Amen.

The "apathetic turpitude of our times" is very deeply entrenched - even when people have a prediliction to consider an issue based on rational arguments rather than emotions, they are often woefully inadequate to the task, since they have had no experience in doing so.

Angie's post demonstrates that, when it comes to sex, liberals are breathtakingly shortsighted. She asks you to focus only on what is in front of your nose--your gay friends--and assumes that once you do so you'll agree to support SSM. What she misses is that SSM opposition is based on a much broader view. It is interested in children we will never meet, who may not even exist within our lifetimes.

Contast this with the liberal view on the environment, where they demand that we strangle our economies immediately to avert possible future disaster. No doubt many environmentalists feel that others are too shortsighted on that issue. (I would say that they're wrong, but that's another discussion.)

This sentence disturbs me:

"If you socialized regularly with gay couples--benefits, dinner parties, workplace--you would not be too popular if they knew you were writing hundreds of thousands of words on the computer daily about why THEY should not get married while you yourself are married and enjoying the benefits of that."

It's a gentle whiff of the leftist authoritarian that those of us who have gone to college in the past 15-20 years are all too familiar with: Agree with us or we will punish you.

Ten or twenty years ago, that "argument" would have been quite effective. Today it's far less so. In five or ten years it may draw laughter and derision outside of the leftist strongholds of academia, the news media, and Hollywood---ask Linda Ronstadt.

Brilliant insight Ben. Remind me to include that on my own blog tommorow. (i rarely have time to write anything original anymore).

It seems leftys are more interested in saving Mother Earth for her own sake, and the less humans around to enjoy it the better.

"Leftist authoritarian" and "cultural elite effort". That's exactly what I read in YOUR words above. But substitute "leftist" for "rightest". After all, I am "taking the wrong position" and advocating the "further corrosion of our institution". What is this armageddon that your are predicting is going to occur if a loving gay couple gets married and is happy and committed for the rest of their lives? Do you really think people are going to start being attracted to animals and their siblings suddenly? I'm really glad you all weren't making the decisions when women and blacks were given the right to vote. Are you all white straight men? Has no one fought any battles in history to "normalize" you? Is that why you cannot appreciate difference? I believe you create the "apathetic turpitude" of exclusion.

Angie,

That's quite a flurry of clichés; unfortunately, their currency is somewhat limited here.

As I suggested in the previous post, if this is the level of your consideration of the pluses and minuses of same-sex marriage:

Do you really think people are going to start being attracted to animals and their siblings suddenly?

Then I'm not going to rewrite those hundreds of thousands of words. As for this sunny ad hominem (from a woman who no doubt considers herself tolerant and compassionate):

I'm really glad you all weren't making the decisions when women and blacks were given the right to vote. Are you all white straight men?

I'm not sure what evidence you consider to have been revealed that gives you license to assume our positions on matters of racial and gender discrimination. I'm also not sure by what reasoning you slip voting in place of marriage as the issue. Additionally, I'd suggest that there's just a wee bit of difference between "corrosion of [an] institution" and "armageddon ."

In short, it looks to me that you're the one who has a difficulty with difference. Look what you've done: you've come into contact with people who differ from you on what is still a radical change (still supported by only a minority of citizens), and you seem incapable of responding except through immediate recourse to inapplicable assumptions and personal attacks, ascribing to those who disagree the worst sort of bigotry that you can bring to mind.

Look to yourself, Angie; you may find that you're not behaving as you believe yourself to be.

Justin -- How does a rational person persuade an intuitive person?

Angie is moved by peer pressure, conformance, group identity, immediate compassion, aversion to confrontation, guilt, and an expansive notion of 'injustice'. "Legal/logic/ethic speak" carries little weight with her.

Angie -- genuinely curious: what arguments or approaches would carry weight with you? Would you have to personally experience the wreckage of abandoning ageless traditions? How can we discourse without the "legal/logic/ethic speak"?

Yes, Justin. The dirty little fact about American cultural politics (and the latest example is the show AMISH IN THE CITY) is that if "openness to the Other" is the standard of moral rectitude, and this is an empirical statement rather than a priori attitudinizing, then the Right is infinitely superior to the Left.

Angie,

Welcome to the conversation. I hope you stick around long enough to learn that we aren't the monsters you want to believe we are.

"What is this armageddon that your are predicting is going to occur if a loving gay couple gets married and is happy and committed for the rest of their lives?"

Essentially it's going to be similar to what happened under no-fault divorce: What armageddon happened when the law allowed people to easily escape from unhappy marriages? Now we have lots of adults who grew up in broken homes. I grew up with people who suffered unspeakably because their parents wouldn't stay together. They're still suffering. Is it armageddon? Only if you care enough about the suffering of others to notice it.

Nobody back then saw a problem with no-fault divorce because it wasn't going to affect them. That risk of harm was pushed off onto some future children who were still in diapers, or not even born yet. Namely, us.

The harm from SSM isn't going to fall on you, or me, or anyone else posting here. The harm will fall on children not yet born, who will grow up in a society that is even more casual about marriage than our parents' generation was.

It's easy to be cavalier about risking the fates of future children. After all, you got to grow up in a world where marriage and raising children was still considered somewhat important. It wasn't as good a world as your parents enjoyed, but it was much better than the world you want for the children of the future.

I take the fates of those future children very seriously. I think we have an obligation to protect them because they can't protect themselves. SSM supporters seem interested only in their immediate happiness and the happiness of their friends. It's a very temporally limited view.

"Do you really think people are going to start being attracted to animals and their siblings suddenly?"

Those attractions already exist, Angie. But they're suppressed by this old-fashioned thing called sexual morality. The logic of SSM is that no one should be pressured in any way to suppress their sexuality. That logic will have consequences.

"Is that why you cannot appreciate difference?"

