexuals') is worse. I guess I and the people you describe just disagree.

The argument about whether gay marriage is more about restricting freedom or more about maintaining an important institution is an interesting one. I find it frustrating because while people may believe that they are preserving our society, the argument seems underdeveloped in many ways. For one, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and South Africa are still viable. The states that have legalized gay marriage are still functioning. Haven't those places proved the argument that gay marriage could make society less viable incorrect? I am concerned that those places are just dismissed as not-American (and therefore irrelevant) or places home to the US's liberal elites (which, according to much of the rhetoric coming from the Republican party during their attempts to secure the votes of conservative Americans, are also un-American and in fact, may even hate America). Is this a question of American exceptionalism? Is America (and, particularly, more conservative regions) so different that what has failed to significantly harm other places will have a different effect on our turf?

As for the institution of the nuclear family, I fully realize that many of the same people who oppose gay marriage also oppose divorce and disapprove of single parent households, but I wonder why there is no movement to ban divorce or remove children from single parent households (or otherwise provide a permanent opposite sex mentor for the child), if the worth of the nuclear family is so great that it is worth banning gay marriage over. The fact that there is so little loud/prominent/obvious discussion and activism from the pro-family movement (it may exist but it's certainly quieter than the anti-gay-marriage movement) about the high divorce rate in our society and the existence of single-parent homes, children born out of wedlock, etc makes that argument seem, to me, like a distraction from the real issue at hand: that homosexual family units are perceived as worse than other nontraditional heterosexual arrangements, because of inherent ickyness/sin/perversity/whatever. Which is just something that can't be argued for or against, really.

I guess there is an aspect of "restricting freedom" now that I think about it, but people of all persuasions are "free" to live together, get it on, make lifelong commitments, lead a swingers' lifestyle. The problem is there's also a restriction of the legal/economic/etc benefits of marriage. And it seems like it just comes down to the same question people were discussing before: should two people who love each other and are the same sex, and have decided to make a long term commitment to each other, deserve the same legal and economic benefits and protections under the law as heterosexuals who want to marry. It seems that some people believe that homosexuality is wrong enough that the answer is, No, they do not. And I and others believe the answer is, Yes, they do. How is that something that can be argued? Yes, no, yes, no. Maybe that seems like an oversimplification but like C, I just can't get past the inherent value differences marking the discussion.

Anyway, since you are surrounded by raging liberals like me all day every day at swat I am sure you have already heard all those thoughts before :P I'm not really trying to argue with you and I REALLY appreciate the response. I guess I'm just processing why hearing those arguments is so frustrating for me.

And I'd definitely also get behind the civil union/marriage divide.

"Conservatives here tend to be distrustful of the motives of their peers. It's unfortunate, but can you really blame them?"

Heh. Nope. Here's hoping this post won't be perceived as aggressive, though.

— kate | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Chris, a couple queries (and again, thanks for your thoughtful response). 1) how do you reconcile your opinion that homosexuality is sinful with having homosexual friends? 2) Why do you think your own views about behavior which does not impact you (I mean specifically here same-sex love) have a place in creating public policy for a pluralistic nation? 3) Would you call yourself bigoted for thinking that homosexuality is sinful? Why or why not? 4) Do you believe pluralistic society is a worthy goal, or would you rather have a nation entirely of heterosexual Christians?

And tell me how you would feel about the following proposition. The government grants civil unions to whatever combination of consenting adults wants them; each church is then free to call it what it wants. Yay? Nay?

Your argument basically boils down to recognizing the symbolic importance of maintaining marriage's traditional definition (which once viewed women as property, but that's a separate discussion as well). I can respect that; if the catholic church doesn't want to ordain women as priests or preside over same-sex marriage, power to em. But I do not understand the leap between a religious opinion and the policy position that same sex couples ought not have the same legal rights or recognition. I mean that literally: I do not understand it, because my worldview is so radically different that it's impossible for me to create a reasonable argument which bridges that gap. So I'm interrogating you because I want to better understand, and thanks in advance for your time and thought.

— Seth Green | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Chris - I like what you said, and it's basically what I've always been saying, minus the bit about thinking homosexuality is a sin as I am a rabid atheist with no such conceptions.

When people argue in terms of sanctity of marriage, I tend to feel as if they're trying to rationalize gut instincts, taking a simple reaction of discomfort and trying to tie it into something more concrete.

In terms of sexual behavior, or patterns of sexual relationships, I've found myself almost confusing a negative reaction with an underlying belief.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Chris, I echo what everyone else has been saying: thanks for the thoughtful response.

To the person who asked how Chris can reconcile having gay friends with a belief that homosexuality is wrong, I think I can lend some insight. I was brought up Catholic and went to Catholic school, and the Church's opinion is basically: just because someone is your friend/relative doesn't mean you have to support everything that they do. The Church believes homosexual behavior is wrong, but not that homosexual PEOPLE are wrong. There's nothing sinful about feeling homosexual urges, just acting on them. So I'm sure I, as a queer woman, have members of my extended family and friends from high school who think that what I do with my girlfriend is wrong, and further, that raising children with her would be wrong. They have not chosen to share this information with me, but I wouldn't cut them out of my lives if they did. They operate on a different belief system than I do. Having grown up in the faith, I understand how powerful it is for some people. I just disagree. Most Swarthmore students cannot really conceive of a friendship between me (an extremely out lesbian) and a "moral conservative" (defined, in my worldview, by the faith in which I was raised), but that's because most Swarthmore students don't understand that tolerance of ideas works both ways.

