To make the point clear, the gay Christian is unable to have there relationship recognised under God. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not even true in the case of all churches today.

For sure... but I was talking about the values and policy which oppose same-sex marriage.

The point being that there is judgment and discrimination within the policy itself. Many people have this idea that their values don't have anything to do with how people are treated. So long as, for example, that doesn't think gay people should be killed, locked-up or prevented from having relationships, they think they aren't being discriminatory. It's not true.

Marriage occupies a particular value of social acceptance. To oppose same-sex marriage is to deny gay people that value.

opposition to same-sex marriage is a denial of value and right to same sex people. It is, itself, anti-gay. — WillowOfDarkiness

That is exactly the point. So acceptance is declared 'the new normal'; those who don't accept it are now declared on the outer, as I said before. You will find that ultimately, those opposing it will be criminalised or at any right their right to express an opposing view will be suppressed, via anti-discrimination legislation.

There was an important strategy paper, published by a gay advocacy group in 1987, called 'The Overhauling of Straight America', by Madsen and Kirk (Madsen published it under a pseudonym Erastes Pill.) The substance was later published as a book called After the Ball (1989). Both the article and the book can be found online.

It laid out the method for driving public acceptance of gays through a series of five steps.

One of the main steps was to change the perception of gays from being deviants, to being a beleaguered cultural minority like african americans and blacks.

The second part of this strategy was to compare critics (called 'homo-haters') with Klu Klux Klan or racist policemen. The effect of this would be to make critics of the movement appear as intolerant bigots who would be embarrassed to speak out.

This strategy has been very effective. In many of the Western democracies, being gay is now understood as being a matter of cultural identity.

The fact that public acceptance has changed so much in the last two decades is simply an indication of how effective that strategy has been.

So acceptance is declared 'the new normal'; those who don't accept it are now declared on the outer, as I said before. — Wayfarer

There is nothing wrong with being outcast on account of holding egregiously unreasonable views, it is something the individual can avoid if they want; what is wrong is being outcast on account of one's nature, which cannot be avoided; this is the wrong which itself constitutes the very essence of an egregiously unreasonable view, that makes one worthy of being outcast.

Indeed. And they are exactly right. This is not merely political rhetoric. It's description of social relations to our policies, ideologies and values. The people in question are intolerant bigots.

If someone is opposing gay marriage, they have to stand-up and say: "Gay people don't deserve to be married. Their relationships don't have the value required of marriage." No longer can they stand behind ignorance, denial of the discrimination or the fantasy they aren't doing anything to gay people.

The description of society, value and power is actually separate to the question of what ought to be done. We could, for example, argue such discrimination against gay people was correct if we were so inclined. But, given our philosophy of liberal democracy, such arguments only palatable to an authoritarian fringe-- many of people oppose to same-sex marriage cannot be honest about their own beliefs because it entails the realisation it's bigoted or a loss of public support because violation of an individual rights is one of the biggest injustices in our liberal democracy.

Well, one can argue that marriage is the union of opposites; that the complementary roles of gender, biological, sociological, and cultural, are basic to the nature of marriage. Leaving aside all reference to religious sanctions and Biblical texts, one can appeal to that complementarity as being basic to the meaning of the term 'marriage' in culture and society.

But to say that is, as Willow demonstrates above, to be labelled as intolerant bigots. So, again, this is because the strategy has worked; it's fait accompli as far as the Western liberal democracies are concerned.

Those are bigoted. In each case, the heterosexual relationship is given superior value which makes it deserving marriage. Unlike those deficient gay people who simply don't have enough complementary biology, sociological and cultural significance to qualify for such esteem. The concept itself is discriminatory against gay people.

This is not becasue the "strategy had worked." It's a description of values and power expressed our understanding of people. The "strategy working" is only measure of politics, of how effective the campaign for gay rights has been. Questions of bigotry and discrimination run deeper. In the understanding and actions towards particular people. To oppose same sex-marriage was just as discriminatory or bigoted at any point in history as it is now.