Maybe I could learn to appreciate difference at a college campus, where they have speech codes to punish dissenters. Or maybe I could move to Canada, where criticizing homosexuality is a crime. Or maybe I could take the gentler approach that you suggest, which is making friends who will shun me unless I agree with them on politics.

You see, Angie, I'm young enough that this is very familiar ground. Back when I was in college, the shibboleth was "tolerance" instead of "appreciating difference." Of course, tolerance meant that I had to tolerate radical liberals, but never that those liberals had to tolerate me.

You're looking at difference, Angie. Right here, right now. Are you appreciating it? Or is "appreciating difference," like tolerance, something that only other people have to do?

Let me put my 2 cents in --

After all, I am "taking the wrong position" and advocating the "further corrosion of our institution".
----- Angie, good line. That is the gist of this debate and the part known to me as the 'uncommon ground'. I agree with you that some SSM opponents cannot see SSM as being anything but 'corrosion of the institution' and view those that support it as being blind to the welfare of children and that is just as unfair and simplistic as well, asserting that SSM opponents lack sympathy or that their view is based on lack exposure to gay people or the favorite "bigotry".

Ben,
"Essentially it's going to be similar to what happened under no-fault divorce: What armageddon happened when the law allowed people to easily escape from unhappy marriages? Now we have lots of adults who grew up in broken homes."
----- Your analogy of the effect of no-fault divorce to SSM makes no sense. First, ANY divorce results in broken homes. Now if you believed that divorce under any circumstances should be illegal, then I'd disagree on the merits but admire your consistency on 'what is best for children' - that all children should be required to live in homes with two opposite sex married adults.

"The logic of SSM is that no one should be pressured in any way to suppress their sexuality. That logic will have consequences."
----- That is completely false. We've been through this. That may be the logic of some SSM advocates but many others feel that the line should be moved to accommodate homosexual attraction - but not PI&B.

"Maybe I could learn to appreciate difference at a college campus, where they have speech codes to punish dissenters. Or maybe I could move to Canada, where criticizing homosexuality is a crime. Or maybe I could take the gentler approach that you suggest, which is making friends who will shun me unless I agree with them on politics."
----- Spare me. The criticizing, punishing of dissenters and shunning is hardly limited to leftists, gay activists or the liberal side. Want examples ? Just ask.

Unfortunately it seems Angie does not see any 'common ground' on this issue. Or more simply said, it is just a matter of simple equality for gay relationships and any opposition is based on bigotry. I don't agree with her but from where I sit, the assertion that any advocacy for SSM is inherently blind towards the needs of children is equally simplistic.

SSM and No-Fault
Mark: “Your analogy of the effect of no-fault divorce to SSM makes no sense. . . .”

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. I’m asserting that loosening the legal requirements for getting a divorce increased the number of divorces and thereby inflicted harm on my contemporaries. That doesn’t obligate me to believe “that divorce under any circumstances should be illegal.” You’re trying to caricature me as saying that the needs of children trump every other consideration. That isn’t what I’m saying; I’ll try again:

My point with no-fault divorce is that those who supported the change weren’t the ones who were at risk for the harm it produced. They wanted immediate pleasure for themselves, and those who were at risk for resulting harm didn’t get to vote on it. There are many other examples: It’s easy to support abortion when you know that you aren’t at risk of being aborted. It’s easy to support big government programs when you know that you’ll be dead before the real costs must be paid.

This involves two basic defects of human nature: First, our time horizon is usually too short when we evaluate the benefits and harms from a course of action. We vividly see the present, which involves ourselves. The future—which involves others who we may never meet—is hazy.

Second, we’re selfish. By default, we are primarily interested in our own happiness, secondarily interested in the happiness of those with whom we have contact, and not at all interested in those who we will never meet.

Hopefully, most responsible adults struggle to overcome these tendencies. I would like to imagine that most of us think seriously about how our actions will reverberate into the future and affect those who we will never meet.

But I don’t see that happening with SSM supporters. All they want to talk about is how it will make this group happy, right now. When the topic turns to the future and harm to others, I see only dismissive hand-waving: Oh, it’ll be fine. How will it harm your marriage? It won’t be Armageddon. It’s a risk we’re willing to take—with someone else’s life.

Think about it this way: Is it a risk you would take with your own life? Let’s suppose that you’re going to die today and be re-conceived in fifty years inside a random American woman. Would you still be an SSM supporter? Would you support no-fault divorce? Abortion? Or would you do everything possible to guarantee that you would come into the world—alive—with your biological father and mother married to each other and committed to raising you? (That might make for a neat movie plot!)

PI&B
Mark: “many [SSM supporters] feel that the line should be moved to accommodate homosexual attraction - but not PI&B.”

Yes, they feel that way. But they have no rational basis for their feeling. Without tradition, there is no reason to hold the line where you want it as a logical matter, nor is there any reason to think that it can be held there as a political matter. If sex is just about pleasure and not reproduction, then there is no reason to say that this group’s pleasure is OK, but that group’s pleasure is illegal.

We’ve both written plenty about PI&B, but we don’t seem to be really communicating on it. The disconnect seems centered around who will be responsible for actually establishing and defending the new morality you envision. Here is how I see the situation:

The Wall
SSM supporters are busy tearing down a massive stone wall that has protected civilization for millennia. If you ask them what is to replace the wall they’re destroying, they’ll assure you that there will be a new wall along a different line, farther back. Of course, they don’t plan to build that wall themselves. Somebody else will have to build it. Nor do they have any idea what materials the new wall will be made of. Somebody else will need to figure that out, too. Nor have they bothered to figure out if the ground under their new line is solid enough to support a wall that is heavy enough to do its job. That’s another task for somebody else.

It’s no use asking SSM supporters too many questions about this new wall. They’ll merely repeat that somebody will build the wall out of some kind of material, and hopefully the ground will support it. That is the sum of their thought on the matter. Press them harder and you’ll only annoy them. In their minds, stating that the wall will be built is just as good as having built it. They really wish that you would stop pestering them about such trivialities, because they have important work to do: They are tearing down the existing wall.

