Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Gay Marriage or Religious Freedom: Pick One

December 29th, 2011 by Adam G.

As has been evident all along, the debate over gay marriage and special protections for homosexuality in law wasn’t really a debate about equality. It’s about gay privilege at the expense of religious freedom.

It could theoretically be about equality (a mistaken verions of equality, but still a genuine one), but people aren’t just wired that way. They are not wired to hear religion and morality traduced, mocked, denigrated, and legally deemed irrational, and then go on respecting religion and morality and giving it a protected place in the world.

And for some, I suspect, the gay privilege is secondary to the laicist goal of pushing God’s peoples to the side.

Comments (22)
Filed under: Birkenhead Drill,Deseret Review | Tags: , , , , , , ,
December 29th, 2011 17:59:04
22 comments

Bookslinger
December 29, 2011

Time for another link to one of my favorite essays on Margin Creep:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

The sub-title is misleading. I believe the essay does lend support to opposing SSM.

I would also take your, and Robert George’s, thinking one step further.

Why do certain sectors want more gay privilege and less religion in society? Answer: to remove societal and individual stigma against homosexuals.

Why remove the stigma? To make homosexuality a socially acceptable choice.

Why make homosexuality a socially acceptable choice ?

To make more homosexuals.

I point to one of the lines of logic used by many in the past to illustrate that homosexuality could only be inborn: “Why would anyone choose to be homosexual in this homophobic society?”

According to that logic, remove “homophobia,” and it then becomes a socially valid choice.

So eventually, the evolution will be from “be nice to gays, they can’t help it, they were born that way” to “Hey, there’s nothing wrong with it. Why not?”

Please read the essay on Margin Creep.


Zen
December 29, 2011

That essay by Jane Galt has been the best explanation of why it is SSM is bad, that I have seen yet.

However, for most people, I don’t think conspiracy is the reason. (I am not denying it – I just don’t think it is the major reason for most people).

For most, I think their internal reasoning goes like
I enjoy being immoral therefore I support the sexual revolution. Because I support the sexual revolution, I support homosexuals. If I condemn homosexuals, then I am condemning myself therefore support is necessary for both internal logical consistency and for a wounded and touchy conscience.


John Christopher Sunol
December 30, 2011

I think there is going to be a fight in this and i suspect in the short term gay marriage will win out


John Mansfield
December 30, 2011

I think Zen’s theory above explains a lot of it. Reading about the politics of passing any sex marriage in New York, it was notable how often the word “girlfriend” came up in connection with the elected officials at the center of the action.

Adam’s last paragraph resonates too. For those who prefer an antagonistic relationship with the LDS Church, homosexuality has become a very popular whacking stick, the principal theme for many of them.


Bookslinger
December 31, 2011

Just to belabor the point, the thesis of the Jane Galt essay is that when you remove the stigma of something, you get more of it. The essay’s three examples are: unwed births, government welfare, and divorce.

The increase is first seen in the marginal cases, but then once the marginal cases cross the line, the next group become marginal cases; they want their “compassion and understanding”, and the cycle repeats until the previously-stigmatized thing becomes socially acceptable among the whole.

An example of it is the line that President Monson often quotes: “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.

My extension of that thesis, starts with the idea that homosexuality is not always inborn. Human sexuality may be thought of as varying from “hard coded” to “soft coded”, and those who are not entirely hard-coded may be influenced by various factors. The social stigma of homosexuality helps keep the “marginal cases” of soft-coded individuals (plus many of the boundary-pushing/exploring types of personalities) from crossing that line.

Given that one’s first sexual experience tends to have an imprinting effect, I predict that we’ll see a huge increase in self-identified homosexuals among teenagers about 10 or 11 years from now in states that have granted SSM and modified school textbooks accordingly.


Vader
December 31, 2011

I agree. But the proponents of homosexuality will point to the increase of homosexual identification as proof that there were lots more homosexuals all along who were repressed.


Zen
December 31, 2011

Society seems to have a horror that certain things have stigmas and shaming. I suspect, if you were to ask them, that they would agree that society should not shame anyone for their actions or beliefs. Of course, this tolerance is selective and that in and of itself may not be bad.

I suspect further if you asked these people against shaming what they thought of pedophiles, Nazis, misogynists, racists, and so forth, shame, horror and disgust would be their immediate reaction. Few are thoughtful enough to see the contradiction in positions.

I seems to me, shame is necessary, and that we have removed part of society’s immune system by removing shame and stigmas.

And while Vader correctly points out that people just use marginal change to claim that there was just that many more closeted homosexuals, we have seen that in divorce as well. The parallel is interesting.


Adam G.
January 2, 2012

Was it Dr. Johnson who said 90% of his thoughts were shameful? He was on to something, that fella.


