Via Andrew Sullivan, Joe Carter does a tidy batch of bizarre anti-gay marriage arguments. Yes, the incest and polygamy analogies are in there. But I’m more interested in the fact that Carter, like so many conservatives these days, has given up on arguing over issues of substance and is ready to say “Okay, the gays can have whatever they want, except that they don’t get to call it marriage.” Actually, that’s not right, because Carter seems to want a civil union law far more radical in real legal impact than what proponents of gay marriage want–something I personally reject on the traditionalist grounds Carter uses to reject gay marriage. If it’s not broke, don’t’ fix it, and while we do have good reason to institute gay marriage, it’s not clear why anyone would want Carter-style civil unions, aside from as a ploy in the marriage debate.
But where it really gets juicy is this remark:
…for Sullivan, et al., it is not about benefits but about forcing the acceptance of gay sex as “normal” and equal to heterosexual sex. This is an absurd reason and nothing the government should be involved in.
This is the sort of obvious lie that shows the speaker isn’t thinking about what he’s saying. No proposal for gay marriage anywhere (at least, none getting serious discussion) involves forcing any individual to feel any particular way about gay sex. But I think this betrays what it is Carter, and the countless Evangelicals who’ve made similar paranoid accusations (Rick Warren, anyone?) are afraid of. If we make it legally easy for gay people to live normal lives–unclosetted, in stable relationships, raising some adopted kids–then lots of gay people are going to live normal lives. And people will see it, and have a hard time understanding why gay people shouldn’t be accepted. Opposition to gay marriage comes out of fear of acceptance–not forced acceptance, but acceptance earned by living a full life, free from government discrimination.
At least one Evangelical has more or less admitted this. And they’re right to be afraid. For, er, Christssake, they’re trying to base their lives around a book that says gays should be killed just for being gay, when nobody really believes that. They need to fear anything that would bring clarity to the issue.
Ever strike you that these people are just a little too interested in whose penis is going where?
just sayin’
Republicans (I use this term to differentiate from conservatives in general) have made the nonsense issue into an art form. It continues to win them elections because it not only creates artificial heroes and villains but because it appeal to the lowest common denominator.
So what I see is backpedaling toward safer ground. Gay marriage opponents can lose on substantive ground but they can and have won on nonsense ground.
Just my two cents.
Um, then why the constant push for, not tolerance, but open acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, the cascade of Gay Pride parades, the forcing of gay-friendly curriculum into schools, etc? Someone’s not paying very much attention.
Anyone interested (including you, Hallq), might check out the longish thread interaction between yours truly, conservative Reformed Baptist, and a bunch of Atheist Experience commenters on this very issue, especially starting with my comment where I lay out my 10 points against the adoption of SSM. It’s not “scared” at all. SSM just makes no sense. To say an *educated* evangelical might be scared of SSM is to say the same kind of crap I keep getting from these atheists, such as “Your opposition to gay marriage is religious based. Your arguments are just meant to be additional props.”
Peace,
Rhology
Rho–
Your arguments have a few recurring mistakes. Even if you don’t really believe this, your initial comment strongly applies that homosexuality is just about men having anal sex with other men. Aside from missing all kinds of other sex acts, this misses the fact that homosexuality is pretty much like heterosexuality–same attractions, emotions, feelings, and so on, just directed at a different gender than normal. That’s a big part of why it makes sense to extend marriage to gay couples.
Second, you obviously haven’t made much effort to understand what gay marriage supporters think. Too many of your arguments aren’t really arguments, but attempts to attribute parody versions of your opponents’ views to every last person who disagrees with you.
Finally, you have some reading to do on proper scientific study design. Reading gay obituaries doesn’t tell you about all gays everywhere any more than reading letters to Cosmo tells you about all straight women everywhere. Many of your claims about homosexuality are unsupported if not contradicted by available evidence.