Why do so many refuse to acknowledge the legitimate objections some people have to state recognition of gay marriage and hesitate to challenge them on the level of ideas? Why do they resort to name-calling as a means of discourse?
Their preference for slurring gay marriage opponents parallels the way they and their peers respond to the Tea Parties. Instead of listening to their adversaries’ arguments and acknowledging the sincerity of their concerns, they treat them as a bully treats the defenseless kid on the playground.
They think they can get away with it because the MSM encourages their insults. And doesn’t hold them to account for their mean-spirited attempts to demean their adversaries.
Our society could gain by a serious discussion of gay marriage. Gay people in particular would benefit from such a conversation. Yet, the supposed advocates of this change would rather score points in some imaginary contest with conservatives than make a point about the social benefits of extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.
Name-calling: the supposedly smart set’s preferred means to respond to gay marriage opponents and others offering a politically incorrect point of view
Listen, I purposely rarely ever talk about gay marriage on this blog as I have very mixed feelings about it. I tend to be more sympathetic towards a more traditional view of marriage, but by no means do I have a firm stance on it. I hate to admit it but I simply do not have a set opinion on the gay marriage issue. For someone as opinionated as me, this is a very unsettling thing. I don’t like being a mushy, lukewarm type of guy but I refuse to have an opinion just for the sake of it. I thought I knew but I admit that at this point, I just don’t know. I am fiercely passionate about issues such as illegal immigration and abortion. I am all for having healthy debate about said issues but it is highly, highly unlikely that my mind will be changed. However, when it comes to gay marriage I am very much open to it but remain unconvinced.
And this is where my grievances begin with some gay marriage proponents and the reason why I posted the above quote. It’s not so much the issue itself, it’s the methodology used to promote it. For the most part, the rhetoric I’ve heard from the pro gay marriage folks has been, well, ugly. Very, very ugly. As soon as someone stands up and expresses an objection to gay marriage, the attacks that are thrown at them are vicious, belittling, and plain intolerant. And it’s a shame because I suspect many conservatives feel the same way I do when it comes to gay marriage: they’re skeptical of both sides but are willing to listen and perhaps find a conviction they can stand by.
So I go to one side and I hear about the negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage; I hear about the ramifications it would have on the institution of marriage; I hear how, under equal protection, marriage would then have to be open to all sorts of other arrangements outside of the one man/one woman combination; I hear the religious reasons for it; I hear about the social impact it will have on children; I hear pretty much well-reasoned and calm arguments against gay marriage.
And I say, “OK, cool, let’s see what the other side has to say.” And when I get there and I express even a doubt about gay marriage, all I hear is “You bigot!”, “You backwards hateful redneck!”, “How can you not be for equality? What’s the matter with you?”, “You’re so insensitive!”, “You religious zealot!”, “You crazy homophobe wingnut, keep your stupid beliefs away from me!”, and so on and so on. And, yea, what am I left to do but be immediately turned off by the gutter contempt this side has for those who feel even remotely different from them? So, I walk away.
Of course, there are plenty of reasonable people in favor of gay marriage, but they are not the dominant voice of the movement. People like those activists who targeted private citizens back when Prop 8 passed, Perez Hilton, Jon Stewart, and Margaret Cho (to name just a few) hurt the cause of gay marriage. Civility and reason are not tactics that they use. Their aim is to ridicule and humiliate those who differ in opinion, and it seems that this way of doing business has spread like wildfire among a vast amount of gay marriage supporters. It doesn’t persuade, it isolates.
(via randyhaddock)
(via billda)
I agree with this. We can’t shame people into voting for equality. We need to convince them.
(via notthatkindagay)
You guys ever read Andrew Sullivan on this topic? The fact that marriage, with all its restrictions and confusions and theoretical problems and political this-and-that has been accepted by the giblet community at large is kind of a trip. I think for a good chunk of the 90s the giblet community was really wedded (haaaa) to more postmodernist bents and abstract theory crap a la Judy Butler, Wendy Brown, and (the ultimate purveyor of this kind of crap, except taking it to a totally worthless extreme) Stan Fish*. And with a lot of these more radical viewpoints shaping the lefty discourse, marriage was seen as a restrictive thing, tied up in political inequality and forced gender roles by nature. As people argued then, why would giblets as a group want anything to do with such an inherently oppressive social institution?
That the discourse on marriage has shifted to one of equal rights and access instead of dumping an outdated oppressive union is really kind of surprising, and I think represents a real moderation from radical to liberal viewpoints in the fight for giblet equality which is very heartening, in my opinion.
Perhaps more relevant to the subject matter of the above, I would note that few if any of the people writing and arguing against legal gay marriage are actually making good arguments not rooted in either prejudice or off-kilter religious belief. I would also note that using the goofy opinions of extremes on either ‘side’ is a fairly standard technique used by everybody in this country to dismiss people who disagree with them.
* I have a soft spot for Judy Butler and love Wendy Brown’s writing but in a perfect world Stan Fish would never be able to write again.
8 months ago • 21 notes
