As our readers may have heard, Google recently announced it’s official position against California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in that state. They did so in a blog by Co-founder and President, Sergey Brin. Among other things, he said this:
While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.
Those two lines sum up the general attitude of a wide range of people who oppose this amendment — average individuals, public officials, Hollywood stars and owners of businesses large and small. To them all it’s a matter of equality.
In his recent post about this announcement, Exodus Vice President Randy Thomas illustrated a classic failing of so many ex-gay and anti-gay proponents.
First, I thought this was really odd considering that 22 states, to date, have passed Marriage amendments and there are two other states this go around who have similar measures on the ballot (Arizona and Florida.) Thatâs odd to me because out of 25 opportunities, they pick this one. So ⊠I am guessing (TOTAL conjecture) that there are big time investors and prominent employees who identify as gay working for/investing in Google. I would further guess that most of those folks live in California.
To Randy’s mind, Google wouldn’t be doing this unless they felt pressure from prominent investors or employees in California who are gay (“gay identified” in Exodus-speak). He doesn’t seem able to conceive that a multi-billion dollar corporation, particularly one whose primary goal is “don’t be evil,” might consider equality the ethical way to go. And ignoring the fact that Google is headquartered in California, he attempts to minimize their effort because they have chosen to weigh in only now that the fight has come to that state. One of his own commenters said it perfectly:
Google’s headquarters are in California, and the writer of the piece, Sergey Brin, lives in California, so his/their interest in the fight for marriage equality in this state is naturally more pressing than their interest in the marriage equality fight in other states.
Also, please note that one does not have to be homosexual, or have homosexual investors or employees, to favor marriage equality. I, personally, am not homosexual, and have no homosexual investors or employees, and yet I’m a very ardent opponent of Proposition 8, and a strong supporter of the right of each Californian to marry the man or woman whom he or she loves, and who loves him or her in return.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
This narrow understanding of what motivates the average individual is one of the main reasons that Exodus has failed so completely in communicating with more than a narrow slice of society. At their core, most people are fair-minded and reasonable. Unless one succeeds in painting all gays as horrible, slimy, hedonistic sinners, most people will eventually understand the need for equality, and the injustice of denying it.
It’s not about mainstreaming GLBTs as supposedly recommended in every anti-gay conspiracist’s favorite book, its about not lying about who we are in the first place.
Actually, Thomas isn’t too far off the mark. In the quote from Google, you left out the previous sentence: “it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8.” So Google is saying outright they are supporting marriage because of their employees. Unlike Thomas, however, I fail to see what the problem is with a company supporting its own queer employees.
In the full post, Brin also mentioned other reasons that Google was concerned, though the portion I quoted was at the end and seemed to summarize his message. There is no doubt in my mind that their GLBT employees are an important factor in all this, but Thomas spends the better part of his own post systematically building a case for any reason but that which is stated at the end. If he had added even the possibility that they saw this as a basic equality issue (or that it could be such to others), as they obviously do from Brin’s statement, my own conclusion would have been somewhat different.
The way he spends the rest of the post minimizing Google’s effort, while rationalizing away any need to stop using them — a lot harder than avoiding McDonalds for a while — doesn’t really help. Normally it would be a lot of chatter about how they should “remain neutral” etc. He claims that one clause in the first sentence quoted above makes it all better.
He’s getting more and more desperate. It’s almost as though willful ignorance on his end is helping him deal with the dramatic, complex changes being brought about now.
Just wondering–can anyone come up with a good, non-homophobic argument against same-sex marriage?
Just wondering — why would one want to request that?
David: to see if it’s possible, of course. If it is…well, you need to comprehend an argument before you can effectively counter it. If it isn’t, then the discussion is over.
Craig, true enough, one should be able to debate from both sides of an issue to be most effective. I suppose I should have been more specific in asking why Mark would ask the question. I have noticed over time that he is rather unhappy with any picture of gay men as anything less than 110% masculine, “all man” etc. It occurs to me that such a person may not be in favor of gay marriage because it could be construed from such an extreme position to reflect the stereotypical format (i.e. “who is the wife”), implying a feminine component.
Bottom line, I want to know if Mark is asking for such an argument so he can use it.
David,
I fully support gay marriage. I was just wondering whether anyone has a good, non-homophobic argument against it. I have no intention of “using it.” I’m just curious. No hidden agenda.