Right-Wing Censors?
Mark: “The criticizing, punishing of dissenters and shunning is hardly limited to leftists, gay activists or the liberal side. Want examples ? Just ask.”

OK, I’m asking.

But I Love Children, Too!
“from where I sit, the assertion that any advocacy for SSM is inherently blind towards the needs of children is equally simplistic.”

You’re already missing the point, Mark. I wrote about what happens in the future beyond our own lives, and you wrote about the needs of children. Don’t you see the difference?

This is the same reaction I got months ago when I said on MarriageDebate that people with children are naturally more interested in the future than people who don’t have children and never plan to. Barry Deutch in particular went berserk at this, insisting that I had said, “Gays don’t love children.” That leap of thought still strikes me as utterly bizarre.

“Caring about children” is almost completely unrelated to “caring about the future.” Children exist today, in the present. You can go find some of them right now and love on them. Unless you are particularly hardhearted, it’s almost impossible to hold an actual child in your lap and not care about his happiness. It’s instinctual.

Thinking about the future is much more complicated. First, the future involves people who haven’t even been born yet, so you can’t hold them on your lap. They don’t look up at you cutely. You will never meet most of them. They won’t thank you for your efforts. So you don’t naturally have the same urge to help them. You have to create the urge by an act of will and intellect.

Second, caring for the happiness of present children is often precisely the reverse of caring for their long-term happiness. Anyone who has raised a child will understand this. Making a child happy in the long term usually requires making them unhappy in the short term. In fact, you could say that responsible parenting requires caring about the present child less than the adult who the child will become, e.g. Children aren’t generally made happy by being forced to go to school. Adults are happy because they were forced to go to school.

Recall that this thread started with Angie’s assertion that if we SSM opponents had more gay friends, then we would change our position to avoid being unpopular. That is short-term, present-tense selfish thinking. You’re a very thoughtful SSM supporter, Mark. But you still resist seeing the issue from the future-oriented perspective of SSM’s opponents. Take the plunge: Will this country be a better place 100 years from now if it adopts SSM today?

Mark,

"Maybe I could learn to appreciate difference at a college campus, where they have speech codes to punish dissenters. Or maybe I could move to Canada, where criticizing homosexuality is a crime. Or maybe I could take the gentler approach that you suggest, which is making friends who will shun me unless I agree with them on politics." ----- Spare me. The criticizing, punishing of dissenters and shunning is hardly limited to leftists, gay activists or the liberal side. Want examples ? Just ask.

Like Ben, I would like to see examples of this from conservatives in either academia or Canada. But regardless of whether such examples exist, the main point is that conservatives don't go around lecturing everyone else about how they are supposed to be 'tolerant' of different cultures/behaviors/ideas/etc., and then dismiss those cultures/behaviors/ideas/etc. that they don't like (e.g. Southern conservatives/sexual abstinence/people should be responsible for the consequences of their behavior)

Ben,

Great stuff - we really need to get you a syndicated column! ; )

Think about it this way: Is it a risk you would take with your own life? Let’s suppose that you’re going to die today and be re-conceived in fifty years inside a random American woman. Would you still be an SSM supporter? Would you support no-fault divorce? Abortion? Or would you do everything possible to guarantee that you would come into the world—alive—with your biological father and mother married to each other and committed to raising you? (That might make for a neat movie plot!)

That's a great thought experiment. It might not work as well for SSM, since most supporters of it don't consider the idea of being raised by two parents of the same gender as problematic, but it's quite stark in the case of abortion.

I also like your analogy of The Wall a lot, especially the line, "In their minds, stating that the wall will be built is just as good as having built it." Sort of like thinking that having a book on your bookshelf is as good as having read it! (let alone understood it...)

Ben,

"You're trying to caricature me as saying that the needs of children trump every other consideration."
----- You are correct - that is what I thought you were saying.

"My point with no-fault divorce is that those who supported the change weren't the ones who were at risk for the harm it produced. They wanted immediate pleasure for themselves, and those who were at risk for resulting harm didn't get to vote on it. There are many other examples: It's easy to support abortion when you know that you aren't at risk of being aborted. It's easy to support big government programs when you know that you'll be dead before the real costs must be paid."

------ This sounds to me like a number of arguments for liberal policies. Those who support less environmental regulation, those who are against affirmative action, those who are against welfare, those who support the death penalty - one can make the same argument that all of these policies are inconsiderate of future generations.

In my view, your assertion that SSM supporters are blind (or don't care) as to its effect on future generations is intellectually equivalent to the assertion that SSM opponents are simply bigoted. The reality is that for some SSM supporters, the issue is not about ignoring the effect but disagreeing about the effect legitimizing gay relationships would have on future generations.

So while you accused me of trying to caricature you saying that the needs of children trump every other consideration - I respond that you are trying to caricature SSM supporters by saying that they do not care about future generations.

"But I don't see that happening with SSM supporters. All they want to talk about is how it will make this group happy, right now. When the topic turns to the future and harm to others, I see only dismissive hand-waving: Oh, it'll be fine. How will it harm your marriage? It won't be Armageddon. It's a risk we're willing to take-with someone else's life."

------- In essence you are correct. The response is essentially 'dismissive hand-waving' because that is what SSM advocates truly believe. I've acknowledged that the change is significant based on tradition alone, but that doesn't change the fact it may be the right thing to do from an equal-rights stand point. In any case, my view is that the "Armageddon" and "someone else's life" assertions do not apply in the context of this debate.

"Think about it this way: Is it a risk you would take with your own life? Let's suppose that you're going to die today and be re-conceived in fifty years inside a random American woman."

Would you still be an SSM supporter?
- I think I'd feel the same way I do now. In other words, I don't see the catastrophic costs as you do.

