I am debating gay marriage at David Morrison’s pro-chastity blog, Sed Contra.
Addendum: In a May article in Slate, Prof. M.V. Lee Badgett thoroughly refutes Morrison’s hero of the moment, Stanley Kurtz, who had claimed that gay marriage is somehow to blame for a (non-existent) collapse of the traditional family in Scandinavia.
Great stuff, Mike! Keep lettin’ ’em have it!
Speaking of chastity and celibacy… Does anyone have information on the ‘psychosexual immaturity’ phenomina?
I was too annoyed, at first, at Stanley Kurtz’s stereotypes about liberals, trends in social change, gay couples, and gay conservative arguments.
I had to re-read his article a couple times before I was willing to give him a scant bit of credit for seeing how social changes among heterosexuals have “weakened” marriage.
Neither Kurtz nor Morrison address the damage done to traditional marriage when the assumption that all women must marry, and stay married no matter the cost, was abandoned by heterosexuals. The abandonment of this belief, not just medical tinkering with procreation, fundamentally changed marriage.
Kurtz and Morrison avoid discussing what they really want to do to “fix” marriage, beyond scapegoating gay couples.
I believe that marriage is weakened, among other things, by
people who marry for reasons that lack permanence
easy divorce laws
easy annulments for celebrities (Kerry, Spears)
politicians who practice serial marriages or workplace lechery (Gingrich, Thurmond, countless religious-right pols, Clinton)
government and religious policies that favor getting married for the wrong reasons (sex, workplace benefits, and tax breaks), and
the Vatican and Anglican authorities’ tolerance for polygamy in Africa and the Middle East.
The antigay movement is unwilling to act upon these issues. It would prefer to change federal and state constitutions, thereby promoting alternative social arrangements that act as further disincentives to marriage.
Good comments Mike – and here’s another one. OF COURSE gay marriage is at a lower rate than straight marriage, even when it is legal – there are fewer of us and therefore we are less likely to find someone to marry. That is not an argument to keep gay marriage illegal, but rather a statement of fact.
In the typical population, about 5% of the people are gay. Even in a major urban area, the gay population is typically below 20% or even 10%. That means that I have, at most, 20% of the men I meet as potential mates, while my straight female friends have 80% of the men out there as potential mates. Since finding someone you can truly love and support and be willing to live your life with is difficult enough when there are a lot of options – the fewer the options, the less likely one is to find that “special someone.”
I’m amused that anyone to the left of Genghis Kahn takes Stanley Kurtz seriously. He is with the Hudson Institute, a far right wing operation that is funded largely by the Scaifes, the Bradley Foundation and the Olin Foundation, all of which are known for their far right wing leanings. Kurtz’s blatherings are generally published in the likes of National Review.
Kurtz has been on the rampage against gay marriage for quite some time. In a piece in National Review last spring, Kurtz argued that gays should not be permitted to marry because straight boys don’t want to watch movies in which out gay men play leading roles. What the latter has to do with the former is anyone’s guess, but it had more than a few of us rolling on the floor laughing. His latest rampage, the Weakly Standard article, is just more of the same. I wonder when he’s going to start blaming the hole in the ozone layer on gay marriage.