I have noticed over time that he is rather unhappy with any picture of gay men as anything less than 110% masculine, âall manâ etc.
I like naturally masculine men, and I make no apologies for that. It’s just my personal preference. If someone acts really effeminate, it’s no skin off my nose. I do object to being stereotyped as something I am not, that’s all.
Understood, thanks for clarifying.
I’m not sure there is any argument that wouldn’t eventually lead to what some people would consider a homophobic stance. About the best I can think of at the moment would be what some presidential candidates have tried to use in place of full support for gay marriage; that marriage is this one narrow thing and can’t be defined differently, but we can create this new union (civil unions for instance) which has all the same features for same-sex couples.
I’ve not spoken with a single person who is against same-sex marriage who did not also have an obviously lower opinion of GLBTs. I’ve heard some people speak, such as the aforementioned politicians, who I think probably would rather support it, but don’t feel they can get elected with that stated outright. So depending on your definition of homophobic, I’m not sure if I can come up with an answer to your question. Perhaps someone else can.
Well, I’m always puzzled when politicians support equal rights for gays EXCEPT for marriage. Either it is just a cynical ploy to play both sides of the fence or they are masking some real homophobia. I’ve never heard Senator Obama give a reasonable explanation for his position, for example, especially in light of the fact that he belongs to a liberal church which supports gay marriage.
Mark, here are the three best arguments against gay marriage–1) Children–while the studies are pretty conclusive that children in gay relationships do not become gay or suffer any harm, there is one area that gay relationships affect children: gender roles. Boys and girls do not attach themselves to traditional gender roles–so girls may mow lawn and boys might clean dishes. 2) Tradition–Marriage between a man and woman has been the norm. Maybe it is not perfect, but it is better than playing with the system. 3) Taxes and benefit costs will go up for everyone (this is a slippery slope, but it is fairly sure that it would happen)–the more people you have using the marriage system, the more those taxes and benefits will increase. Equality costs.
Now, these are the strongest points, but each can be easily argued against.
I think underneath, what Randy Thomas may find really “odd” and may just now be realizing, is what a carrot he is in a grove of oak trees. Now if he would just be the squirrel he was born to be . . .
On more pressing matters: if 8 does pass, though I find that highly unlikely, does anyone have any idea what the following scenario might be in getting gay marriage reinstated? Has anyone heard of any details of a plan B, or if one exists?
In response to a commenter’s question as to why this statement WOULDN’T be necessary to Google as a company, Randy responds:
Kinda like how Exodus is only here to help those who want it, but they decide to make statements against gay people who would have nothing to do with them anyway?
The more I read of Randy’s stuff, the more I’m convinced he’s trapped in this blog world of his own creation, this skewed reality that only pays attention to what he likes. He would probably argue the exact same thing of us, but I consider the folks at XGW to be MUCH more worldly – especially considering many of the lurkers/commenters are former ex-gays or former-fundamentalists. They’ve lived in both worlds.
I would agree, and would like to stipulate that if one were actually making those arguments here, they would be asked to provide some authoritative support of the assertions, such as studies on the gender roles, etc.
If you bring up the issue of gender roles, you also have to look at whether or not they’re actually beneficial both to individuals and to society as a whole.
If they’re a largely artificial construct and provide little obvious benefit to society or the individual then the idea that LGBT couples don’t provide “healthy” gender role-models for their children has no real relevance to a discussion where the focus should be on the needs of the child.
Thank you for those non-homophobic arguments against gay marriage, aaron. I should like to comment on them.
Argument 1 is not, in fact, directly relevant, since it is essentially an argument against something else, namely same-sex couples being allowed to bring up children. When Denmark first introduced its same-sex civil partnership legislation back in the 1980s â the first country in Europe to do so, I think Iâm right in saying â it did not include the right to adopt children. (What the present-day legal position in Denmark is I donât know.) So the question of whether gay/lesbian couples should be allowed to bring up children â irrespective of oneâs opinion on the matter, and irrespective of the validity or otherwise of the gender role argument â is a separate one from the question of gay marriage.
Argument 2 is more of a threat than a real argument: âTry tampering with the system and just you see what happens â youâll bitterly it, I can tell you!â This sort of vague threat was used during the second half of the 20th century to oppose any suggestion of a more liberal attitude to homosexuality.