- Would you support no-fault divorce?
I don't think it is the role of the government to get involved in domestic matters. I'd hope and pray that people would not take divorce lightly.

Abortion?
- Abortion directly results in the end of life. Comparing that effect to SSM in any way is not legitimate.

Or would you do everything possible to guarantee that you would come into the world-alive-with your biological father and mother married to each other and committed to raising you?
- Do I think that the govt should guarantee that every child should be raised by their biological father and mother ? No. I thought you were against big government - that would be one heck of a social service agency that would go into homes making sure that parents were committed to raising their children.

"(That might make for a neat movie plot!)"
---- Yes, it would - maybe the sequel to 1984.

"Yes, they feel that way. But they have no rational basis for their feeling. Without tradition, there is no reason to hold the line where you want it as a logical matter, nor is there any reason to think that it can be held there as a political matter. If sex is just about pleasure and not reproduction, then there is no reason to say that this group's pleasure is OK, but that group's pleasure is illegal.:"
------ Based on that logic, do you support the criminalization of birth control use ?. I guess if you feel that all non-reproductive sex should be illegal then I'd disagree with that but you'd be consistent in your view. Otherwise, there is reason to have 'lines' based on logic and as a political matter. Again, I've been through this before with Mike. You seem to be saying that if we legitimize gay sex, then we may as well not have any limits. I say that our constitution already allows us freedom - yes, sexual freedom with some limits (age, relationship, animal) and that we can and do change the line.

SSM supporters are busy tearing down a massive stone wall that has protected civilization for millennia. If you ask them what is to replace the wall they're destroying, they'll assure you that there will be a new wall along a different line, farther back. Of course, they don't plan to build that wall themselves. Somebody else will have to build it. Nor do they have any idea what materials the new wall will be made of. Somebody else will need to figure that out, too. Nor have they bothered to figure out if the ground under their new line is solid enough to support a wall that is heavy enough to do its job. That's another task for somebody else.

----- That is not how I see it at all. First of all, the analogy of the "stone wall that has protected civilization for millennia" does not work unless you are willing to give me other examples of tearing down that wall. Did women's suffrage tear down that wall ? End of slavery ? Separation of Church and State ? Desegregation ? End of Prohibition ? Anti-smoking laws ? There is an arbitrary line drawn that defines laws based on the societal costs versus the benefits equation. If you believe that any 'freedom' tears down that wall, then that is OK. But I think that you believe in some freedoms but not others. That is a legitimate view but is still arbitrary based on your view of the costs versus benefits.

But to put this in the context of your 'wall' analogy, I believe that denying gay relationships should not be part of a wall that protects civilization.

Mark: "The criticizing, punishing of dissenters and shunning is hardly limited to leftists, gay activists or the liberal side. Want examples ? Just ask."
OK, I'm asking.
---- Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Savage ? CWFA, Family Research Council, ACLU, PFLAG, RNC, DNC, People for the Separation of Church and State, etc, etc. Of course there is censorship on many college campuses and that is a shame. But, don't you think that exists at other places who happen to support your views such as Bob Jones, Baylor, Jerry Falwell's, US Military, etc. ? And I'm not saying they don't have the right to censor. They do because we have freedom of speech and association. I'm against most censorship and the movement towards 'politically correct speech'. But the bottom line to me is that for you to assert that only one side of this debate punishes or shuns those who 'dissent' is just wrong.

You're already missing the point, Mark. I wrote about what happens in the future beyond our own lives, and you wrote about the needs of children. Don't you see the difference?
--- I do see the difference. Again, my point is that I don't agree with your view of what will happen in the future beyond our lives. Also, I can make the same argument about environmental policy. Don't you care about the environment for our children and grandchildren ? (I oppose most environmenal regulations, but it's a powerful question, isn't it ?)

Second, caring for the happiness of present children is often precisely the reverse of caring for their long-term happiness. Anyone who has raised a child will understand this. Making a child happy in the long term usually requires making them unhappy in the short term. In fact, you could say that responsible parenting requires caring about the present child less than the adult who the child will become, e.g. Children aren't generally made happy by being forced to go to school. Adults are happy because they were forced to go to school.
----- I totally agree about present versus long-term happiness. But this only applies if I you assume that I agree with you that SSM will have a catastrophic effect on future generations but I'm willing to ignore that for the present. I don't see it that way.

You're a very thoughtful SSM supporter, Mark.
---- Thanks.

But you still resist seeing the issue from the future-oriented perspective of SSM's opponents. Take the plunge: Will this country be a better place 100 years from now if it adopts SSM today?
---- I don't resist it - I just don't agree with your view of its affect. And yes, I do believe this country would be a better place in 100 years because I feel the normalization of homosexual behavior is a net positive result.

Mike,

Only you would say that conservatives are not hypocrites - just liberals.

I do agree that what is going at many college campuses and the anti-gay speech law in Canada is wrong. But if a student at say, Bob Jones, attempted to put together a pro-gay rights group, I don't think you'd be supporting his 'right' to do that.

There are many conservatives who don't practice what they preach or take responsibility for their actions just as there are liberals who do the same thing.

But I guess I'm not all that surprised that you'd see dishonesty, hyperbole and irresponsibility as simply partisan attributes.

Mark,

------ This sounds to me like a number of arguments for liberal policies. Those who support less environmental regulation, those who are against affirmative action, those who are against welfare, those who support the death penalty - one can make the same argument that all of these policies are inconsiderate of future generations.

You'll have to explain how being against welfare or in favor of death penalty are detrimental to future generations, since I don't see those connections at all.

Regarding 'tolerance' and reactions towards different ideas, Ben said,

"Is that why you cannot appreciate difference?"

Maybe I could learn to appreciate difference at a college campus, where they have speech codes to punish dissenters. Or maybe I could move to Canada, where criticizing homosexuality is a crime. Or maybe I could take the gentler approach that you suggest, which is making friends who will shun me unless I agree with them on politics.

