I've just been challenged by a couple of the thoughtful skeptics who visit this site, both male, progressive, and heteorosexual, on the issue of gay marriage.
This is not my favorite topic -- I'd frankly rather talk about the Mariners. (While they're still a few inches above .500, probably for the last time in the year) But I think this needs to be put in perspective. It amazes me how quickly and completely "progressives" have chosen to conform to an idea that goes against biology, English syntax, and the traditions of thousands of human cultures. It occurred to me this morning to wonder why . . .
Doc Johnny: Also marriage has traditionally been many things. Marriage between 1 man and 1000 women, marriage between 1 man and 1 child,1 man 1 woman only of the same race, and other variations. There is no ethical reason to deny others what boils down to the right to enter into a legal partnership.
Just 45 years ago my marriage would have been prohibited by law in at least 15 states and the staunchest opponents of my marriage would have been people of faith using biblical reasons why races should not mix.
Brian Barrington: The countries where same-sex marriage has been legalised have not collapsed – in fact, it doesn’t appear to have caused problems at all. Overall, it’s a good thing. What’s wrong with homosexuals marrying? Nothing.
So why not legalise it? Well, there are rumours that an invisible, imaginary being once said that it would be wrong to do so …
DM: Gents: If your standard is instant and total societal collapse, I'll grant you both that gay marriage has not yet had that effect. Neither, of course, did human sacrifice for the Aztecs: even if one regards the Spanish as God's instrument of judgement, they took a while to show up. I don't recall predicting that the Martians would invade as soon as Adam first put the ring on Steve's outstretched and eager finger, either. But admittedly, I often forget things.
What strikes me about this phenomena is how instant, sudden, and lock-step the "progressive" consensus seems to be. Ten minutes ago, marriage meant the joining of male and female, as it had for tens of thousands of years, on six continents, in thousands of cultures -- as even the English word "marriage" implies. Five minutes ago, Simon said, "The new progressive doctrine is that the 'mating' of men with men, and women with women, should be blessed by society and called and legally encouraged as marriage -- though also, the baring of children outside of marriage will also be blessed, also the killing of babies unborn, and the saddling of survivors with trillions of dollars in debt. Please step carefully around the pool of common sense: you don't want to get your feet wet."
Having been told "Jump!' far-sighted and free-thinking progressives around the world immmediately responded meekly, "How high? And on which sneaker should we land?"
And now that is the new "humans rights" issue, anyone who differs is a Neanderthal, morally reprobate, and priest-ridden.
Which, of course, is nice for the conscience, troubled (one hopes) by all those millions of babies, some close to term, being killed to placate the Great God Progress, millions more who grow up not knowing what "Daddy" means, and millions more who are saddled with trillions of dollars in debt at the moment of birth. When the conscience accuses, one can always point to the estimable progressive position one takes on "gay marriage," and point your finger (pick which one) at someone else.
A brilliant maneuver, one has to admit.