Cynthia L.
January 3, 2012

Hm. I don’t remember proponents of same-sex marriage making many of the guarantees the article said they did, so the questions of whether the guarantees were sincere or disingenuous, realistic or not, are moot in my mind. (From “No one, they insisted, would demand that Catholic or other foster care…” to “No one would be fired from his or her job …”)

What I do remember is proponents of SSM pointing out that SSM laws–in particular Prop8–were largely orthogonal, from a legal perspective, to many of the examples opponents of SSM cited. California’s laws said that the state’s domestic partner status must be treated equivalently to marriage status in all ways, including in matters of non-discrimination law. So, even without legalized same-sex marriage, it was possible in California for an OB to be sued for refusing to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. Using the OB example as a reason to vote for Prop 8 and abolish gay marriage was called a “scare tactic” not because it was called implausible, or that it was part of some “grand bargain” promise that such things wouldn’t happen, but because it was simply not factual to portray it as something that would go away with the passage of Prop 8. Similar arguments were made in regards to adoption, being fired from jobs, etc—all of which hinge on the union of non-discrimination laws and domestic partner laws, not on legal gay marriage.


Adam G.
January 3, 2012

So the anti-Prop. 8 argument was ‘you’re right about the slippery slope in practice, but *technically* gay marriage doesn’t take us all the way down”? Punchy stuff.


Cynthia L.
January 3, 2012

Adam, more precisely I think would be, “we’re already at the bottom, so just let us solemnize it.”


Aaron B
January 4, 2012

Agreed that Megan McCardle’s old Asymmetrical Info piece is one of the best, most accessible “criticisms” of SSM out there. But it’s not really accurate to say the title is misleading. One can acknowledge potential concerns without fully embracing those concerns as persuasive, which is what I think Megan does.


twiceuponatime
January 4, 2012

I’m not sure what BCC means by the link over to here, but I think they’ve just accused Adam G. and the rest of all y’all of being in rebellion against the prophets and apostles because you secretly wish you were Catholic, or something.


onceuponatime
January 4, 2012

twice, in Adam’s first line, he says “gay marriage and special protections for homosexuality”. The commenters then all piled on, implying that anybody who would favor any kind of gay rights is secretly some kind of sexual libertine, or stupid.

Within the past 12 months, both Jeffrey R. Holland and Michael Otterson have spoken publicly in favor of revising SLC’s statues to include protection for homosexuals against discrimination in housing and employment. I would like to hear a little of discussion here about how to reconcile the views expressed in this blog post with the views expressed by Holland and Otterson.


twiceuponatime
January 4, 2012

once -

that indicates problems with reading comprehension on your part and on whoever posted that link at BCC, not something wrong with Adam and the rest here.


John Mansfield
January 5, 2012

When every publication of the Church is a mass of confusion that disintegrates into meaninglessness under application of advanced reading skills, it is important to treasure every snippet that you agree with, and therefore understand.


Adam G.
January 5, 2012

Twiceuponatime,
the nature of my rebellion is I’m a wicked old sinner. Secretly wishing I was an albino hair-shirt monk assassin is seconary.

John Mansfield,
funny how context, nuance, and deconstruction are somewhat, ah, discriminate in their application.


John Mansfield
January 5, 2012

The discriminate application is notable, but so in other ways is the lack of discrimination. What may have started as focus on a few particular issues grows into a general imperative to doubt everything. Every teaching and practice of the Church is found lacking.


onceuponatime
January 6, 2012

twicet,

1. Mr. George argues forcefully against any kind of accomodation to gay rights. That includes not only gay marriage but also laws preventing employment discrimination against homosexuals in his argument. Adam also is strongly against gay privilege or special protection for homosexuals. The think seems to be that any accommodation whatsoever will lead to a mainstreaming or normalization of homosexuality. This argument may well be correct.

2. Over the past 4 or 5 years, the LDS church has tentatively staked out a position where it seems to favor some rules preventing discrimination against homosexuals. It has done this through its actions and by statements from at least one apostle and the church’s official spokesman. The church has explicitly endorsed non-discrimination in employment and housing while still arguing strongly against gay marriage or adoption. I don’t know it that position is tenable over the long term, and I suspect that might be the point of Adam’s post.

3. There is some daylight between the position outlined by Mr. George and the position the church has taken, and I think the differences are worth pointing out, especially since several commenters accused those favoring limited gay rights of being sexual libertines or favoring a generalized expansion of homosexuality in society. I don’t think those things are true of either Jeffrey R. Holland or Michael Otterson, so we need to find a different explanation.

4. Please tell me where me reading comprehension is deficient. If possible, please use only mono-syllabic words so I can understand.


John Mansfield
January 6, 2012

I read that this Santorum fellow is drawing jeers from any-sex marriage supporters. So, he has at least that much going for him.


Bookslinger
January 6, 2012

once: Maybe I didn’t read his article close enough. I thought Robert George was talking about discrimination against anti-SSM people, not discrimination against gays in employment/housing.

Leave a Reply