What I'm curious about, Chris, and I know you have tons of things to respond to: can you point to any evidence that children raised in "gay-friendly" environments are more likely to be gay? If this fact is not true, than your argument as to the effects of gay marriage on society seem more than a little shaky.

— Krystyn | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Hey all,

Its nice that all of you have been so kind to Chris and his so called "thoughtful response." I think some of you are being nice so that he doesn't point his finger at you and tell you that you're an insensitive liberal that can't hear the conservative viewpoint.

You asking for rational answers from someone who thinks that "homosexual behavior is sinful." Good luck with that one, guys. Think about it. This is a thread about marriage, not about "evidence that children raised in "gay-friendly" environments are more likely to be gay."

I'm sorry, but if you think that homosexuality is sinful, you're inherently bigoted and irrational. I don't care how thoughtful your responses are to other questions, but the fact that you would vote to maintain inequality in our country, the fact that you would call my love for my boyfriend wrong and sinful, that hurts really badly.

Chris, it's not so complicated. Your religion has taught you to be bigoted.

I'm not sensitive to your viewpoint because you're telling me that something I can't control and should have to, something that is so inherently part of me, is sinful. Chris, just because you listen to liberals, just because you're open about your beliefs, does not make them ok. Just because you're the only person with your viewpoint who dares speak out, just because you're willing to sit down with people and discuss them, does not keep your views from being inherently hurtful, bigoted, and wrong.

I don't care what you have to say about marriage. You shouldn't have brought up homosexuality as a sin here. This is not the place or forum. Go away.

— Clarice | Unregistered, Swarthmore

here here, Clarice.

— QAF | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Clarice, I'm actually entirely sympathetic to your viewpoint, but because I really do not understand how a reasonable person could fill the gap between premise 1) homosexuality is sinful and conclusion 2) a pluralistic society shouldn't allow gay marriage, I asked Chris to elaborate, and I thought a polite response was most likely to elicit it. I think the premise is totally unacceptable for liberal society, but unfortunately, the majority of Americans feel that way. That sucks. But what can you do? You can only hope that the more homosexuals become a part of the social fabric, the more attitudes will change.

I also think that Chris is on the verge of, if not accepting gay marriage, then tolerating it, in the vein described by Charles Blow, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/opinion/29blow.html . His advice, which is very realpolitik, is to "decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement."

I feel bad for you, Clarice. I am advising that you maintain a pragmatic approach to the situation, because that is most conducive to achieving the social ends you want - But I doubt I would be able to maintain the same emotional distance if I were the one targeted. If I met someone who said that being Jewish is unacceptable and that Jews are not entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else, well, just thinking about it makes my heart race. We compromise our morals and beliefs by joining society, Clarice, and trying to engage Chris is a compromise I'm willing to make. I totally understand though why you are not.

— Seth Green | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

sorry, meant to say, majority of Americans are opposed to same sex marriage, not that the majority think homosexuality is sinful. I don't know the stats on that.

P.S. for clarification I use same-sex marriage and not gay marriage because gay marriage is totally legal in america; plenty of gay men and women are currently married to straight people. Hence why there's the http://www.straightspouse.org/

— Seth | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

While we're all happily/angrily/pointlessly arguing about "homosexuality" here and how it relates to marriage, allow me to make a meek request: stop using the word homosexual! As a pansexual person I am annoyed that you are not equal opportunity lovers/haters toward all queers, homosexual or not. Specifically, Chris (who started the rampant use of the word homosexual here), why did you use the word "homosexual" when other people who are not straight (pansexual, queer, sodomites, bisexual, non-identified, LGBTQWhatever) are equally not allowed to marry depending on their current relationship status? Please, if you're going to be telling me I can't get married (or cant speak or cant exist or cant act on my emotions or whatever you are or are not saying) at least acknowledge my existence first or I will continue to assume that you mean that while my homosexual friends cannot get married/are sinful, I can marry whoever I want, man, woman, two-spirit, FTM, MTF, genderqueer, genderf*ck, LGBTQWhatever. Which is kind of cool isn't it? :)

— QAF | Unregistered, Swarthmore

oy, quite right qaf. My bad. sorry~~

— kate | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

yeah my bad

— seth | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

So, Chris, when you say that you think the view that religions should go off and play in a corner while the GOVERNment does the actual GOVERNing is a misinterpretation, how exactly are you justifying that? Most of the framers of the Constitution were deists, meaning they did not consider themselves to be members of any church. So if you're really going to talk about the intentionality of a living document as if what the framers wanted is what we should be considering as a guiding principle, then frankly that's not a misinterpretation at all. In fact, religious institutions have consciously relinquished their rights to be political entities by not paying taxes.

Yes, your father pronounced the couple married by his power from both church and state. But the thing is, the state doesn't *care* about what the church says. Anyone -- mayors, captains of ships, people who fill out a form online -- can do marriages. But without a legal marriage certificate, a clergyperson can say whatever s/he damn well pleases and that couple still won't be getting any tax benefits or visitation rights. The state doesn't have to pay attention to what the church says, but the church has to pay attention to what the state says. This is because the state is more powerful than the church. Therefore, what the church thinks about legal matters -- any legal matters -- really shouldn't matter any more than what any individual citizen thinks about a legal matter. Church members and clergy can vote or hold protests like everyone else, but as far as expecting that the government listen to them specially because they happen to like some book -- well, that's unreasonable. And *that* is what separation of church and state means.