You see, Angie, I'm young enough that this is very familiar ground. Back when I was in college, the shibboleth was "tolerance" instead of "appreciating difference." Of course, tolerance meant that I had to tolerate radical liberals, but never that those liberals had to tolerate me.

You're looking at difference, Angie. Right here, right now. Are you appreciating it? Or is "appreciating difference," like tolerance, something that only other people have to do?

To which Mark responded (after a short intervening exchange):

Mark: "The criticizing, punishing of dissenters and shunning is hardly limited to leftists, gay activists or the liberal side. Want examples ? Just ask." OK, I'm asking. ---- Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Savage ? CWFA, Family Research Council, ACLU, PFLAG, RNC, DNC, People for the Separation of Church and State, etc, etc. Of course there is censorship on many college campuses and that is a shame. But, don't you think that exists at other places who happen to support your views such as Bob Jones, Baylor, Jerry Falwell's, US Military, etc. ? And I'm not saying they don't have the right to censor. They do because we have freedom of speech and association. I'm against most censorship and the movement towards 'politically correct speech'. But the bottom line to me is that for you to assert that only one side of this debate punishes or shuns those who 'dissent' is just wrong.

You've turned the question inside-out: Angie was claiming that those who oppose SSM do so simply because they don't know, or spend time with, any gay couples, and that if they did they would be more 'tolerant'. This is a common liberal theme - that people must be 'tolerant' to liberal policies or behavior. But when it comes to addressing conservative policies or behavior, they are anything but tolerant. The question of whether conservatives are open to discussion of liberal ideas is a separate one (you know, two wrongs don't make a right?) Even if conservatives are every bit as intolerant or hypocritical as liberals, it doesn't mean that it's OK for liberals to be so. Right? If Angie's going to accuse opponents of SSM of being intolerant, or unappreciative of differences, wouldn't it be consistent of her to behave the same way towards people with different political views than she?

And to me Mark said,

Only you would say that conservatives are not hypocrites - just liberals.

I only said that in the context of 'tolerance' - conservatives to not go around telling everyone that they are morally obligated to 'tolerate' any ideas or behavior, and then blatantly disregard their own directives when it suits them. They may be hypocritical in some other areas, but not in this area.

I do agree that what is going at many college campuses and the anti-gay speech law in Canada is wrong. But if a student at say, Bob Jones, attempted to put together a pro-gay rights group, I don't think you'd be supporting his 'right' to do that.

Of course I would. I'd also support the university's right to not allow the group, since it is a private institution. I think it is problematic when private universities try to indoctrinate students, rather than educate them, but that is their prerogative as a private institution (it would help if they would be upfront about their goals, but that would have a negative effect on enrollment and donations, so they don't). The problem is more serious when public universities do so - they are taking public monies and using them to browbeat students into adopting liberal political views. And when students object, or stand up for conservative views, they are punished by administrators and professors who have tremendous power over them. And this comes from people who constantly preach that we must respect diversity and be tolerant of differing views.

There are many conservatives who don't practice what they preach or take responsibility for their actions just as there are liberals who do the same thing.

You constantly make statements like this that imply a moral equivalence, or a practical equivalence, to the situation. What are the relative numbers, here? And who makes more use of official governmental power and/or money in trying to force others to follow their views? Rush Limbaugh doesn't use any governmental power to spread his message, and he doesn't have any power to suppress the message of those he disagrees with (and I doubt he would even if he did have the power). This fundamental difference between ridicule and suppression is constantly lost on liberals, and, apparently, on you. Conservatives are happy to let liberals express their ideas in public - what we object to is the way liberals suppress conservative viewpoints in the news and entertainment media, in universities, and in government in places like Canada and Europe.

But I guess I'm not all that surprised that you'd see dishonesty, hyperbole and irresponsibility as simply partisan attributes.

I don't think the attributes are evenly divided between the two parties, or between the two ideological camps.

----
Here's the $64,000 question:

I feel the normalization of homosexual behavior is a net positive result.

How so? Does that mean your support of SSM is motivated primarily by the desire to normalize homosexual behavior? And do you think it is legitimate in our form of government to force social normalization of particular behaviors via the courts?
(Well, OK, that was three $21,333 questions...)

Mike,

"Very few people argue that we can do what we want to the environment today and let later generations deal with the aftermath - the left vs. right political arguments center on the role of the state, and in particular, the federal government, in protecting the environment, and on balancing long-term interests (protecting the environment) against nearer-term ones (creating jobs, economic growth, military readiness, etc.)"
—---- Well said. I think this issue can be defined in a similar way. What is the role of the state or the federal government in regulating/legitimizing adult relationships ? What is the balance between long-term interests (encouraging procreation) and nearer-term ones (individual freedom) ?

To which Mark responded (after a short intervening exchange):
You've turned the question inside-out: Angie was claiming that those who oppose SSM do so simply because they don't know, or spend time with, any gay couples, and that if they did they would be more 'tolerant'. This is a common liberal theme - that people must be 'tolerant' to liberal policies or behavior. But when it comes to addressing conservative policies or behavior, they are anything but tolerant. The question of whether conservatives are open to discussion of liberal ideas is a separate one (you know, two wrongs don't make a right?) Even if conservatives are every bit as intolerant or hypocritical as liberals, it doesn't mean that it's OK for liberals to be so. Right? If Angie's going to accuse opponents of SSM of being intolerant, or unappreciative of differences, wouldn't it be consistent of her to behave the same way towards people with different political views than she?
—------ Someone turned this question around - maybe it was me or maybe not. I'll try to be clear. I agree with what you said above. To answer your question "right?" - Right. All I was trying to say is that there are people on both sides of this debate and on both political and ideological sides who are intolerant, hypocritical and not open to discussion. So when I read the 'intolerant' party-line - from either side - I tend to respond. But, as you said, it is a given and not much to do with the substance of this debate. But if you want to hear it again, I do not support Angie's accusation of general intolerance of SSM opponents or her assertion that ones view would change if they knew a gay couple.

