And the reverse is also true. Both are outgrowths of the sexual revolution, and they feed and live off each other.

No, what I’m saying is that they won over city councilmen to pass anti-discrimination laws. This restricted the “free market” by remaking discriminatory businesses, newspapers and schools in influential college towns and large cities. These laws also created a large network of lawyers and sensitivity trainers dedicated to enforcing the law, giving them an economic stake in the new regime.

“This is demonstrably untrue if one remembers the existence of Fox News, an extremely popular and right leaning journalistic entity.”

I don’t watch much Fox News, but as far as I can tell it is not strongly socially conservative and tends towards libertarianism. In 2006, Fox News donated $10,000 to the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA). Would they do that if they were as disdainful of homosexuals as you think they are?

“Also in a way you’re arguing that equality for the LGBT community succeeds on its own merits because it’s an idea that people are likely to accept once exposed to it.”

No, I’m arguing that people are more likely to accept it if alternative views are suppressed and if their jobs depend on it. (Look up what happened to Crystal Dixon)

Internet pornography has done the most for the LGBT cause. Porn is, in Jacques Barzun’s phrase, a form of utopian literature. It breaks down chastity and publicizes unnatural and shameless acts.

I do think it bears repeating that the original piece wasn’t, of course, intended to be *about* same-sex marriage, per se, but rather about the incomprehension and disgust that proponents now frequently openly voice when faced with opponents, as well as the feeling of having come in contact with uncleanliness and subhumanness that seems to animate a sizable minority of such proponents. This seemed to me (1) a new phenomenon, with regard to same-sex marriage specifically, having only begun to appear in the last couple of years; and (2) simultaneously a very old phenomenon, with regard to contests between cultures (or would it be better to say “cultural frameworks”?) generally.

That was pretty much all I meant to say, and the American Indian metaphor was meant to illustrate what such a contest between cultural frameworks looks like. Other commentators, I must confess, have extended that metaphor further than I had intended. They may or may not have a point.

I think an interesting contrast can be drawn with the abortion debate. Everyone with any kind of manners seems to agree, on both sides of this issue, that it’s not the kind of thing you talk about with folks whose views are unknown to you, and that it is possible for fully human and otherwise good people to disagree about it. Increasingly, at least from my point of view, this kind of tolerance is fading from same-sex marriage discussions.

So why the difference? I’m not sure why, but I suspect that it is in part because opposition to abortion can be understood even on the terms of liberalism. Such is probably not the case with opposition to same-sex marriage.

That’s not entirely true. It will prove to be good for the one type of person who’s benefitted from it the most so far — the sexually predatory male.

1) Unless the Democratic party as-it-is radically changes course on the subject of what sort of judges it finds acceptable to appoint, the way gay marriage will come about in 80-90% of the states where it does come about will be by judicial rulings; and, there could surely be a national ruling. Therefore, all this pro-and-con debate about gay marraige, while obviously fundamental and necessary, IGNORES the political ABCs of the case, IGNORES the hugely salient fact that given those ABCs, this is not only about whether gay marriage is good or bad, but also about our Constitution. The Dems-as-they-are largely endorse Justice Kennedy’s assertion in Lawrence v. Texas that the 14th amendments’s protection of liberty, now protects, given “our” evolved idea of liberty, the gay idenity from any perceived unequal treatment. As Scalia suggested then, and as the Massachusetts court agreed later, this necessary means the mandating of gay marriage. REGARDLESS of what anyone in the above thread thinks. REGARDLESS of votes. REGARDLESS of state amendments to Constitutions. Our opinions on this DO NOT MATTER. Debate away, but the judge-rulers will decide. And the Dems-as-they-are are totally cool with that. Probably smijer is cool with that. Despite the absurd precedent that would set with respect to interpreting the Constitution, really so radical that it might wind up destroying it(if the word “liberty” can be so redefined, almost anything in the document can).

