4 ms·

Key word: usually. If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to gay marriage with acceptance of gays, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit

Key word: usually. If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to gay marriage with acceptance of gays, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them. And I'm pretty sure there is such a way.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
Essentially, there isn't. There are gays living and loving now, who are being discriminated against now. This effect that the affected are feeling now does not go away by giving anyone a benefit of the doubt. If we need time to sort out how exactly to handle this whole marriage business, it still is inacceptable to just keep discriminating until a consensus has been found. "I accept gays but I still do treat them differently than other people" doeesn't really compute. It is generally instructive to try and apply the arguments to similar struggles of the past, that tends to make it much much clearer how wrong those arguments are. "If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to mixed marriage with acceptance of black people, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them." How does that read?
- gocarsno 13y ago
  I think we must distinguish sharply between marriage as a legal institution and as a cultural/religious custom. The former is a matter of equality and civil rights, but it can be satisfied by the institution of civil partnership. As for the latter - cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive. It's not discrimination to have a custom specific to celebrating the relationship between a man and a woman, which is what marriage has been in our culture until now. Indeed, even in past cultures in which homosexuality was considered completely normal and wasn't discriminated against at all, such as ancient Rome, marriage was considered a heterosexual custom and gays didn't want to take part in it any more than Christians feel excluded from Bar Mitzvah, for lack of a better comparison. And if that seems too distant an example, then how about the 1980s? Some of the earliest gay marriage advocates (was it Andrew Sullivan? I'm not sure) were met with criticism in the gay community itself, because some of its members didn't like the idea and considered it contrary to their identity. It is all a matter mindset and I feel like it's a legitimate cultural dilemma - not an issue of equality. I can empathize with people who are attached to the traditional definition of marriage and its symbolism. I don't think you have to carry any ill-feelings towards gays in order to want preserve it and I think it's the case for a significant proportion of gay marriage opponents. This point of view seems quite obvious to me and it's unfortunate that almost no gay marriage supporters recognize it, as it causes unnecessary polarization of the debate. It is a disservice to both the LGBT community, who feel more threatened than they should, and to some of the defenders of traditional marriage, who are undeservedly labelled bigots, ostracized, and even - as in the instance of Brendan Eich - disenfranchised for their cultural/religious beliefs.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
    Yes, the distinction is important, but this obviously is all about the legal part - the state has no business in discriminating between sexual orientations, so the state has to either offer marriage for everyone or not at all, and the same for "civil unions". Also, I think it is confusing to say "cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive." That is largely correct from a legal perspective, but still makes for a bad society to live in. You probably legally can found a club for white people only, but it's unlikely that that would be a nice club to be in. And also, just because something has a long tradition, that does not make it non-discriminatory. Whether some gay people don't want to marry obviously is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as this is not about forcing gay people to marry. This is about the freedom for those who want to, not about forcing those who don't want to. And even if some gay people feel that it's not appropriate for other gay people to marry, it's not the job of the state to enforce that on those other gay people who actually do want to marry. And I do agree that you don't have to carry any ill-feelings towards blacks in order to want to preserve the traditional definition of who has to sit where on the bus. But that completely ignores that there are people with feelings on the other side as well - people who are excluded, people for whom sitting on "black only" seats is not just a quaint tradition. Those strong feelings about traditional roles do exist and totally are real, be it about the role of slaves, of black people, of women, ..., but that does not mean that living them does not hurt other people. We as a society can (and have to) force people to confront that they are actually causing harm with their clinging to traditional ideas, often for totally irrational reasons. That does not mean that we cannot empathize with those people who sincerely believe that they are losing something when giving up such strong-held beliefs and ideas, but we also can not accept that they hurt other people. And, really, I would want to encourage you to re-read what you write, replacing everything in it that is about gays with black people and mixed marriages and other things that we have figured out a while back, try to read it as a sincere argument. You are used to the idea that marriage is a custom specific to heterosexuals. But you have to consider that people at some point were equally used to racial segregation. There were people using the exact same arguments back then, feeling equally right about how traditionally marriage was for "people of the same race". And yet I would hope that the suggestion of a "interracial union" for those mixed couples who want to get more or less the same benefits that "one-race couples" enjoyed traditionally (so that the traditionalists can keep their tradition of what they perceive to be a real marriage) would seems utterly absurd and inappropriate to you. Then try to extrapolate from that perspective on the past to how you would view this current discussion as a person in the equally (not that) distant future. And then reconsider who is undeservedly labelled a bigot or ostracized.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago

Essentially, there isn't. There are gays living and loving now, who are being discriminated against now. This effect that the affected are feeling now does not go away by giving anyone a benefit of the doubt. If we need time to sort out how exactly to handle this whole marriage business, it still is inacceptable to just keep discriminating until a consensus has been found. "I accept gays but I still do treat them differently than other people" doeesn't really compute. It is generally instructive to try and apply the arguments to similar struggles of the past, that tends to make it much much clearer how wrong those arguments are. "If there is a reasonable way to reconcile opposition to mixed marriage with acceptance of black people, then we ought to give the opponents the benefit of the doubt before ostracizing them." How does that read?

gocarsno 13y ago
I think we must distinguish sharply between marriage as a legal institution and as a cultural/religious custom. The former is a matter of equality and civil rights, but it can be satisfied by the institution of civil partnership. As for the latter - cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive. It's not discrimination to have a custom specific to celebrating the relationship between a man and a woman, which is what marriage has been in our culture until now. Indeed, even in past cultures in which homosexuality was considered completely normal and wasn't discriminated against at all, such as ancient Rome, marriage was considered a heterosexual custom and gays didn't want to take part in it any more than Christians feel excluded from Bar Mitzvah, for lack of a better comparison. And if that seems too distant an example, then how about the 1980s? Some of the earliest gay marriage advocates (was it Andrew Sullivan? I'm not sure) were met with criticism in the gay community itself, because some of its members didn't like the idea and considered it contrary to their identity. It is all a matter mindset and I feel like it's a legitimate cultural dilemma - not an issue of equality. I can empathize with people who are attached to the traditional definition of marriage and its symbolism. I don't think you have to carry any ill-feelings towards gays in order to want preserve it and I think it's the case for a significant proportion of gay marriage opponents. This point of view seems quite obvious to me and it's unfortunate that almost no gay marriage supporters recognize it, as it causes unnecessary polarization of the debate. It is a disservice to both the LGBT community, who feel more threatened than they should, and to some of the defenders of traditional marriage, who are undeservedly labelled bigots, ostracized, and even - as in the instance of Brendan Eich - disenfranchised for their cultural/religious beliefs.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
  Yes, the distinction is important, but this obviously is all about the legal part - the state has no business in discriminating between sexual orientations, so the state has to either offer marriage for everyone or not at all, and the same for "civil unions". Also, I think it is confusing to say "cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive." That is largely correct from a legal perspective, but still makes for a bad society to live in. You probably legally can found a club for white people only, but it's unlikely that that would be a nice club to be in. And also, just because something has a long tradition, that does not make it non-discriminatory. Whether some gay people don't want to marry obviously is completely irrelevant to the discussion, as this is not about forcing gay people to marry. This is about the freedom for those who want to, not about forcing those who don't want to. And even if some gay people feel that it's not appropriate for other gay people to marry, it's not the job of the state to enforce that on those other gay people who actually do want to marry. And I do agree that you don't have to carry any ill-feelings towards blacks in order to want to preserve the traditional definition of who has to sit where on the bus. But that completely ignores that there are people with feelings on the other side as well - people who are excluded, people for whom sitting on "black only" seats is not just a quaint tradition. Those strong feelings about traditional roles do exist and totally are real, be it about the role of slaves, of black people, of women, ..., but that does not mean that living them does not hurt other people. We as a society can (and have to) force people to confront that they are actually causing harm with their clinging to traditional ideas, often for totally irrational reasons. That does not mean that we cannot empathize with those people who sincerely believe that they are losing something when giving up such strong-held beliefs and ideas, but we also can not accept that they hurt other people. And, really, I would want to encourage you to re-read what you write, replacing everything in it that is about gays with black people and mixed marriages and other things that we have figured out a while back, try to read it as a sincere argument. You are used to the idea that marriage is a custom specific to heterosexuals. But you have to consider that people at some point were equally used to racial segregation. There were people using the exact same arguments back then, feeling equally right about how traditionally marriage was for "people of the same race". And yet I would hope that the suggestion of a "interracial union" for those mixed couples who want to get more or less the same benefits that "one-race couples" enjoyed traditionally (so that the traditionalists can keep their tradition of what they perceive to be a real marriage) would seems utterly absurd and inappropriate to you. Then try to extrapolate from that perspective on the past to how you would view this current discussion as a person in the equally (not that) distant future. And then reconsider who is undeservedly labelled a bigot or ostracized.