As for the large number of logical fallacies in your explanation of why religious fundamentalists think that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed (which seems to boil down to "ew, gay people are icky", what a shock):
-This "the nuclear family is still the building block of society" thing is an ahistorical view of a historical concept. The "nuclear family" as we think of it is a relatively recent development that depends on certain economic conditions to make it favorable for young people to move away from their parents and technological conditions to make widespread travel cheap and fast. For parts of Western history, children have been raise in large family units or in environments surrounded by only women to which they may or may not have been related. They seemed to turn out just fine, unlike a lot of people in "the traditional nuclear family".
-The Christian right-wing's view of marriage is similarly ahistorical, and similarly flawed. As someone mentioned, women used to be viewed as property in a marriage. Marriage was invented as an economic transaction and polygamy was standard for much of human history (and still is, in some cultures). Furthermore, the view of marriage as a lifetime commitment complete with faithful monogamy is, at the *very* earliest, a 19th century construct. Fidelity has never been important in the lower classes in the way it was in the upper classes, that had property to protect. Even then, it was only expected of women -- again for economic reasons.
-People can't marry the unconsenting because it hurts the unconsenting. People can't marry children because it hurts the children. But right now, people can't marry other people of the same gender because it hurts bigots. You see the difference?
-Your comparison between marriage and a concealed carry license is utterly invalid. In some states, no one can get a concealed carry license. In others, anyone who isn't a convicted felon or legally insane can. In most, you need training in how to use a gun and a good reason to need to carry concealed. But *anyone* can get that training and have a reason and therefore anyone can get that license. It discriminates based on situation, knowledge, and ability, unlike marriage, which at the moment is discriminatory based on identity. Maybe if marriage discriminated like that instead, the divorce rate would actually go down.

To Clarice - amen. To Seth - good questions!

— Ariel | Unregistered, Swarthmore

This is very important, though it has no relevance to anything whatsoever:

"With new Cinnamon Toast Crunch Crisps from General Mills Foodservice, cereal is now a portable meal that can be eaten anytime, anywhere."

What does that mean?

Anyway, product placement aside, I will say this. Chris may have some bigotry issues, and religion may have clouded his ability to reason, but I must give him credit for sticking to genuine conservatism and supporting freedom from government interference. It seems that freedom is more important to him than restricting how people live their lives based upon his own values, and that's laudable.

Also - yeah cinnamon toast crunch crisps in McCabe!

And um, a shout-out to the poet Milton! Hurrah!

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

But, Argos, Chris said he'd have voted for Prop. 8, partially because he "believe[s] that homosexual behavior is sinful". So, um, as good as your intention is, I think that credit is undeserved.

— Ariel | Unregistered, Swarthmore

To start with, I'd like to agree that decoupling "state marriage" and "church marriage" is a good idea and I would never oppose such an effort. However, until these "pro-family" groups fight just as hard to accept this compromise as they did against Prop 8, I find the prospect incredibly unlikely, hence impractical.

PS: Be nice to Chris, or at least not needlessly antagonistic. It is not an easy thing to voice an unpopular opinion, and it is something that must be done if we are to get to the truth at the matter--and there is always more at the center than anyone realizes at first.

Where truth goes, understanding will follow.

PPS: I read through Kenyon Farrow's article, and I'm still confused. It seems to boil down to the following:

-There are racist gay people
-People keep making inappropriate comparisons between gay rights and sitting in the back of the bus. (never mind the similarities between Prop 8 commercials and miscegenation rhetoric)
-Marriage is a pillar of an inherently anti-black system. (haven't heard that one before)
-Therefore, gay people shouldn't get married?

I think I'm missing part of the argument.

— Amber | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Argos,

Let me first say that I plan on marrying you one day, so watch out.

Anyway: you give Chris a break for his "genuine conservatism?"

Sure, he does argue for freedom from government interference. Great.

But he also discusses religious bigotry on the same page as politics. This is... dare I say... the common contortion of conservative thinking! The contemporary crisis of conservative America!

If Chris didn't write a so called "conservative" column where he obliquely defines conservative thinking as a combination of religious-oriented "philosophy" with political thinking, I might take you seriously.

Sometimes he seems like a true political conservative, sometimes he doesn't. I never know what prize I'm gonna pull out of the cracker-jack box, Argos.

— Clarice | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I know you want to marry me. Why do you think I wear this purity ring? I'm not saving myself for Captain Save-a-Deer.

I also said that Chris is bigoted and irrational. He also has dissociative personality disorder whereby one of his other selves is a guinea pig.

Evidently, Clarice, I do not condone his views or especially like conservatism.

And yes, you raise a good point. And um, I agree.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

The fundamental conflict in the same-sex marriage debate seems to be "queer sex and/or people are bad" vs. "queer sex and/or people are not bad." I don't think either side is going to win over the other one. Maybe on an individual level, but not nationally. Is anyone more of an optimist than me here? I'm in agreement with some here in that I think the best end we can hope for (to this particular issue only, not to other issues of heterosexism) is some sort of separation of church marriage vs. civil marriage compromise.

