Mr. Ponnuru observed shortly after his "4th way" article hit the world that his email on the topic was generally one of two forms (paraphrasing)

1. Email from opponents to SSM, claiming "The SSM activists won't accept anything less than full marriage, just like man-woman marriage".

2. Email from supporters of SSM asserting that anything less than full marriage, just like man-woman marriage, wouldn't satisfy them.

I think there's a clue, here, on how well this 'compromise' (really a unilateral partial surrender) would work.

The SSM activists won't accept anything less than full marriage, just like man-woman marriage

Isn't that what makes them "SSM activists"? Activists aren't the target audience for compromise proposals on SSM, or any other political issue for that matter.

Activists aren't the target audience for compromise proposals on SSM, or any other political issue for that matter.

A 'compromise' that gives the activists much of what they want, in exchange for which they give up nothing and are still able to continue their demands isn't much of a compromise. Suppose some group demanded banning all private motor vehicles, but was willing to "compromise" by merely banning all private motor vehicles that can seat more than 4 people. Would that be a "compromise", or would said activists merely be slicing the salami one cut at a time?

This "compromise" looks a lot like a slice of salami to me. What, exactly, does the pro SSM side give up, in exchange for getting halfway or more to their goal?

notdhimmi,

I've responded to your concern in the subsequent post, but it seems to me that your complaint would be well served by being attached to an alternate solution. What do you propose be done?

I've responded to your concern in the subsequent post, but it seems to me that your complaint would be well served by being attached to an alternate solution. What do you propose be done?

Suppose that you woke up one night and saw a group of people trying to set your house on fire. Would you "compromise" with them by asking that they not burn your house down too fast, but wait until everyone has left? Or maybe "compromise" by suggesting that they merely burn down your garage, instead? Or would you take action to stop an act of arson against an occupied dwelling, because such an act is a direct threat against you and your family?

In countries where full marriage rights are available to homosexuals, only a tiny percentage of homosexuals take advantage of them, but the damage done to normal families is clear and has been quantified, as shown by Kurtz. It is obvious from these facts that SSM isn't about "fairness" or "rights", but is part of a larger and broader assault upon the family itself. It is a form of arson against marriage...and thus against Western civilization itself.

Mr. Ponnuru is on record as opining that SSM would have little to no effect upon the institution of marriage. I have been unable to determine what he bases this opinion on. However, I very strongly disagree with him; the "queer theory" groups, the poly-group-marriage folks and others seem to view SSM as merely a step on the road to a complete re-definition of marriage so broad as to render it without meaning, and thus destroy it as an institution. The effects upon this country would be literally incalculable in legal and social terms.

notdhimmi,

Your analogy isn't even close to comparable. First of all, it isn't a matter of "them" trying to burn down "our" house. Like them or not, they live in it, as well. Furthermore, it's not vicious mob versus helpless homeowner.

It would be more accurate to envision a house that you share with multiple people. Rather than declaring an intent to burn down the house, some of them wish merely to play with matches. Some honestly believe that it will make the house stronger, in the end, others just aren't concerned. Still others, while a little worried, fall for the arguments of the pro-matchers. Others a more worried, but are not willing to take decisive action to stop them. Moreover, it isn't a sure thing that an "I go or they go" argument will end with the desired result.

So, under these circumstances, moving the dangerous behavior into the (detached) garage would seem the best solution.

Rather than declaring an intent to burn down the house, some of them wish merely to play with matches. [...] So, under these circumstances, moving the dangerous behavior into the (detached) garage would seem the best solution.

I like this analogy. On asking those strange folks what they're trying to do with matches, they might answer that, since their room is the only one in the house without heat, they've put together a crude wood stove and are trying to start it burning. If you think this might start the house on fire, or even stink the place up with wood smoke, by all means we'll move out to the garage. It's better than sleeping in the cold.

Justin Katz wrote:
notdhimmi,

Your analogy isn't even close to comparable. First of all, it isn't a matter of "them" trying to burn down "our" house. Like them or not, they live in it, as well.

The "Queer Theory" folks do not want to live in a patriarchal, heteronormative world; they do not want to live in "our" house.

Furthermore, it's not vicious mob versus helpless homeowner.

Who said the homeowner was helpless? Not me...

It would be more accurate to envision a house that you share with multiple people. Rather than declaring an intent to burn down the house, some of them wish merely to play with matches. Some honestly believe that it will make the house stronger, in the end, others just aren't concerned. Still others, while a little worried, fall for the arguments of the pro-matchers. Others a more worried, but are not willing to take decisive action to stop them. Moreover, it isn't a sure thing that an "I go or they go" argument will end with the desired result.

No, it's more than that. There's a group that wants to heavily remodel the house, and is willing to burn the whole thing down in anticipation of rebuilding with insurance money. The fact that there might not be any insurance, or anyone able to rebuild, does not seem to even occur to them.

So, under these circumstances, moving the dangerous behavior into the (detached) garage would seem the best solution.

That would be nice, except there isn't a detached garage, it's integral to the structure.