The relevant question is not "who is considered intolerant now," but whether there is bigotry or discrimination against particular people,

Which, again, rests on re-definition of key terms, especially 'discrimination', and what is considered behaviorally normative. But it's no use arguing about the script with the performers.

No, it doesn't. Discrimination is not dependent of what's behaviourally normative. It's an act of denying someone value or power (sometimes there are just instances of discrimination-- e.g. taking the gun off someone threatening to kill someone).

To say that there's no discrimination in denying same-sex marriage doesn't make it so. That's just to play with perceptions. No matter what you call it, to say gay people aren't worth of marriage is to deny them particular value, it's to deny them access to the social institution of marriage. It's to say them and their relationships have less significance.

There's not a question of "redefinition." It's one of whether we are honest about what we think of people.

But that's only one interpretation of the meaning of marriage; an interpretation which justifies itself on the basis of what is supposedly 'natural' for the majority. Deviation from this by a minority is not, in virtue of that, shown to be unnatural for the minority.

A better interpetation of the meaning of marrigae is that it represents the commitment of people to one another on the basis of love (which usually, but not always, involves sexual love).

You haven't said whether you think you would hold a different opinion if your child was gay. Are you prepared to answer that question honestly?

Sure. I have two grown sons, both of them disagree vehemently with my attitude. If one of them were gay, I guess I would deal with it. But I don't agree that it is 'a better definition' of marriage at all. There is nothing to stop couples forming long-term commitments and signing contracts to that end, but the term 'marriage' has a specific meaning, which is what is at issue.

The other point at issue is freedom of expression. I know that the traditionalist viewpoint is generally characterised as 'bigotted' - notice Willow's responses above, and I'm, sure the majority of contributors would agree. And that, I am saying, goes back to the conscious strategy on the part of gay advocacy movements in the US in the 1980's and 90's to redefine their identity as a cultural minority, and the identity of critics as 'bigots'. It has worked.

But is it not by definition a case of bigotry to discriminate against anyone on account of what they are?

Also it seems you are thinking of marriage in the context of tradtional religious interpretations and today marriage has generally, and not only in regard to the issue of homosexual marriage, become such as to no longer inherently associated with the churches and other religious institutions.

I didn't use the term 'religious' - I said biological, cultural and social. I think the role of gender complementarity is basic to the meaning of marriage - the two genders have different but complementary roles that are basic to the definition. I'm not appealing to Levictus in saying that.

The point you make about people being discriminated against 'on account of who they are' - that is what I am saying has been the basis of the way the debate has been shaped and why it is so embedded in 'identity politics' - it is because behaviors have been redefined as cultural identity.

Of course, to say that will be regarded as the absolutely worst kind of homophobia. I am attempting a critical analysis here, but what I'm saying is terribly non-PC and I know that. But, it's a debate about political correctness, surely this issue is central to it.

There is nothing wrong with being outcast on account of holding egregiously unreasonable views, it is something the individual can avoid if they want — John

Don't you feel that rests on an assumption that one chooses what one believes? If so, do you think that assumption is defensible?

I don't feel I have a choice in what I believe. I could not for instance start to believe in the Yahweh of the Bible, or in Dianetics, or in leprechauns. I could pretend. But I would know I was pretending.

I don't believe that a fundamentalist Christian whose non-Church-attending son is living with a partner unmarried, chooses to believe that their son will burn in hell. Most likely they are tortured by that belief and would much rather be free of it.

Evelyn Waugh (to name another old-school, highly intelligent conservative, of the type that is so hard to find these days - other than Wayfarer of course) depicted this so poignantly in the closing chapters of Brideshead Revisited. Julia desperately loved Charles and longed to continue their relationship. But she could not shake her belief that it was wrong to do so because she had been married to her ex-husband Rex in a RC church, so that in the eyes of God she was still married to him, so that to be with Charles was a terrible sin.