I guess it's also possible that this will get resolved in the Supreme Court some day via sex discrimination. As someone already pointed out, queer people CAN get married, just not to someone of the same legal sex. So some tricky lawyer could make the argument that the state is not giving men and women equal treatment under the law when they deny them the right to marry men and women, respectively. Kind of a twist ending, but who knows?

— Mark Lewis '10 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I have very mixed feelings about it coming to the supreme court. Even if they did pass it would that really be good for acceptance of same sex marriage?

I agree with your divide. I think all the crap the conservatives throw on is a post-hoc rationalization of an initial dislike. I also think that a lot of ground can be made arguing that tolerance does not mean acceptance, and that no matter how you feel about homosexuality, you gotta live and let live. Also, like Dan Savage said on the colbert report, the group that is most against same sex marriage is old people and eventually they'll die.

Yeah, prop 8 being voted in was hard. But similar measures were defeated by a much wider margin 4 years ago. I feel like we're nearly there.

— Seth | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Kate - I would argue that the pro-family movement as a whole is much more active than any anti-homosexuality movement. In churches every week, at small lectures across the country, in daily conversations, people are talking about the atrocious state of American marriages, from divorce to premarital sex to single motherhood. It just isn't as obvious because the forces destroying marriage are social and not political, so there aren't political campaigns that newspapers write about, only conversations in homes, religious houses of worship, and other arenas not of interest to reporters (after all, reporters are into reporting news, and generating it when they can't report it -- what is worth reading about "local preacher urges stronger marriages?" -- though I did read an article recently about preachers in Texas advocating a week of sex between marriage couples as a way to re-affirm their marriages... which is its own kettle of worms.).

This issues are also typically not discussed much in academia and the educated elite, for whom homosexuality is a much more common topic; for bread-and-butter common folks, the deleterious effects of divorce, out-of-wedlock pregnancies are both more powerful forces in their lives and more common; issues of homosexuality are distant and largely unimportant in their lives. They may feel strongly about them, but they don't spend their days and nights worrying about it in the same way. For liberal elite who typically have both the financial ability to whether divorce (though divorce is never pleasant), and for whom teenage pregnancies occur less frequently and result less often in teenage mothers, and for whom issues of premarital sex aren't inherently bad, the pro-family movement is less important, is not sought out, and can seem distant or non-existent. Also, since most people agree that things like unplanned teen pregnancies are bad, there are not prominent vociferous arguments (like this one right here) about them. So it's quieter.

Divorce isn't banned because there are legitimate times when divorce should be allowed; and children aren't taken away from single parents because, among other reasons, it would abridge the rights of parents and further harm the children. I don't know how I feel about no-fault divorces.

I would reiterate that I'm not an expert on these issues. Some questions I would pose back to you, are, what are the statistics of percent of people getting married in the countries you listed? What are the statistics of those getting divorces? Is there a trend of fewer marriages and increased percent of divorces relative to before these countries changed their policies? Also, if you are going to make the argument that it takes a generation for these effects to be seen (as I imagine most folks would) we have to wait at least 20-30 year before the effects become obvious.

"it seems like it just comes down to the same question people were discussing before: should two people who love each other and are the same sex, and have decided to make a long term commitment to each other, deserve the same legal and economic benefits and protections under the law as heterosexuals who want to marry. It seems that some people believe that homosexuality is wrong enough that the answer is, No, they do not. And I and others believe the answer is, Yes, they do. How is that something that can be argued? Yes, no, yes, no. Maybe that seems like an oversimplification but like C, I just can't get past the inherent value differences marking the discussion." -- I think this is a very perceptive comment, but I also don't think that it has to just be chalked up as irreconcilable differences just yet.

Seth --

Folks have been mentioning the word bigot lately. the OED claims that non-obsolete definitions of the word are:
1. A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.
2.In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.
3. Of or characteristic of a bigot; bigoted.

The first definition appears to be somewhat of a subjective judgment; it depends on what you consider unreasonable or obstinate. By this definition maybe I am a bigot in some people's eyes. I would simply voice my own opinion that my adherence to religious belief is not unreasonable. The second definition brings up intolerance. Intolerance is another tricky word. Let's go again to the OED:

1.The fact or habit of not tolerating or enduring (something); inability, or unwillingness, to tolerate or endure some particular thing; incapacity of endurance. Const. of.
2. spec. Absence of tolerance for difference of opinion or practice, esp. in religious matters; denial of the right to differ; narrow-minded or bigoted opposition to dissent.

I think that I am capable of enduring other peoples views and existence. I also have been very willing to accept differences of opinion; that doesn't mean that I think others are right, it means that I am willing to let them be wrong. I am intolerant of some actions (e.g. stealing); does that make me a bigot? I guess it depends on whether folks see it as extreme.

As a side note, if we are going to accept "strong partisan beliefs" as a qualification for bigotry, I could make a compelling case that most of Swarthmore (from administration and faculty down to us humble students) is bigoted.

