My Logic on This Controversy
It occurred to me that proponents of gay marriage shoot themselves in the foot. They say, "if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one." They say, "Gay marriage won't affect you, so (essentially) it shouldn't both you and therefore it should be legal."
Let's parse this. It's not an argument for anyone to support gay marriage or to change their minds about it. It is an argument persuading someone not to care. Not to care means not to take action. But then it works the other way. If it doesn't affect me if I'm against it, then it doesn't affect me if I am for it (as long as I don't want a gay marriage myself), and the gays who want to marry are so few in number that they would never get enough votes for it to pass as a referendum, so they have to depend on straight people. But they are telling the straight people not to care. Rhetorically it would be a better tact if they could argue (a) straight people would benefit from gay marriage and (b) horrible things are happening because there is no gay marriage. It seems to me that both of these are hard to prove.
Polls supposedly show that over the country is more or less evenly split on this issue, but that's only what people tell the pollsters. In no state that has had a referendum has gay marriage been legalized; it's only been legalized by courts or by legislators (NY). So when it comes time to go into the voting booth, either (a) people vote what they really believe after telling the pollsters something else (or they lied the first time) OR (b) not enough of the people who favor gay marriage go to the polls OR (c) people believe that it doesn't affect them one way or the other so they don't vote one way or the other.
Obviously, I am not pro-gay marriage; I see no reason to redefine civilization. It's amazing to me how in less than thirty years the attitudes have changed, though, on this matter.
Let's parse this. It's not an argument for anyone to support gay marriage or to change their minds about it. It is an argument persuading someone not to care. Not to care means not to take action. But then it works the other way. If it doesn't affect me if I'm against it, then it doesn't affect me if I am for it (as long as I don't want a gay marriage myself), and the gays who want to marry are so few in number that they would never get enough votes for it to pass as a referendum, so they have to depend on straight people. But they are telling the straight people not to care. Rhetorically it would be a better tact if they could argue (a) straight people would benefit from gay marriage and (b) horrible things are happening because there is no gay marriage. It seems to me that both of these are hard to prove.
Polls supposedly show that over the country is more or less evenly split on this issue, but that's only what people tell the pollsters. In no state that has had a referendum has gay marriage been legalized; it's only been legalized by courts or by legislators (NY). So when it comes time to go into the voting booth, either (a) people vote what they really believe after telling the pollsters something else (or they lied the first time) OR (b) not enough of the people who favor gay marriage go to the polls OR (c) people believe that it doesn't affect them one way or the other so they don't vote one way or the other.
Obviously, I am not pro-gay marriage; I see no reason to redefine civilization. It's amazing to me how in less than thirty years the attitudes have changed, though, on this matter.
Comments
There is another very significant argument being made by gay-rights activists. Yes, they are making the point that heterosexuals should have nothing to fear. But they are also declaring to heterosexuals that they only want the same rights that they have, specifically, the right to marry.
The gay rights activists (which include an evangelical wing as well) have gotten ahead of the 'moral' issue a long time ago by defining the issue as one of 'civil rights.' When that happened, I knew they would eventually win. It's only a matter of time.
And you are right about the disparity between polling and voting.
Greg
Yes, many of my evangelical friends are leaning towards gay marriage due either to ignorance of the history and inherent issues and theology, a misunderstanding of what "Christian love" means, or wimpiness to take a stand for fear of looking like a bigot.
Secondly, those who oppose gay marriage are accused of slippery slope arguments. We say, "if gay marriage is legal, then before long polygamy will be, and before long marrying a ten-year-old will be, etc." We also say, "it will take away the rights of churches to take a stand and not allow gay marriages to be performed in them and by the clergy"--in other words, eventually clergy will not have the right to say, "I'm against this and the couple can find someone else to marry them." Gay marriage proponents will say, "Oh, that will never happen, you are using scare tactics, blah, blah, blah." But it is happening in Canada and it's not a slippery slope. There is a radical element that will not be happy until no one is allowed to say homosexual activity is a sin, nor will they be happy with free speech period on this matter.
I have no trouble with civil unions. Marriage is just a different matter to me. Those who say marriage should just be a religious matter, controlled by the church or mosque, may have a point, but it causes religion to hide and have no place in the public square. Then we might be protected but also have no freedom to engage the culture from our point of view.
I wish I could disagree with you on the matter of time issue. But I can't. This will probably go to the SCOTUS next year and who knows what they will come up with?
Sorry for that long rant. I teach in a public college and will get flack for this.
A student recently (anonymously) called me a hater because I said something he/she disagreed with, and it had nothing to do with this matter, which I would never discuss in class unless students bring it up.
Thanks for writing!!!