Perhaps it comes back to the issue of free will. It seems to me that we each believe what we do because it is in our nature to do so. In light of that, it is as unkind to ostracise and vilify somebody for being a conservative Christian as it is to do so because they are black or gay. By all means argue against the views, try to change them and try to prevent their propagation and implementation. But let's never lose sight of the fact that the one with whom we are arguing is a vulnerable, sentient creature like all others, and may have as much power to change what they believe as an ichneumon wasp does to change its horribly cruel method of reproducing.

It's not just the way the debate has been shaped; It's also about who people are. To say: "the two genders have different but complementary roles that are basic to the definition" is to deliberately exclude gay people.

The point of your position here is to exclude gay people from marriage. A discrimination: heterosexual people get marriage, gay people do not.

The use behaviour as cultural identity is not being introduced by gay activist. You are already using it in the context of "complementary roles that are basic to the definition." Heterosexuals get marriage on account of their biological, cultural and social difference. Gay people not, for they don't meet this standard of cultural identity through behaviour.

Don't you feel that rests on an assumption that one chooses what one believes? If so, do you think that assumption is defensible? — andrewk

I think the problem is that it ignores the responsibility of our choices in responding to someone. Appeals to "nature" or "choice" remove the role of the actor in a a situation. In this case, we get the nice falsehood that outcasts have nothing to do with our actions. Whether we call it "choice" or "nature," it's them who are at fault for being ostracised. We ignore our responsibility.

To ostracise is never the act of the transgressor (if there is even one in the first place). It's a social response to the transgressor. We are the ones who do it, not them. Any acts, for example, against opponents of gay marriage are ours, not a inevitable outcome of their unethical positions and behaviour. The question is of how we respond (and ought to respond), not that someone transgressed. Punishment is a different question to sin.

The point of your position here is to exclude gay people from marriage. A discrimination: heterosexual people get marriage, gay people do not. — Willow

That's not 'my definition', Willow, it's not peculiar to me. Up until the last 5 minutes (speaking metaphorically) everyone saw it like that.

For sure.

My point is not the people thought otherwise. It's that definition is discriminatory against gay people. Anyone who holds that position understands gay relationships to be lacking the value required for marriage.

Rather than a new rhetoric of gay activists, this discrimination is embedded within the definition everyone used to hold-- they proudly announce it: gay people don't have the "biological, cultural and social nature" to be allowed marriage.

It is a matter of simple fact that persons of the same gender do not have the biological pre-requisites to procreate. That is not a matter of definition, nor is it subject to debate.

But what we are now told is that 'gender is a social construction', and that those who hold that there is a biological or any other reason for gender complementarity, are guilty of 'hetero-normativity'. So this is very much a part of 'blurring the boundaries', not only of what constitutes acceptable behaviuor, but choosing one's own sexual identity.

So therefore it's incumbent the progressives to impress upon children at a young age that 'gender' is not actually a biological given, but it is something that they can choose.

Illustrative case from the Sydney media:

The NSW government has ordered an investigation into the Education Department’s launch of an official teaching resource that urges teachers to “de­gender” their classroom language and promotes activities that encourage students to think about sexuality as “non-binary”, or existing on a continuum “like temperature or the weather”.

[NSW] Education Minister Adrian Piccoli yesterday ordered his department to withdraw the sexual and gender diversity resource for teachers, which appears to have been heavily based on the Safe Schools program. [Piccoli] said he was “very angry” the resource had “got out”. “I have directed the department to take it down immediately and review the material and all links,” he said.

“Safe Schools materials are only to be used strictly in accordance with the revised guidelines established by the federal government. I am furious this policy has not been adhered to and have demanded a full explanation from the (departmental) secretary.”