Regarding your specific question about seeing homosexual behavior as sinful, I don't see it as bigoted. It follows a traditional reading of Biblical teaching. I also see drunkeness, pride, covetousness, extramarital sex, lust, and inhospitality, unkindness, refusal to accept God, etc. as sinful. And I sin just as much as anyone else. So am I bigoted against homosexuals? Not really. I just see it as wrong. alcohol addiction as been shown to be partially heritable, yet I still see drinking alcohol to access as sinful. Seeing a pretty girl and wanted to sleep with her, for most adult males, is a natural reaction, but it's still sinful. Being selfish is also fairly universal. Just because a tendency or inclination is "natural" doesn't make it right.

I would rather a national of heterosexual Christians (who also have many other characteristics) not because others are driven out, but because others have all come to a faith in God. Seeing as that hasn't happened yet, I don't recommend a nation in which non-Christians are run out of the country. I don't see any particular problem with advocating laws and systems of government which chime with a Christian understanding of the world (e.g. punishing wrongdoing like stealing -- something which so far as copyright law goes, many countries which do not have a Christian basis -- and most American college students -- appear to be perfectly happy with violating). As I have stated before, on the position off marriage I still haven't settled on a solid position, because for me it sits somewhere between blue laws (which I don't think should be laws) and criminal laws (which should be). And in that vast wilderness of gray shades, I make my choices but recognize that these are not issues I have completely sorted -- and may never completely sort.


Hey QAF - I used the word homosexual because I wanted to talk about homosexuality and not the other types of non-traditional heterosexual feelings/behavior/action. homosexuality is most prominent as an alternative to heterosexuality, and the arguments about the other groups are the same; I mentioned that the alternative presented was to a marriage between a man and a woman. So it doesn't matter if two heterosexual women wanted to get married to each other either -- it still isn't allowed.

I'm sorry you feel left out of the discussion; but I suspect you really aren't feeling left out, just a little annoyed that I didn't acknowledge your existence. In order to keep the topic from becoming a battle of semantics, I figured I would (and will) keep my comments confined to the contrast between homosexual and heterosexual. You may hereafter assume that anything I write can be logically extrapolated to the appropriate group or groups that you have mentioned (or haven't mentioned).


Clarice -- ad hominem attacks are a little silly. I will be leaving, if all goes as planned, in less than six months, so you don't have too long to wait. I mentioned the whole sin thing because it was pertinent to why folks vote for prop 8, which is about marriage. If this isn't the forum to discuss that, what is the right forum? You probably won't appreciate the irony of this, but many folks accuse liberals of the same high levels of irrationality that you have applied to me. (Who put such a high value on rationality, anyway? Maybe it's not all its cracked up to be, and we're all following a dream of rationality which will not give us what we need.) In any case, I am sorry that my comments have been felt as hurtful. I have not intended them to be, and have striven to be as civil as possible; this while thread has been remarkably civil, actually. Good job, everyone!


Krystyn -- you are spot on about the way religious conservatives perceive homosexual behavior (and any other behavior they consider sin, for that matter -- homosexuality doesn't have a monopoly on things religious people are sinful, nor is it conservative religion's biggest issue; though it may be the issue most salient to non-religious progressives).

As I mentioned at the beginning of this conversation, I am not an expert nor even a hobbyist in the field of gender psychology. As I understand it, most of the studies done on socialization of sexual behavior occurs during puberty. A quick look at what Google Scholar can provide is surprisingly sparse. What little is there indicates that sexuality is highly malleable and socially constructed (viz. http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/93/6/894). As such, the socialization of children plays a major role in later sexuality.


Lauren -- In addition to encouraging liberals to seek out conservative views and wait at lest five minuets before snorting in derision, I also fully berate conservatives for abandoning higher education; the lack of conservative voices is because there are not many conservative throats ere. Why? It's not because education forces you to become liberal (though it does have a strong socializing power... perhaps like allowing homosexual marriage might? hmm...) but because conservatives have abandoned academia and much of the educational system.


Ariel - I'm not sure you have data on what te religious affiliation of the founding fathers was; I know I don't. I think we can both agree that they were nearly all at LEAST deists who more or less believed in Christian teachings, even if they did not affiliate with a particular church. I would disagree that you have to pay taxes if you want to be a political entity; taxes are not a gateway to the political in-club (which is why the poll tax was abolished), they are a way for the government to generate revenue or discourage certain activity (such as importing foreign goods or discourage cigarette smoking). Also, there are many organizations which do not pay taxes that have not given up their political clout -- consider many non-profit organizations like the ACLU. To the best of my knowledge, they do not pay taxes.

My point is simply that what the church (or temple, or mosque, or what have you) says can (and does) influence politics, and this does not mean that the democratic system has failed. In fact, their input is important as they represent a large number of people -- just as corporations and unions also provide useful input to government officials.

"...because they happen to like some book" This is a little derogatory and offensive. Which is okay, I just wanted you to be aware.

"large number of logical fallacies in your explanation of why religious fundamentalists think that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed" -- are the logical fallacies in my explanation of the arguments, or in the arguments themselves? I never claimed that the arguments were logical, but I will claim that my explanation carried no logical fallacies.

