In response to Roch’s comments on my previous post, and to Ed’s post today, and the N&R article today, I wanted to clarify a few things as to myself, though of course I am a virtually irrelevant player in the large scheme of things.
I appreciate Roch’s basic suggestion. If we together can guarantee that legalizing homosexual marriage will not lead to looser laws regarding pedophilia, then we have a negotiating starting point so to speak, a starting point for working together for new laws in North Carolina regarding homosexual marriage. But, I think Roch is saying, if anti-homosexual marriage folk who raise the pedophilia issue won’t agree to such a “deal,” then the pedophilia matter proves itself to be a red herring.
I believe that Roch and I both understand a red herring to be a bunny trail argument, a kind of phony distraction.
What I personally am suggesting is NOT a red herring argument. I am opposed to the legalization and legitimization of homosexual marriage for multiple reasons which have nothing to do with pedophilia.
My point is every argument I have heard for the legitimization of homosexual marriage will lead to the legitimization of many other things. This is most true regarding the “argument” from nature, or "desire," or “natural” sexual preference (we do need to do a work over on that word “natural” – it has SO many possible meanings).
What I am saying to the homosexual advocacy groups amounts to help frankly. Not that they asked for it. This argument will damn their cause. It will do that because it will damn us all to many things we do not profess to want. Mark my words. It will do so.
In addition, in my opinion, rooting the argument for homosexual marriage in loose ideas of nature or desire is, in my mind, demeaning to the integrity of the choices that homosexuals (and everyone else) makes. I do not wish to see our culture go down the path of legitimizing behaviors on the grounds of desire or genetic predisposition or “feelings of love” or whatever. It will make us a poorer culture. Ultimately it involves a denial of personal responsibility. It is childish.
So, pedophilia issues aside, yes, I oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage. I think the current most-oft used argument for homosexual marriage will also bring about many results even most homosexuals won’t like. And, sad to say, it will open up the door to comparisons to pedophilia, at least the kind of relations with older minors that are already quite OK in much of Europe. I think this approach will prove a deal killer and a dead end for the homosexual lobby.
Though I disagree with Roch on how the issue of “equal protection” is to be understood and how it should apply, it would be much better for all, in my view, if the case for homosexual marriage were based in legal arguments such as Roch’s.
In the event that homosexual marriage will eventually be approved, which I think (sadly) it will, it will be much better for everyone to have its approval grounded in constitutional arguments and not silly “arguments from desire.”
As to the N&R article, and Ed Cone’s piece, and other commentary on Marcus Kindley’s blog, I don’t think a close reading of the now oft quoted sentence actually will substantiate the claim that Marcus was saying that homosexuals were pedophiles or were no different than pedophiles. I think his inability to state things well has been used by others to have him say what he did not mean to say. Taking advantage of his blundering use of words to make political hay is a problem unto itself.
I wish Marcus would come out with a statement like this – “I am sorry that my poor choice of words gave our community the impression that I or the Republican Party believes that homosexuals are pedophiles or like unto pedophiles. I am sorry for the offence my words may have caused. I do not believe that homosexuals are predisposed to be pedophiles or are pedophiles.”
Now, were it me in this mess, I might wish to write a long philosophical discourse on the use and meanings of the word “natural” in order to clarify what seems on all fronts a murky subject. Hey, I think I will.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Well written. Could you explain the "if homosexual marriage is approved" ... the part where you talk about it being grounded in constitutional arguments instead of silly arguments of desire?
Is this back to the homosexuals are who they are from "desire" thing? Kind of confused.
What sucks about all of this? The whole definition of natural, is about as vague as the definition of say... "equal". Equal with what? all humans? all living things? Has to be compared to something, but then it's not equal. lol.
I think that us humans will always be caught by the bounds of language and our questioning minds. We're screwed because we're so inquisitive. I blame the evil space bunnies. It's their fault.
"I don’t think a close reading of the now oft quoted sentence actually will substantiate the claim that Marcus was saying that homosexuals were pedophiles or were no different than pedophiles. I think his inability to state things well has been used by others to have him say what he did not mean to say. Taking advantage of his blundering use of words to make political hay is a problem unto itself."