Launched quietly this year, the 17-page teacher toolbox for delivering content relating to diversity of sex, sexuality and gender contains a list of resources the educators can refer to in their teachings. One recommended activity invites Year 10 students to consider a range of characters, such as “Joseph”, who is married with three children but “when he masturbates, fantasises only about men” and “is attracted to several of his male friends” and “Alex”, who had sex with girls as a teenager but developed a relationship with a man after moving to a country town.

Students are asked to determine each character’s sexuality and whether they fit into “traditional binary thinking” regarding sexuality.

I'm not debating the question of procreation here. We are in agreement there. My point is using that definition do deny people marriage is inherently discriminatory. It denies gay people marriage on the basis their bodies can't procreate with each other. Gay relationships and people are held in lesser esteem because they don't procreate in this way.

Heteronormativity is a description of this discrimination. It refers to a culture which values heterosexuality at the expense and exclusion of anyone else.

So here you are guilty of heteronormativity. You think it's a great thing. Marriage is supposed to be only for those who can procreate with their bodies. Under this position, gay people are meant to be discriminated against because their lack of procreation makes them unsuitable for marriage.


Gender is a social construction, but that's a different issue, for it doesn't specify the value of any particular sort of relationship. It doesn't undo any difference or capacity of biology either. Only queer and/or non-binary individuals with certain biological traits, for example, can procreate with their bodies. Bodies do what they do regardless of gender identity.

So here you are guilty of heteronormativity. — Willow

So do you think this should be subject to legal sanction?

From what you've said so far, no. Legal sanctions ought to be reserved for stuff like hate crimes.

But the point is you don't seem recognise you own prejudice (whether it is just or not). You are acting like what you are saying isn't discriminatory towards gay people, as if that idea was merely rhetoric cooked-up by gay rights activists. How can you say this when the nature of marriage you are talking about proudly announces that gay people don't have a place within it? It's success is measured by gay people being denied marriage and the associated value which comes with that-- the entire point is a discrimination against gay people, to maintain the heteronormative tradition (at least insofar as marriage).

Even if you are right, it's still discriminatory towards gay people.

you don't seem recognise you own prejudice... — Willow

In this matter, there is room for diversity in everything except for opinion.

//edit// so, you have simply made the point I started out with in this thread - that 'all opposition is prejudice'.

The point you make about people being discriminated against 'on account of who they are' - that is what I am saying has been the basis of the way the debate has been shaped and why it is so embedded in 'identity politics' - it is because behaviors have been redefined as cultural identity.

Of course, to say that will be regarded as the absolutely worst kind of homophobia. I am attempting a critical analysis here, but what I'm saying is terribly non-PC and I know that. But, it's a debate about political correctness, surely this issue is central to it. — Wayfarer

This old gay guy has always thought that "marriage" exclusively applied to heterosexual couples. I remember how gay right advocacy developed from the very early 1970s on into the 80s, 90s, and to the present. The radical position of early gay liberationists did not support anything beyond voluntary committed gay relationships, if that, even. Some gay-leftists thought monogamy deplorably bourgeois. (Jack Baker and Michael McConnell did apply for and received a marriage license in Minnesota in 1970 -- something of a slight of hand -- and were "married". A court promptly dismissed the license and the coupling. Baker and McConnell are still together.)

By the early 1980s, a strong assimilationist influence emerged. The new view deplored all that loose screwing around; it was not respectable, it was scandalous, and we all needed to just cool it -- at least stop frightening the horses and shocking middle class people. Then AIDS came along, which provided heavy armaments for the argument that all us gays needed to shape up. (Of course, what we needed to do was practice effective harm reduction in sex, not engage in matrimony.)

When the multi-drug cocktails turned AIDS into a difficult but manageable disease and ended the rolling tragedy, gays became more accepted. As legal protections were more widely established, gay rights advocates needed fresh frontiers to maintain their positions within the gay community. (People don't really try to work themselves out of a job.) Marriage was the next obvious target for the advocacy enterprise. Progress was fairly rapid, and gay marriage was accepted here and there, and rejected by this and that state, setting up the SCOTUS decision.