One textbook on the psychology of sex (Iâve long forgotten the title and the name of the author) said that a society in which homosexuality was tolerated would be âa very different one from the one that we live inâ. There were two implied threats here:
(a) that the acceptance of homosexuality would absolutely devastate the entire social framework of a society, although it was not deemed necessary to adduce any concrete evidence or even any theoretical explanation of how and why. We only have to look at countries today like Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, and even Great Britain to see that this threat was pure poppycock.
(b) that a society that was different to the one that we then lived in would be ipso facto a worse one â again no grounds for this assumption were given.
Argument 3, if valid, would apply equally if all gays and lesbians could and did become neo-heterosexuals and entered conventional, ânormalâ heterosexual marriages â which is what the anti-gay brigade say that they would like us to do.
It seems to me there is one big difference with the California amendment compared to the other 20+ that have passed: California allows marriage equality, none of the other states did. So, the other states were simply banning something that wasn’t legal. In California they wish to ban something that is currently legal. That’s a significant difference.
At least he’s not blaming our economic troubles on LGBTs, as the likes of Mat Staver at the Liberty Counsel are doing. Yes, apparently the meltdown’s because employees like me at a wide variety of companies all over America were allowed to put our same-gender spouses’ pictures on our desk and honestly answer the question “What did you do this weekend?” So sorry, y’all.
That is about all I can give Randy Thomas, however. I’m more of a Yahoo-for-everything girl, but I think I’m going to use Google *lots*.
Good point, Patrick.
@Jayelle
Matt Staver and the Liberty Counsel are a less prestigious, less professional version of Alliance Defense Fund. What legal team would actually consider Matt Barber as an asset to be acquired? Seriously, even if one is on the anti-gay side of the street (actually, especially if one is), Barber is an embarrassment. Let’s also remember that Staver is the one that sent that sloppy threat to XGW over an Exodus billboard parody that we didn’t even create, wrote the Florida marriage amendment in such a way that, if passed, will most certainly be challenged for its broad scope, and practically lapsed into babbling in front of the California Supreme Court during the hearings on marriage equality. We aren’t talking about a class act here.
William, that is the big problem with the against marriage side. Even the strongest arguments can be taken apart. My experience has been in class that when students talk about gay marriage arguments, typically they see that there aren’t many good arguments against gay marriage. I do not endorse a position in class, but students generally find on their own that the arguments are faulty. Typically it ends up with just well it is still gross.
Yes, gay male sex is gross to heterosexual men, but hot lesbian action is another thing. So, straight men should at least support lesbian marriage.
https://www.nashvillescene.com/2008-10-02/news/jesus-rx
Nancy Alcorn, leader of a major evangelical organization rumored to be engaged in conversion therapy, was outed by the Nashville Scene today. Just thought you guys would like to know.
John Weaver
Yes, gay male sex is gross to heterosexual men, but hot lesbian action is another thing. So, straight men should at least support lesbian marriage.
But gay male sex is also gross to hot lesbians.
Unless it’s hot gay male sex.
Ok, so we’re complicated.
although this lesbian doesn’t think so and in fact shares the aversion that heterosexual men do, yes, boo is right in his statement that some lesbians think gay male sex is hot. there have been all sorts of things written about the nature of sexual act vs. sexual fantasy, etc.
But Mark has a point. Most anti-gay efforts are focused on an obsession with gay men.
I think emily and boo would be referring to the japanese sensation known as yaoi, which essentially soft/hard core porn, involving overtly femminized men and teens…. it was marketed in japan specifically for women, though I don’t know about lesbians…. and yeah, it’s haut…. đ
Boo is a her who has never heard of yaoi.
But she wouldn’t mind seeing John Barrowman getting close to a young David Boreanaz…
What?! They’d make a cute couple.
Aaron, here’s a discussion that might be interesting for class: “how do you think gay people feel about straight sex?”
And Boo, If you ever see photos of John Barrowman and his husband Scott Gill together I think you’ll agree that they make a cuter couple than John and David would – although I’ll admit it’s a close call!
No, I’m not referring to yaoi.
but let’s try to keep this thread clean – we have been so far – we don’t want google coming here for the wrong reasons.
Also, people could just say that gays hate straight sex because they are deviants who don’t know what healthy sexual activity is. “exchanged their natural lusts for lusts with men” or something like that.