Joel,
I've read it as carefully and as closely as possible and I'm quite sure that if he means what he says, the understanding is clear. Marcus doesn't strike me to be a man who doesn't say exactly what he means. He said what he said. He is a master at incendiary rhetoric that boxes him in and leaves him no room for change and certainly not for apology.
It takes a great deal of character to admit a mistake and apologize for it. I, for one, think no less of a person willing to do that. I am not holding my breath waiting for Marcus to apologize for his language, which is, at its least, a big part of his mistake.
jw,
I agree with everything you said, except that his meaning is clear, or, put differently, that he meant what people are saying he meant. Hey, try diagramming his oft quoted sentence! I think I know what he meant, and what I think he meant is not what is being said otherwise that he meant by those who would exploit his poor ability to communicate. But I go back to try diagramming that sentence!
Because what he said could be taken as it has been taken, he should apologize.
darkmoon,
What I mean is that the homosexual advocacy groups should not use the argument from desire. It will hurt them and our culture if they "win" on that basis, or will hurt their own agenda if that argument causes them not to win. Though it may take longer, an argument grounded in some sort of "equal protection" concept will give them a better chance. It is less emotional and incendiary as argument, and it harder to sell, but it will offer a better opportunity to them of getting what they want in the end, and not what they don’t want.
And yes, “equal,” as in “equal protection” is about as vague as “natural.”
Gosh, Joe, when you put it like THAT....
What a buzzkiller!
Joel,
Don't you wish you could get paid by the word?
You are conflating gay marriage with gay behavior in framing your concerns. As I undertand your position, it is that the legal acceptance of homosexuality will open the door to legal acceptance of pedophilia. But guess what, Joel. Homosexuality has been decriminalized. If the domino effect is going to happen, the first domino has already fallen.
Indeed, you might rightly find fodder for your concern in the opinion of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who, in agreeing with the majority in the recent case of Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas's sodomy laws, wrote: “A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.”
One might, again, if I'm interpreting your concerns correctly, "How long before a court rules that pedophiles are just another morally repugnant class entitled to the same protections as homosexuals." But pedophilia has victims. Adult homosexuality does not. There is where I think you can count on the line being drawn. The law does not protect people who perpetrate harm.
Regardless of whether you find that assuring or not, your objection to gay marriage is not a rampart against legalizing abhorent behaviors. Gay sex is legal. If legally "normalizing" homosexuality will lead to normalizing pedophilia, that ship has sailed and all you can do is cross your fingers and wait. Gay sex among consenting adults is already legal. (And has been for quite some time in a number of states.) That there is no apparent move toward legalizing pedophilia should be a comfort to you. Maybe it is yet to come, but I don't think so.
In the mean time, what you do by opposing equal rights for gay couples is simply to promote the legal marginalization of a people engaging in legal activity. What does that accomplish?
Stew, just a slight correction but I do believe that Joel actually brought up defining natural. If it wasn't this post, it was the one prior. Maybe it was in the comments or something.
I think that it needs to be clarified by the right as well as the left as to what exactly they're defining as. My potato stew might not be the same recipe as your potato stew. I think that's the middle ground that is failing to meet.
Roch,
Yeah, or by how much hair we have...
The homosexual lobby continues to use the argument from desire in discussions about the right to gay marriage. Legalizing marriage is very different step than legalizing the mere sexual act.
Plus, any argument for legalizing homosexual marriage will help in the lagalizing of many other kinds of marriages.
And PotatoStew, of course homosexual marriage is much more than about just sex. So why does the argument from desire keep popping up by gay marriage advocates?
"Victimhood" is very different if a class of people if redefined as non victims based on new concepts of consensuality.
PotatoStew, I did bring up the ambiguity of the word natural and its use. Both sides refer to the word one way or another. I think it is very confusing.
Oh, and just because a sex act is "legal" (and by that I mean officially declared so or defacto so), doesn't mean that such legality becomes a legal basis for state sanctioned marriage. I believe that group orgies in private homes are legal. But that lgality does not provide a legal basis for group marriage. A man (or woman) having five rotating sex partners is legal, but that is not a basis legally for changing marriage laws to include polygamy. Marriage is a different thing than what is "legal" in terms of sex acts. There may be statutes somewhere regarding incestuous sex acts, but I doubt they are enforced, particularly if same gender adults are involved. So, do we then allow adult sisters having sex to marry each other? Or adult females and their mothers?