Of course I would. I'd also support the university's right to not allow the group, since it is a private institution. I think it is problematic when private universities try to indoctrinate students, rather than educate them, but that is their prerogative as a private institution (it would help if they would be upfront about their goals, but that would have a negative effect on enrollment and donations, so they don't). The problem is more serious when public universities do so - they are taking public monies and using them to browbeat students into adopting liberal political views. And when students object, or stand up for conservative views, they are punished by administrators and professors who have tremendous power over them. And this comes from people who constantly preach that we must respect diversity and be tolerant of differing views.
—--------- We are in agreement on this.

You constantly make statements like this that imply a moral equivalence, or a practical equivalence, to the situation. What are the relative numbers, here? And who makes more use of official governmental power and/or money in trying to force others to follow their views?
—----- I tend to agree that the numbers may not be equal. My point was that it exists on both sides.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't use any governmental power to spread his message, and he doesn't have any power to suppress the message of those he disagrees with (and I doubt he would even if he did have the power). This fundamental difference between ridicule and suppression is constantly lost on liberals, and, apparently, on you.
—------- That's absurd. Conservatives don't use government power to spread their message ? Run that by me again. Of course they do Mike - and they should because that is how a Republic form of government works. I'll agree that the majority of decision makers in the media are liberal and that affects what is shown but you seem to be saying that a conservative decision maker would act differently towards his/her agenda than a liberal one would and I disagree with that.

Conservatives are happy to let liberals express their ideas in public - what *we* object to is the way liberals suppress conservative viewpoints in the news and entertainment media, in universities, and in government in places like Canada and Europe.
—--- We ? That's one of my issues with you - the us against them rhetoric.

I don't think the attributes are evenly divided between the two parties, or between the two ideological camps.
—--- I agree with you - but I think it's more like 60-40 not 90-10 as you might think.

Here's the $64,000 question:
I feel the normalization of homosexual behavior is a net positive result.
How so?
—----- Sort of a silly question based on the number of exchanges we've had but I'll answer it. Because I think it is the right thing to do since there is no justification, in my view, to define it as a negative or harmful behavior in the legal sense.

Does that mean your support of SSM is motivated primarily by the desire to normalize homosexual behavior?
—---- I read it twice and it still makes sense so — yes.

And do you think it is legitimate in our form of government to force social normalization of particular behaviors via the courts?
—---- You don't deserve the final $21,333 for this silly question. Yes, I do. The same way the courts 'forced' social normalization of women's right to vote, forced social normalization of interracial relationships, forced social normalization of racial integration, forced social normalization of ending a marriage, and even forced social normalization of ending life (death penalty, abortion). The courts have ruled in certain cases that people have rights to do things which offend some other people and I agree that is within their role.

"the courts 'forced' social normalization of women's right to vote, "

Mark Miller

When? Where? One of us doesn't have enough knowledge of the history of Women's Sufferage.

I'll let you post your citations first.

"When? Where? One of us doesn't have enough knowledge of the history of Women's Sufferage."

It is me. The when is 1920 and it was via the 19th amendment. My wrong.

My point was that Mike accused these justices of forcing social normalization of particular behaviors via the courts and my response was meant to dispute that by pointing out other court rulings where the intent was not based on 'social normalization'. Now I happen to think that futher social acceptance of homosexuality is a positive outcome. But that does not mean that should be the sole reason or the purpose for a judge to allow SSM.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't use any governmental power to spread his message, and he doesn't have any power to suppress the message of those he disagrees with (and I doubt he would even if he did have the power). This fundamental difference between ridicule and suppression is constantly lost on liberals, and, apparently, on you. —------- That's absurd. Conservatives don't use government power to spread their message ? Run that by me again. Of course they do Mike - and they should because that is how a Republic form of government works. I'll agree that the majority of decision makers in the media are liberal and that affects what is shown but you seem to be saying that a conservative decision maker would act differently towards his/her agenda than a liberal one would and I disagree with that.

On the one hand we have liberal teachers unions in public schools, and liberal academics and academic administrators, who are abusing their state mandate to educate children by indoctrinating students into liberal political thought. On the other hand we have...what? What is the comparable situation for conservatives?

The entertainment and news media are not so clear-cut (except for PBS and NPR), because they are typically privately owned companies, so their overt political bias is in theory (and, increasingly, in practice) subject to rejection by the marketplace. However, the news media in particular uses public airwaves to disingenously promote a liberal perspective all the while claiming impartiality. Again, where is the conservative equivalent? The radio personalities all are explicit about their political ideologies. The only possible example is Fox News, and that is a weak one, because the degree of bias it shows towards the right is minimal compared with the degree of bias towards the left in all the other outlets.

Conservatives are happy to let liberals express their ideas in public - what *we* object to is the way liberals suppress conservative viewpoints in the news and entertainment media, in universities, and in government in places like Canada and Europe. —--- We ? That's one of my issues with you - the us against them rhetoric.

Why is that problematic? The we is not precisely defined, but there is a broadly accepted set of principles shared by most people who call themselves conservatives, and many of those principles are opposed by most people who call themselves liberal. Are you saying there is no way to generalize about differences between conservatives and liberals? Would it have made any difference if I had said "What I object to", or "what conservatives object to"? I don't understand what the difference is...

Here's the $64,000 question:
I feel the normalization of homosexual behavior is a net positive result.
How so?
—----- Sort of a silly question based on the number of exchanges we've had but I'll answer it. Because I think it is the right thing to do since there is no justification, in my view, to define it as a negative or harmful behavior in the legal sense.

Does that mean your support of SSM is motivated primarily by the desire to normalize homosexual behavior?
—---- I read it twice and it still makes sense so — yes.