"Marriage" never applied to any relationship except heterosexual unions overseen by the church or the courts. Fine by me.

Thanks BC. I remember Gore Vidal saying something similar. What in your experience is the overall tendency towards stable/steady long-term relationships amongst gays? I had read that it was pretty low.

You aren't thinking beyond whether other people are saying your position is wrong. Here is is you that define the prejudice. It's your position (whether rightly or wrongly) that discriminates against gay people. I'm saying you are unwilling to admit your exclusion of gay people here.

Any opposition is prejudice because the point of it is to exclude gay people. If gay people cannot married (as heterosexual people do), then things are they are meant to be. The traditional order is preserved and no deviant gays are admitted to the hallowed hall of marriage.

This exclusion is what you are advocating for. It's not newfound gay rights activist rhetoric. You want to discriminate against gay people by excluding them from marriage.

To say you are not prejudiced is to contradict your own position. On the one hand you say that gay people should be excluded and that is great (i.e. marriage for those who can procreate with their bodies), yet on the other you insist aren't denying gay people a value and right (marriage).

to maintain the heteronormative tradition — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is a good reason for the "heteronormative tradition": men and women can not conceive without each other, and they succeed best in a stable married relationship. Gay men, particularly, have no particular reason to imitate the valuable social structure which facilitates conceiving and rearing children. If "Gay men don't have time to do their own ironing!", as one lively gay guy observed about my ironing board, they certainly don't have time to raise children.

I'm not especially in favor of gay men adopting children; lesbians either. It isn't that two guys can't raise a child. Single fathers have done it; single mothers have done it. Call me old fashioned, but I think there is good reason to think that the vast majority of children who are heterosexual benefit the most from being raised within an at least reasonably happy heterosexually coupled home. And heterosexuals conveniently produce an adequate supply of homosexuals. Just keep production at around 2.8-3% exclusively gay children, on up to 10% more-or-less-gay-at-least-some-of-the-time children.

Gay men who want to conquer heteronormative territory give up an essentially male life style which has value in itself to gay men, as well as to society as a whole. It isn't as if there aren't enough people in the world, just in terms of quantity, that we need more ways of producing them.

The issue of heteronormative tradition doesn't have much to do with any of that. It's defined by disrespect for other identities and relationships, not the absence of heterosexual ones.

Unless you go into conspiracy territory that valuing other relationships is going to wipe out heterosexuals through cultural influence, heterosexuality and its children aren't touched by erosion of heteronormativity.

What in your experience is the overall tendency towards stable/steady long-term relationships amongst gays? I had read that it was pretty low. — Wayfarer

I don't have any statistics at hand (they exist, however). Yes, I would say the rate of successful long term relationships is sort of low. Why?

I can't speak for gay communities on the coasts, to where a lot of gay men move, but in mid-continent cities like Minneapolis the size of the active gay community is not all that large--it never has been. So the number of potential partners is not huge. A fair number of gay men are loners. It isn't that they are anti-social, it's just that they are not prepared for the negotiation, flexibility, patience, endurance, and forbearance that any long relationship requires. Alcohol and drug use, as well as health issues (AIDS among them) decrease the readiness of some people to enter into a close relationship.

There are now quite a few non-alcoholic/non-drug venues where gay men can meet each other, everything from gay sports groups to coffee shops to gay churches. But sober people don't automatically make good partners.

Maybe most important, the culture of the gay male community hasn't traditionally valued monogamy. Some couples have managed occasional sexual relationships on the side, and some haven't.

A lot of gay men, at least, haven't looked far enough forward to grasp that being old and isolated is not a good deal. Single men, whether they are straight or gay, don't do as well in measures of health and longevity as women do, and the men who do well over time stay connected with other people, whether in sexual relationships, friendships, or working relationships.

thank you BC.