"The homosexual lobby continues to use the argument from desire in discussions about the right to gay marriage."
Chip is a part of the "homosexual lobby?" He's the only one I've seen start with that premise.
Free your mind, Joel. Open your heart. Flee your fears.
"Oh, and just because a sex act is "legal" (and by that I mean officially declared so or defacto so), doesn't mean that such legality becomes a legal basis for state sanctioned marriage"
Nobody is saying that Joel. The legality of gay sex was pointed out to you for you to understand that if legal acceptance of pedophilia were to flow from the legal arguments made to make gay sex legal, it would have happened by now. In other words, your fears are unfounded.
With all due respect Roch, the argument from desire, or some version of it, is continually brought up by advocates of gay marriage. Again, my basis of opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do fundamentally with the potential dominos, which I absolutely expect to happen; indeed, I think it will be logically and legally necessary that they do happen. That's not fear; that's reason talking. So fear is not driving me, nor a closed mind. Any of us could tell those who disagree with us to "open their minds" as if having a closed mind is the issue. One could shoot that exhortation in any direction.
Boy do I ever want to change the subject. I know, I know, I didn't have to post about this. And this matter won't go away, so I can't, except temporarily. A temporary change of subject sounds nice - maybe to flowers, or gardening, or hiking, or the joys of parenting teenagers.
Or maybe I should write a post about something fun and non controversial like the City Council.
Joel
Joel: lol. I'll point out that I haven't been following ALL of the threads, but while you point out the desire argument from gay rights advocates is correct..
From what I've read, and in local context, the person that brought up the whole desire issue was Chip. I could be wrong but I don't remember anyone talking about gay sex, desire/lust before Chip.
Regardless, I find that this is getting away from the topic at hand. The issue is still Marcus making the comparison of homosexuals = natural = pedophilia.
You've also said that he should not retract, but take away that comparison with your "what you think he should say" part. I've played my part in driving the subject off in tangents though so I shouldn't say anything. *grin*
Darkmoon,
The use of the argument from desire on local blogs, and in all sorts of local and national media, has been ongoing and persistent from advocates of homosexual marriage for ages, no matter who brought it up in this most recent thread. I would say I've run across it dozens if not hundreds of times, but, NO, I'm not going to spend half my week slogging through blog archives to prove the point. I know, I'm terrible that way.
I didn't say Marcus should not retract. Why keep an ambiguous poorly written undiagrammable hurtful sentence out there? I said he should most earnestly apologize for what he wrote, which, whatever he meant, could be taken to mean what many people took it to mean. So, I do think he should retract that. It is no more right to imply that homosexuals are pedophiles than heterosexuals are pedophiles. The truth is we find pedophiles of both varieties. That fact is not relevant to the core discussion. And I say that that in spite of the existence certain fringe homosexual pro-pedophila groups. There are also many people promoting heterosexual sex with minors through various porn sites etc. If in the end Marcus actually meant what many people say he meant (I don't think he did), then obviously he would not retract it, for he meant it, and it is a free country, and he can say what he wanmts and hurt feelings as he sees fit. He would just have to accept the consequences, one of which is that he will be mercilessly beat up by local bloggers. On the other hand I could spend all day beating up local bloggers for stupid things I think they say if I had the time or will to do so.... I don't.
Sorry Joel. I was trying to flow with my thought, but what I meant to say was that he (Marcus) shouldn't have changed his wording, and you had an apology that was written if "you" were in his shoes and had said that.
Thinking about other things really makes me screw up my grammar. *grin*
In regards to Glenn's comment, I'll point out that common law marriage is dependent on the state. For instance, in North Carolina, it is not recognized and you're technically committing a crime if you live with your girlfriend/boyfriend due to the cohabitation law. It's not as enforced, but it is still law.
Oh, one more thing. Common law marriages are actually recognized in very few states:
Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, as well as the District of Columbia
That's 11 + DC.
Post a Comment