There's a difference between arguing that social normalization of homosexual behavior is a net positive benefit to the society, and saying that the state does not have the right to discriminate in its marriage laws against same-sex couples. The latter is a narrower legal question, that is technically agnostic about the benefits or lack thereof to the society of broader social normalization. I understood your argument to be primarily motivated by the latter more narrow question. It's a different matter if you think recognition of SSM is a means to the end of broader acceptance of homosexuality as a positive good.

And do you think it is legitimate in our form of government to force social normalization of particular behaviors via the courts? —---- You don't deserve the final $21,333 for this silly question. Yes, I do. The same way the courts 'forced' social normalization of women's right to vote, forced social normalization of interracial relationships, forced social normalization of racial integration, forced social normalization of ending a marriage, and even forced social normalization of ending life (death penalty, abortion). The courts have ruled in certain cases that people have rights to do things which offend some other people and I agree that is within their role.

The courts did not produce social normalization for any of these things - that is a liberal myth. Even if they did, it is irrelevant to the question of whether they should be doing so. I vehemently reject the idea that judges have the authority to enforce changes in social norms, especially the idea that it is there prerogative to interpret the law in any way they see fit so as to bring about their desired social changes. They have the right to determine how the law applies to individual cases, not to invent new laws out of whole cloth. Do the words "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" mean anything, or not?

We're getting to the bottom of the stack on Justin's blog .... maybe a good thing.

On the one hand we have liberal teachers unions in public schools, and liberal academics and academic administrators, who are abusing their state mandate to educate children by indoctrinating students into liberal political thought. On the other hand we have...what? What is the comparable situation for conservatives?
—---- I've acknowledged that there is a liberal bias in the media and in academia. But your world of 'liberal academics' and indoctrinating students into liberal political though is silly. It reminds me of people who claim that churches and religious institutions are indoctrinating children into conservative or evangelical thought. Of course it happens and yes, a majority of academia leaders are liberal. But you seem to be implying that liberals have total control of everything from legislatures to education to all media and that is just a tad of an exaggeration. The country is pretty closely divided politically speaking. I'll agree that liberal PAC's may have more political power than conservative ones but it's not near as one-sided as you say.

However, the news media in particular uses public airwaves to disingenously promote a liberal perspective all the while claiming impartiality. Again, where is the conservative equivalent? The radio personalities all are explicit about their political ideologies. The only possible example is Fox News, and that is a weak one, because the degree of bias it shows towards the right is minimal compared with the degree of bias towards the left in all the other outlets.
—----- Again, there is a liberal bias in the media but the media still reports the news. I actually think Fox is fair and balanced and fewer and fewer news anchors are as biased as say, Dan Rather or the NY Times.

Why is that problematic? The we is not precisely defined, but there is a broadly accepted set of principles shared by most people who call themselves conservatives, and many of those principles are opposed by most people who call themselves liberal. Are you saying there is no way to generalize about differences between conservatives and liberals? Would it have made any difference if I had said "What I object to", or "what conservatives object to"? I don't understand what the difference is...
—----- The problem is that you are a strict partisan. All liberals bad. All conservatives good. Sort of like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore (mirror image). Very simplistic and lots of demagoguery. There are general differences between liberals and conservatives. But among them are not "right" vs. "wrong", or "good" vs. "evil". Yes, many many liberals lie, exaggerate, spin, are criminals, say stupid things, kill, etc., etc. Now, is it even possible that someone who is conservative is capable of any of those things ? If you say yes, we have no problem.

I understood your argument to be primarily motivated by the latter more narrow question. It's a different matter if you think recognition of SSM is a means to the end of broader acceptance of homosexuality as a positive good.
—---- I don't think recognition of SSM should be based on 'a means to the end of broader acceptance of homosexuality'. I think that would be a positive by-product but should not the basis for the change in law.

The courts did not produce social normalization for any of these things - that is a liberal myth. Even if they did, it is irrelevant to the question of whether they should be doing so. I vehemently reject the idea that judges have the authority to enforce changes in social norms, especially the idea that it is there prerogative to interpret the law in any way they see fit so as to bring about their desired social changes. They have the right to determine how the law applies to individual cases, not to invent new laws out of whole cloth.
—----- We agree - but you are assuming that the judges in MA or WA or SCOTUS have done that. My point is that there was some basis for their decisions. I don't agree with all of them but I vehemently reject the idea that Lawrence or Brown or Goodridge or Bowers was simply judicial tyranny.

Do the words "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" mean anything, or not?
—------ Come on Mike - is this your way of using the fact that the majority of the people are against SSM ? A majority of people think abortion should be legal, a majority of people wanted to keep their slaves and were against interracial marriage. Does the existence of a Constitution or a judicial branch of government mean anything or not ? Now if you want to argue that SSM is not a constitutional right, that is a legitimate debate. But just because a majority of people want or do not something, does not automatically mean it should be law.

Mark, how would you define judicial tyranny? Can you give an example of a judicial decision that you would call improper? And explain why it is improper?

Come on Mike - is this your way of using the fact that the majority of the people are against SSM ? A majority of people think abortion should be legal, a majority of people wanted to keep their slaves and were against interracial marriage. Does the existence of a Constitution or a judicial branch of government mean anything or not ? Now if you want to argue that SSM is not a constitutional right, that is a legitimate debate. But just because a majority of people want or do not something, does not automatically mean it should be law.

Roughly half of the population thinks that abortion should be illegal in all cases, and a substantial majority (somthing like 2/3) think it should be banned except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Plus, prior to Roe, different states were allowed to have their own laws regarding abortion.

I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans were in favor of slavery (in 1860), since the population of the Northern states was larger than that of the South. It could be that a majority were against interracial marriages, but in any case the two situations (slavery and marriage) are quite different. It's also not at all clear that having laws against miscegenation violates anything in the constitution. Such laws are immoral and unjust, but that doesn't mean they are unconstitutional.