2. But beyond the damage such rulings will do to our constitutions, (and one is very like to happen to the national Constitution, esp. if Obama wins in 2012) notice that such rulings WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE LONG TERM IMPACT ON HETEROSEXUAL BEHAVIOR. And despite the help good gay couples might provide at the margins, it is HETEROSEXUALS who will raise future generations. Will they be more likely or less likely to do so as married persons? Less likely if everyone obtains a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to define the marriage contract on one’s own autonomous terms. And when you read the key gay marriage cases, that is clearly where the logic leads. Now if we VOTE in gay marriage, we can just say, “look marriage is these sorts of benefits, these sorts of penalties for breaking the contract, etc., and homosexual couples can marry.” “Our democratic will makes it so.” (To be clear, I’m a social conservative, and oppose that–I’m just saying that voting on it is way healthier for us.) But if we let judge-rulers MANDATE gay marriage, they will also necessarily mandate an orientation-blind RIGHT to “define one’s own concept of [sexual] existence” and to have that concept respected by the community. Social conservatives have screamed “that means Polyamory! Polygamy! Man-marries-chimp!” (and the Polygamy issue is quite serious even if our judge-rulers will do their best to finesse their way around it for several generations), but the real problem is what HETEROSEXUALS will do with such a Constitutional right. What will they do? Their lawyers will make it so they will be able to choose from a full menu of cohabitation and marriage-esque contract options. And the less-demanding contracts will grow in popularity.

I.e., what all of the above amounts to is that a judicial imposition of gay marriage is also a judicial enshrinement of the sexual revolution into the heart of our Constitution. And that will be good for no-one. Gays included. Because the social science about what happens in the aggregate to children raised without fathers is air-tight.

A quick click on the “About the Author” link reveals that, “She has received funding from the American Psychological Association, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Williams Institute, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.” A quick search on the “Williams Institute” shows that, based at UCLA’s School of Law, it “advances sexual orientation law and public policy”.

Only deriving this from the summary, it appears, like most of the research I’ve seen, to focus on the parents’ experiences, and not a larger study of the impact of homosexual parenting on children. The summary does say, “she has studied the experiences of adults raised by lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents”, but this accords with several of the other pieces I’ve looked at which focus on anecdotal/interview based “studies” on children – things like, “so how does it feel to have two dads?”. This silliness hardly qualifies for the larger research that would need to happen.

But again, unless we’re talking about parents adopting foster kids, it’s not really about the kids. It’s about the right to parentage, and a society’s inability to support children – through codification in law, policy, and education – that the best homes have mothers and fathers. I wasn’t raised this way, but I have little problem ascending to this fact.

Perhaps the Mormon church’s opposition to the measure in California is to preempt the plurals in their midst from drawing too much attention to the doctrine. Far-fetched perhaps but when watching Ozzie and Harriet on the black and white telly, the idea of a Gary and David family drama was a little far-fetched too. But that was before the writing stables of Hollywood became so dominated by the so called pro-”LGBT” sentiments of the day. Not that this is an entirely bad thing…..some of the best humor is never far from the torments that drive humor when people are instructed by the power center of their culture that they are mad or evil or an abomination and should be eliminated to the last man….or at least, keep their wide stance as discreet as possible.

The APA just released a new book. You may want to check it out:

Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle by
Abbie E. Goldberg, PhD

“In particular, it is observed that Fitzgerald in 1999 shifted from very tentative arguments in her review of literature to rather conclusive statements in her abstract about outcomes for children of gay parents. Furthermore, an often quoted 1995 article by Tasker and Golombok, upon closer examination, appears to indicate that being raised in a lesbian family increases the odds of a child later adopting a homosexual lifestyle even in the absence of homosexual attractions. For such reasons, scholars and policymakers all should be very cautious in accepting, at face value, at least some of the research being reported on gays and family life.”

This from the Scottish Government’s April 2009 policy review on gay parents (where it is legal): “Finally, a word of caution. It should be borne in mind that this paper is based on a review of only eight papers and does not claim to have captured all existing relevant research. As the papers focus on different themes and/or settings the conclusions drawn tend to be based only on one or two of the papers. Therefore, the findings of this review should be read tentatively keeping in mind the limitations that we highlighted.”

It remains surprising that there is so little research in this area, yet, at the same time, pro-gay marriage supporters are willing to “bet” the future of adopted/IVF children. It’s going to be fine, they say. Well, easy for you to say! Such hubris.