I agree that "nuclear family" is a recent development based on technological invention, the peculiarities of war, and other cultural forces. The concept of a family as being comprised of several generations of individuals by which the two closest bond s are 1) consanguinity and 2) heterosexual marriage between two people is much older in the western world. There of course have always been deviations from that standard (polygamy, maintaining mistresses, single-sex guilds and monasteries, etc.) but that has remained the standard in the western world for thousands of years. The concept of marriage being a monogamous, life-long commitment is also thousands of years old. I am not sure why you claim that it only originated in the 19th century. Do you have evidence?

the ancient Greeks would disagree with you about the harm that sexual activity (or probably, by extension, marriage) has on children; their women married much younger than we do now -- and far below any legal limit in the US today. Also, the same is true for Greek pederasty. They would argue that it doesn't hurt children. So it seems that your claim it does hurt children needs at least some evidence to be entertained. I'll grant you that we can safely assume that marrying unconsenting hurts the unconsenting enough that we should work to make consent a requirement. While two consenting folks doing something doesn't necessarily hurt them (again, not universally true: you and I could consent to commit mutual suicide), it might hurt society, which is the argument I was explaining. So if You and I agree to print counterfeit money which no one can detect, we each benefit, but all of society suffers, because the value of the dollar drops.

The concealed weapons analogy was to show that both marriage and concealed weapons are government granted permits that are restricted to those who can make a compelling case that they are good and useful. For some people, they cannot make the case that a concealed weapon would be a good and useful and necessary thing for them to have. Likewise, for some people, they cannot make a compelling case (or have not yet made the case compelling to a majority of Americans) where marriage should expand to include homosexual marriages is something that is good and useful and necessary.

Argos -- I generally like to think that my religious belief has only made my rational thinking capabilities stronger. I would encourage those who think that my reasoning faculties have been compromised (by religious or otherwise) to provide evidence that what they are experiencing is a lack of rational ability, and not of conflicting value systems.

Amber -- pro family groups, I would suspect, see their goals as primarily to defend and protect traditional marriage from the many encroachments on it (of which homosexual marriage is just one of many, including those listed above such as extramarital sex, high divorce, etc.). As a result, even if they were inclined to be sympathetic to civil rights for homosexual couples, they would not spend time advocating for them, because these issues are unrelated to what pro-family groups do -- just like protecting the environment isn't related to what pro-family groups do (though they may favor destroying a beautiful park to build apartment complexes for low income families; or may recognize that having beautiful and healthy environments are also important for strong families). So I don't think you can put a moral burden on pro-family groups to de-couple the civil and the religious aspects of marriage -- after all, they are in support of marriage, and the most supports they can get for marriage as they understand it the better. So two (religion plus government) supports are better than one (religion). So, I think you are correct in assuming that the de-coupling of the civil and religious recognition of marriage is something that is not likely in the near future.

I also concur with you about Kenyon Farrow.


Clarice -- In America, conservatism is just as legitimately applied to political conservatives as religious ones. Also, "conservative" and "classically liberal" or "libertarian" are not the same. I think your confusion may be stemming from an attempt to split my views into "religious" and "libertarian", when they are just conservative.... meaning in this case that I am generally in favor of both smaller rather than larger government, less rather than more government restrictions, but also of questions some values that progressives will uphold (like the necessity of a minimum wage; or, in this case, a radical expansion of the conception of marriage).


To all -- Most of you seem really interested in discussing these issues, and I have enjoyed writing my responses (now, if only I could submit this to my professor instead of my final paper). However, if you really are genuinely interested in engaging with conservative thinkers (its not as much of an oxymoron as you think), you really need to curb the arrogant and dismissive tone that clearly comes through. I know it is an accurate reflection of how you feel, but sometimes in order to win people over you need to hide your feelings for a bit. Powerful as your logic may be, piercing as your arguments may be, insightful as your observations may be, you aren't going to change the mind of someone who hears you call him or her irrational or a bigot or what he or she believes is a load of crap. Right, enough preaching.

— Chris Green | Registered, Swarthmore

Chris, my evidence on the religious affiliation of the founding fathers (which was, mostly, just plain deist) comes from their own writings. They were all products of the Enlightenment, like Rousseau, like John Locke, like any number of other philosophers, none of whom considered themselves Christian in the way that, say, you do.

Churches don't pay taxes because they're classified under the tax code as charitable corporations. Now, it it certainly not the case that all religious institutions are cheritable. But, even if we were to concede that for the sake of argument, *no* charitable organization is allowed to endorse a political candidate or position. If they do, they lose that status. The portion of the ACLU to which you're referring is classified differently, as are PACs and 527s. If churches want to try to get tax-exempt status under a different part of the tax code, they're welcome to, but as it is, they are not allowed to have "political clout" without paying taxes on their land and income.

Oh, I'm sorry, because it's not derogatory and offensive to tell an entire class of people that they're sinful and don't deserve civil rights? You are of the opinion that some badly-translated rantings from several millenia ago are worth curtailing the civil rights of strangers over. I am of the opinion that those rantings are of no worth other than as an historical curiosity. Tell me, why is your opinion more valid as the basis of legislation than mine when the founding document of our country explicitly prohibits that from being the case?

The idea of "family" in terms of large clans of people related by blood and marriage and the idea of "family" in terms of a married man and woman and their children only are radically different. Why are you trying to suggest they're the same? They lead to extremely different organizing principles. The later idea, the one that you're trying to defend, is *far* more recent and is also idealized -- family bonds are rarely so simple. This idea tries to model an extremely heterogeneous society as homogeneous. In other words, you're intentionally misrepresenting the way the world is in order to make an argument that allows you to discriminate against people.

