(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)
The Enemy Offers No Points for Eloquence
There just seems to be some kind of connection between the global elite's fear that the masses will out-procreate them, which I mentioned earlier, and so many other issues that trickle down from the upper crust. Gay marriage is among those issues, as Sam Shulman hints when he closes a recent essay thus:
Severing this connection by defining it out of existencecutting it down to size, transforming it into a mere contract between chumssunders the natural laws that prevent concubinage and incest. Unless we resist, we will find ourselves entering on the path to the abolition of the human. The gods move very fast when they bring ruin on misguided men.
As I suggested earlier, helping the masses to "manage" their reproduction is one way keep from being overwhelmed by them. Another way is to break down walls that have limited certain behaviors among those who cannot afford their repercussions. Marriage schmarriage. Religion? Bah! Hard work? Self reliance? Self control? Those are merely traps, friend, to cage the natural being inside of you!
Shulman phrases some arguments well:
Why should I not be able to marry a man? The question addresses a class of human phenomena that can be described in sentences but nonetheless cannot be. However much I might wish to, I cannot be a father to a pebbleI cannot be a brother to a puppyI cannot make my horse my consul. Just so, I cannot, and should not be able to, marry a man. If I want to be a brother to a puppy, are you abridging my rights by not permitting it? I may say what I please; saying it does not mean that it can be. ...
Insofar as I care for my homosexual friend as a friend, I am required to say to him that, if a lifelong monogamous relationship is what you want, I wish you that felicity, just as I hope you would wish me the same. But insofar as our lives as citizens are concerned, or even as human beings, your monogamy and the durability of your relationship are, to be blunt about it, matters of complete indifference. They are of as little concern to our collective life as if you were to smoke cigars or build model railroads in your basement or hang-glide, and of less concern to society than the safety of your property when you leave your house or your right not to be overcharged by the phone company.
That is not because you are gay. It is because, in choosing to conduct your life as you have every right to do, you have stepped out of the area of shared social concernin the same sense as has anyone, of whatever sexuality, who chooses not to marry. There are millions of lonely people, of whom it is safe to say that the majority are in heterosexual marriages. But marriage, though it may help meet the needs of the lonely, does not exist because it is an answer to those needs; it is an arrangement that has to do with empowering women to avoid even greater unhappiness, and with sustaining the future history of the species
And I encourage you to read the whole thing, if you've got the time. Nonetheless, I have to admit that I bristled when I read him say, addressing the reason the issue of gay marriage is being pushed along the cultural fast track, "I have found myself disappointed by the arguments I have seen advanced against it." Well, I've been arguing this issue pretty regularly for a couple of years, and a phenomenon that I noticed specifically in Andrew Sullivan has now been taken up and amplified by most of the American media. Difficult objections are ignored. Contested assertions are reasserted as if they had not faced criticism. I've wondered, in the past, what it would be like to live in a world in which the truth is simply wished away, and on this issue, I've gotten a taste. Shulman's argument leaves the other side multiple escape routes.
So, while I do agree with Mr. Shulman and think he has made some valuable points, I get the feeling that he doesn't quite understand the hurdles or the enemy, for that matter. The more ways in which we state the obvious, the better, but I think each of us does well to avoid entering the fray as if some eloquent, recast rhetoric will win the day, while others have merely contributed to the general apathy.
Posted by Justin Katz @ 12:02