At which point you have to query what “healthy sexual activity” is. How do you define “healthy”?
The “sexual deviant” argument relies almost entirely on religious doctrine and is directly opposed by science: there are dozens, if not hundreds, of mammals, birds, insects and other creatures which routinely practice homosexuality, so from a scientific viewpoint it is a natural biological feature of numerous species, not a isolated, “deviant” feature.
The only argument I know of against this is that animal homosexuality is symptomatic of the “Fall of Man” in Genesis – however this argument is about as deeply rooted in religion as you can get.
Sex is a highly personal thing , isn’t it? I’d rather watch paint dry than see straight sex. (No offense to painters or straights. ) I fail to see what individual reactions to various forms of consensual sex should have to do with public policy, however.
@Mark
Just to clarify your typo. It’s not “acts really effeminate” it should be “is really effeminate”. I know you like masculine men, but don’t presume that everyone else is “pretending” to be feminine. Just as some men are masculine (in whatever way you define masculinity) some men are feminine(in whatever way you define femininity). Most are somewhere in between.
*off soapbox*
@ tavdy79
Actually, you’ve got it kind of backwards. You don’t have to prove benefits, you have to prove that without gender roles, there is negative cost to society as a whole. Luckily, there isn’t one. In other words, do boys who wash dishes and girls who mow the lawn hurt society and themselves in a costly way? Considering the growing equality of the sexes (we have a female VP candidate, and almost had a female Pres candidate in the same election) it’s impossible to make the case that compulsary and rigid gender roles is of any value, let alone not providing them is harmful. Additionally that harmful cost has to unequivocally outweigh any and all benefits.
Finally, I find Richard Gere, Michael Douglas, and Kevin Kostner to be very gross and should like them banned from appearing in any more movies. For morality, natch. Can we get on that? đ
No! Not Richard Gere!
On the gender roles note, being a weird bisexual, I tend to like FTMs and tomboys. Or the real AWESOME GENTLEMAN like Richard Gere (at least that fella from Pretty Woman). My soon to be ex-hubby is an Female to Male transsexual. So how exactly would my “gender role” be? I myself would of course like to be the submissive one. Or does gender role really exist? I cannot cook. And I know some nice straight men who likes to dab on some simple make up. Is there really a role which everyone plays a part in life? I do not think so.
@ Jason D
Regarding me having “got it kind of backwards”, I’m not so sure I have – in fact I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I’ll admit it wasn’t entirely clear!
I do not think it possible to critically analyse a social construct while using that same construct as the benchmark for analysis. This is the kind of methodology which gets homosexuality labelled “deviant” simply because it doesn’t conform to the benchmark of the heterosexual “norm”. It is only when you stop using heterosexuality as the benchmark that you can recognise that homosexuality is not “deviant”.
Hence: “you also have to look at whether or not they – the various gender role concepts – (a)re actually beneficial both to individuals and to society as a whole.
If they – patriarchal-society gender-roles in particular – …provide little obvious benefit to society or the individual then the idea that LGBT couples donât provide âhealthyâ gender role-models for their children has no real relevance – since you have to re-evaluate your concept of what a “healthy” gender-role is,.
Right on Yuki, sexuality (and more specifically gender) is an infinitely complex subject, unique to every individual much like skin tone, or hair color, a definite theme, with about a hundred variations for each person… I am a gay man, I’m 110% okay with my body and orientation, (I often joke with my straight buddies who don’t quite get that and say “high five for external genitalia”… it’s fun and confuses them) on the other hand, I’m quite spiritual, and truly believe my spirit is androgenous, and what I refer to as my ‘soul’ or the part of me that is artisitic and creative is most definitely attuned in an effeminate manner, so many of my favorite artists are women…. I’m comfortable wearing make-up, and given the occaision, lots of make-up, but I go to the gym and I’ve never had to fight, but if people ever gave me trouble I wouldn’t be scared to fight back…. sooo…. that all leads me to the assumption that I’m an Eric…. that every individual is in one way or the other transcendent of traditional roles, and that being one’s self is what is truly important….
Itâs not âacts really effeminateâ it should be âis really effeminateâ. I know you like masculine men, but donât presume that everyone else is âpretendingâ to be feminine.
“Act” does not necessarily mean pretending. Check your dictionary.
@Mark:
Well, following the example of ThĂch QuáșŁng Äức comes to mind.