You want evidence that male monogamy is a recent idea? There's a word for a man whose wife is unfaithful, but no word for a woman whose husband is unfaithful. There used to be a word for that, though, and that word was "wife". As for a "lifelong commitment" on the part of the lower classes, explain to me how that could be the case when men often died or were conscripted away to wars with no notice and women couldn't be economically independent. And no, the Ancient Greeks would not disagree with me. Women married younger than we do now because they developed younger and were of childbearing age younger. And no, they didn't like prepubescent boys, either. There was a very narrow range of interest in young men, after the onset of puberty and before the growth of a lot of body hair. I learn these things, Chris, by studying history *before* I make claims about it.

The difference between public and private isn't a hard concept. It's not extraordinarily complicated or difficult to grasp. Take, for example, marriage versus printing money. Printing money is an action which affects the public, because that money is going out into general circulation. Most aspects of marriage are completely private choices. Now, you can make the argument that who people marry should be a public concern, in which case it should be a public concern *in every case*. So, if you want to make that argument, then I'd also like to be able to decide who should get to marry whom, but you better believe I'd make that decision on something more pertinent than gender. Even better, if you're going to make something that generally isn't seen as a public concern (who can marry whom) into one, then I'd like to do the same to who can have children with whom. You think every child deserves a mother and a father. I think every child deserves parents who aren't substance abusers or violent. But, you see, I don't propose legislation to that effect. Because it's a *private* matter.

In the *very* few states where there is discretion involved ("may-issue") in concealed carry licenses, most act like either no-issue or "shall-issue" (automatic issue to people who pass a safety class and a background check) states. In the cases where this isn't true, people don't have to make a "compelling case" -- it's left entirely up to the discretion of the cops or whoever has the power to grant the license. In New York, for example, a "compelling case" means "this person is famous or rich". But even if the case did have to be compelling in any sort of objective sense, there's still someone evaluating people as *individuals* fit for the license or not. What you're suggesting is an entire class of people be denied a right based not on themselves as individuals, but on their inborn identities, which is discrimination.

As for my tone -- you frame your arguments based on what you want, which is a society consisting of heterosexual Christians. I frame my arguments based on what I want, which is a society free of irrational bigots. In my experience, irrational bigots won't change their minds no matter how nice you are to them, so I'm not going to sugarcoat my arguments for their benefit.

— Ariel | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"for bread-and-butter common folks, the deleterious effects of divorce, out-of-wedlock pregnancies are both more powerful forces in their lives and more common; issues of homosexuality are distant and largely unimportant in their lives."
See, I just don't think I could agree with that statement. Who exactly are these "bread-and-butter common folks"? Why can't "Bread-and-butter common folks" be gay? The fact is, a lot of normal people are gay, not just the "liberal elite". Because even if you're a Christian, chances are, one of your really, really good friends is gay. Really! Even of the Christian ones! Yeah, okay, I know this isn't directly addressing your point, Chris Green, but your phrasing just kind of bothers me. Because the fact is, just about everyone is "weird" in some way or another. No one really fits that stereotype of a "bread and butter" "normal" sort of person. "homosexuality" is an "issue" for absolutely everyone, because undoubtedly, it affects someone who is close to you.
You know someone who is gay. You probably really like, and really respect that person. So why can't that person marry whomever they want? Just kidding. I know you think that that's sinful. And there is absolutely no way that I could argue against that.

Morals are morals, and they are not based on reasoning. It's just kind of frustrating that your ideal society has to be legitimated over mine. Because my getting married would creating a loving, accepting environment for other gay people. And then my son could never be a 'real man' and my daughters could never be 'real women' because they would not have good examples of gender roles. I could tell you that I would go to my utmost to find good male role models for my children, but that would probably not be very convincing. Because what if I didn't? There would be no way that the government could regulate that, to make sure we can maintain this god-given man/woman social environment.

Good job. you won. Now I'll never be able to marry someone who I truly love. Thanks a bunch!

(Yeah, okay, I know I'm biased about this, and I believe this from an entirely "emotional" standpoint, but because you don't have to justify that homosexuality is a sin (as indeed you couldn't because morals don't have to be justified), I'm perfectly entitled to be entirely emotional as well. It just happens, as I said, that your totally random, not-based-on-anything morals win out over mine.)

and that sucks for me.

— R | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I'd consider myself one of the bread and butter common people. Well, one of the ramen noodles and generic soy sauce groundlings. I guess I'll basically be leaving that working class identity behind sometime after grad school, but whatever. Groundling. Queer groundlish gayish thingy.

I don't know. My parents are divorced and I'm their post-divorce love child, but I wouldn't say that was deleterious. I suppose I turned out a bit demented, but that's probably just the soy sauce.

Wait, I forget what point that was supposed to make.

Yes, marriage is an ancient institution. I'm willing to bet that it evolved out of the reproductive advantage of men being sure that they were raising their own offspring. Mate control and all that. If a society was historically dominated by males, wouldn't it make sense if its sexually related institutions provided an evolutionary benefit to males? If you're going to make an investment in your offspring, you need to make certain that their actually yours.

Obviously I'm not talking about conscious choice or something...just the attitudes that would give you an edge over your conspecifics. This rogue scientist is totally supportive of any relationship that involves a healthy dose of mutual respect.