The point is not that a majority always gets to decide what the law is - it is that unless a law violates something in the constitution (state or federal), or conflicts with existing law, the courts should not be allowed to claim that the law is invalid. But what the modern courts are doing is saying, "we don't like this law, and we think it is based solely on irrational prejudice, so we're going to call it unconstitutional." That is exactly what the Goodridge decision said. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman didn't violate either the text or the intent of the Mass. constitution, and it doesn't violate anything in the U.S. constitution. But the SC didn't like that definition, so they directed the legislature to come up with another one. THAT is judicial tyranny.

Cube,

Sorry to respond to your direct question so slowly (thereby requiring myself to lean over a number of comments to do so).

"How does a rational person persuade an intuitive person?"

I guess I don't see this as a necessary dichotomy. All rational decisions will, at some level, be intuitive. The challenge is, therefore, finding the right balance to fit both parties in the debate. In one degree this will involve a direct change of experience — as with sonograms in the abortion struggle. A bit more of a blended approach would be to work an abstraction down to a level at which it can be intuited. Another tack, not exclusive of the others, is to work to convey one's good will and sincerity, thereby opening up the possibility, in the other person's view, that you're not driven purely by calculation.

However, I'd say it's often for naught, because I'm not sure that people break down along these lines. Rather, they privilege one or the other mode of thinking depending on what serves their desires.

To use Angie as an example, the motivations on your list don't all belong in the same column. Peer pressure, conformance, group identity, aversion to confrontation, and guilt can be seen as the underlying motivations that make it convenient to privilege immediate compassion and have "an expansive notion of 'injustice.'" If group identity required her to privilege delayed compassion — to justify white families' missing out on opportunities, for example, so that blacks as a whole could "catch up" — then the legal/logic/ethics approach becomes the mode of thinking.

(I'm not saying that any of this is the case for Angie's part; I'm just following your example.)

Mark, how would you define judicial tyranny? Can you give an example of a judicial decision that you would call improper? And explain why it is improper?
—------ To me, judicial tyranny is when judges work 'outside of the law' such as being vigilantes. There are many examples of judicial decisions that I did not agree with such as the U of M affirmative action case, the partial-birth abortion case and the prayer at the Texas high school football game case. That is different than 'improper' since 'improper' implies that the judges had no reason to make the decisions or should not have put in the position to make the decision.

It could be that a majority were against interracial marriages, but in any case the two situations (slavery and marriage) are quite different. It's also not at all clear that having laws against miscegenation violates anything in the constitution. Such laws are immoral and unjust, but that doesn't mean they are unconstitutional.
—---- I agree that a law can be immoral yet constitutional since 'morality' may be defined in different ways. To me, 'unjust' refers to being discriminatory and we do have laws about that such as 'equal protection' and 'freedom of association'. One can argue that legitimizing polygamy, incest and even bestiality would not be 'unconstitutional' - but lawmakers have decided that those behaviors are detrimental and they do not fall under 'equal protection' laws.

Also, I disagree that and think it is clear that the miscegenation laws were unjust and unconstitutional as was the Texas sodomy law was since it only applied to same sex relationships.

The point is not that a majority always gets to decide what the law is - it is that unless a law violates something in the constitution (state or federal), or conflicts with existing law, the courts should not be allowed to claim that the law is invalid. But what the modern courts are doing is saying, "we don't like this law, and we think it is based solely on irrational prejudice, so we're going to call it unconstitutional."
—---- I agree to an extent. The courts have over reached bounds based more on whether they agree or disagree with the subject matter rather than interpret whether it violates the constitution. My point would be while more often, this has favored the liberal side, Justice Scalia has also been guilty of it.

That is exactly what the Goodridge decision said. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman didn't violate either the text or the intent of the Mass. constitution, and it doesn't violate anything in the U.S. constitution. But the SC didn't like that definition, so they directed the legislature to come up with another one. THAT is judicial tyranny.
—---- In MA (or any other State or Federal constitution), marriage has not been defined that way. If it were, as is being attempted now, this wouldn't be a legal issue. What the majority in Goodridge said was that current marriage law WAS improperly denying same sex couples the opportunity to marry based on the how they interpreted the State constitution. It did not change any stated definition. I may not agree with the majority decision but your assertion that the MA State Constitution had the words 'marriage is a union between one man and one woman' and the majority ignored that and told the legislature to make a new one is simply false.

Sorry, Mark, I'm not going to let you get away with this:

In MA (or any other State or Federal constitution), marriage has not been defined that way. If it were, as is being attempted now, this wouldn't be a legal issue. What the majority in Goodridge said was that current marriage law WAS improperly denying same sex couples the opportunity to marry based on the how they interpreted the State constitution. It did not change any stated definition.

The Goodridge court acknowledged that, in every way it could possibly look at Massachusetts law, "marriage" was used to indicate a relationship between a man and a woman. The court then traced all such usages back to common law and cited its power to "refine" same.

Without sifting through the precedent, citing all of the "man and woman" and "husband and wife" constructions, one can say that, until very (very) recently, marriage's opposite-sex nature didn't have to be defined in a "stated definition," because it was simply what the word meant.

I see what you mean - and I've actually debated Professor Rosenberg using that similar arguments.

But, to me, what Mike was saying is that the Massachusetts constitution had a clear definition of marriage as man-woman yet the Goodridge court threw that out and told the legislature to make a new one. That did not happen.

The definitional argument is a coherent one but not a debate-ender in my view. Professor Rosenberg makes the analogy of the word 'governor' which historically refers to a male but has, in more modern times, also referred to a woman as the State executive. I think 'marriage' is a little different because it refers not to a single person but to an event or institution.

In the end, he acknowledged that SSM would be a *change* in the definition albeit not as significant as I think it would be.

I, as you know, see value to having some way to legally acknowledge same sex relationships but am not yet convinced of whether the use of the word 'marriage' is appropriate.