Some, like Smijer seem willing to see a qualitative difference between one and two parents, but is incapable of suggesting any actual policy solutions (like prioritizing adoption, restricting IVF) for this. They hear the research from Child Trends that “biological parents” (implicitly hetero) is the best environment in which to raise children, yet they are unwilling to qualify this in legislation.

One can’t help but remember some of these same debates in the policy decisions made concerning divorce and kids back in the 60s and 70s. A great new piece in the new National Affairs (“The Evolution of Divorce”) magazine about this history. The writer quotes a “prominent scholar” in a 1979 issue of the Journal of Divorce. Divorce offered – in this researcher’s opinion: “increased personal autonomy, a new sense of competence and control, [and the] development of BETTER relationships with [their] children.”

Here we go again…

Actually, I understand the difference perfectly, which is why I predict that the eventual move to legitimize pedophilia will be by attempting legally to lower the age of consent. And I have a sneaking feeling that homosexuals won’t be in the vanguard of the opposition to such a move.

Rob G wonders if the APA will reverse it’s reversal. Perhaps he should go back to the stacks and drag professor Wilson with him. Like the arrow of time, science advances in one direction, forward, not backwards. Conjecture is refined into theorem which is tested over and over before conclusion is published. Like the church in the time of Galileo, the orthodox may wish that the conclusions were false and they may impose their brutal authority to protect wrong-headed ideas, but they can’t create their own reality. Truth wins out in the end. Like it or not, there are millions of GLBT people who live perfectly normal lives. Homosexuality is not a disorder.

Mr. G, if you don’t understand the difference between consensual relations and non-consensual, between relations that express a power imbalance and equal relations I suggest that you confess your confusion to your wife or mistress or boyfriend or whatever.

Returning to the native American in the pews, do readers and commenters see the gender idolatry in the above comments? Please remember that the native American violates traditional gender roles. He wears his hair long, like a woman, has scant body hair, shows off his bare legs and dons jewelry, feathers and ornamentation. He can’t just sit in the pews and be the male that God made, at least not compared to the “regular males” in the congregation.

If the congregants were to throw him out for violating their strict gender roles, or if they were to throw out the same-sex couple for violating their code of imaginary sexual conduct – they don’t really know do they – then the congregation would demonstrate through their claim to know good from evil, that they know nothing of the sort. Beers is right.

We have our thou-shalt-nots. We live within a web of mutually reinforcing nos, taboos, do-not-discusses, and impossible-to-think-otherwises.

Only he forgot that he was looking into the mirror.

I believe anti-discrimination laws have deprived these conservatives of institutional power. Barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation destroyed the remainder of any morally conservative sentiment within news businesses, colleges and entertainment studios, as well as other corporations. The free marketplace of ideas is thus stacked.

So what you’re essentially saying is that once the LGBT community and supporters of it were allowed to involve themselves in the “free marketplace of ideas”, they were able to win the hearts and minds of the people who run or work in these organizations and thus the deck became stacked in favor of promoting LGBT folk in a positive light to America, and swaying opinions. The right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation would have helped conservatives prevent this from happening.

This is demonstrably untrue if one remembers the existence of Fox News, an extremely popular and right leaning journalistic entity. I think most LGBT folk would tell you they would rather be in an environment that is supportive than not (just as I have a hard time seeing many LGBT folk want to get married in a church that doesn’t support their rights).

Also in a way you’re arguing that equality for the LGBT community succeeds on its own merits because it’s an idea that people are likely to accept once exposed to it.

The essential danger of a free market place is that in the end, the best ideas will probably win out and the impoverished ones will fall to the wayside. Wal-Mart does better than Mom and Pop. This is true, also, of a market place of ideas. Is an anti-discrimination law at the cost of the right to personally discriminate? Or is the right to discriminate at the cost of the right to compete in the job market on the basis of gender/race/etc. (your argument could be made replacing sexual orientation with any of these ideas).

Besides, everyone knows there are ways to discriminate in this world and get around the laws on the books without going around calling people “n*ggers*” and “fags”.