And yeah, I've been laying the sociobiology on a bit thick lately, but you can't discuss anything related to sex and not get into sociobio. It is the biological equivalent of examining things in their historical context.

Also, are extra-pair copulations that big of an encroachment upon marriage? They're way older than marriage itself. EPCs are not going anywhere, until we transcend our sexuality and begin to reproduce on genetic looms like they do on planet Gallifrey.

I would support this in lieu of voluntary extinction of the human race, but both are good ideas.

Anyhow, EPCs, your basic repro-fitness friendly EPC-behind-partner's-back deal is probably harmful to human relationships in general, but EPCs are not in essence dangerous to anything but institutions that maximize fitness or something...I just lost my ability to construct coherent sentences.

So I think my point was going to say that tearing down religiously sanctioned monogamy as the only acceptable unit of society is part of my rogue plan to transcend human instinct and then either go extinct or build genetic looms.

That might have sounded sarcastic, but it wasn't meant to.

I wish I was tripping balls, but sadly this is me sober.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I should start by stating that framing any argument in terms of the logical, reasonable, liberal left-wing vs illogical, unreasonable christian right-wing is detrimental to any potentially productive discussion because a) it assumes that any one who isn't a liberal is inherently illogical (maybe you really do feel this way, i disagree) b) it assumes that people can't identify as a mix of all sorts of things at once (ie: christian AND liberal (or christian AND queer ( many christians may feel that you can't be both but this is more about the way we label ourselves and less about what the rest of the world thinks))) and c) it makes it obvious that discussion is not really the aim of this forum but rather, another opportunity to jump on every word coming from ONE conservative on campus (not THE ONE--as you all know, they do exist here and should be able to walk around campus without feeling that their opinions are essentially, invalid and would of course explain why there aren't any more of them presenting a different conservative viewpoint). I say this because in my frank opinion this sort of snobbish elite dismissive mentality is exactly why prop 8 was passed. Rather than educate, rather than genuinely engage people in discussion, really explain to people why access to the institution of marriage is a right that everyone should have, why whether you agree or disagree that homosexuality/queerness/non-straightness is right or wrong, it shouldn't be up to individuals to dictate the way others both privately and publicly live their lives so long as it isn't causing harm, rather than do this, the opinions of many conservatives were dismissed with the belief that no person in their right mind would deny someone to have their love legally recognized--well guess what? many people in their right mind, conservative and liberal, did vote and not the way we would've hoped for.

Do you have to agree with them? absolutely not, i sure don't (at least not on most issues). Do conservatives (and republicans/the right-wing) represent a lot of people out there? YES. and as such, we'd be better off respecting that right or wrong, their opinions too can be based on carefully thought out arguments and as such, we need to be able to come out with equally compelling (READ non-dismissive counter arguments). The fact that they use "some book" is no different than any of us using some other book, or newspaper or online source, or a certain upbringing to inform our opinions because at the end of the day, we can all still choose to think one way or choose to think another--it's called freewill.

The main focus here should not be whether someone would choose to vote yes on prop 8 or not (we all know already) but rather, why this was even up for debate/vote. As a person who identifies as queer, this is what I personally take most issue with and not (necessarily) with a conservative person voting, well, conservatively. I wouldn't want this up for vote because I know that the majority will always vote against equal marriage, or same-sex marriage, whatever people are calling it these days. Instead, I take issue with this even being an issue because the government will always be able to wash its hand of this by defaulting to "we asked the people" and it's "majority rule". So, let's focus not on necessarily trying to change people's minds about what is moral or immoral or what is natural or not, but rather why it should be no one's business to have the final say on whatever paths our lives may take. We will never 100% agree on any one value/belief/thought system and continually rehashing this will only serve as a stalemate.

— another anonymous user | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

I'll come out and say it. I'm against gay marriage.

Now before the cries of bigot start, I'm also against straight marriage. Not the action of two people being bound in holy matrimony but rather the government's role in it. Conservative activists are right, marriage is a fundamentally religious institution and as such, the government has no place in regulating it. This presents us with a sticky First Amendment issue (though the separation of Church and State is Jefferson's idea really...)as people need to get married but the government cannot really have a role in it as defined by the current interpretation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Whatever.

As such, the easiest solution is to eliminate the holiness from marriage and universalize Civil Unions instead, open to all and lacking any religious component. They will be legally identical to what marriage is today but they will only be secular, all the rights, none of the tradition. Those that want to get married beyond having a civil union will be able to do so, their civil union license may have an (m) sticker on it or something. Such decisions on who will be married at an individual church or even a faith at large will be up to the individual place of worship, free to discriminate and include whomever they wish. Reform Judaism might allow all to come in and get married under their chuppas but the local Catholic Parish might forbid it. This both keeps the traditional view of marriage/the sanctity of it for those that are of a more conservative bent and gives all who want to join in marriage/gain the benefits the right to do so. I know this idea is probably horribly impractical (just the resistance of lawmakers alone! Uuuugh!), but a) I'm a Swattie, it's what we do, and b) it's really the only way I can see any sort of compromise on this issue other than just flat out implementing legally identical civil unions for gay couples (whether you think this is another instance of the old "separate but equal" canard or just about the only practical compromise is up to your own views). So, anyway, yes, just my two cents.

— Dave | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Didn't they do that in Germany once during the Imperial Era? And didn't it work out ok?

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore