And Here I Was Having Such A Good Day

And then Doug had to go and ruin it by calling me a "moron."

Before I go to bed I thought I’d straighten something out. Those of you who support gay-marriage but are otherwise conservative. You’re morons.

Whoops! That was inflammatory. Hate to be inflammatory toward those who go along with the same movement that casts defenders of marriage being a man and woman thing as intolerant hate-mongers. No sir. Such folks are like delicate orchids who must be preserved from harsh rhetorical conditions. Moronic orchids to be specific.{...}

An auspicious start. Despite being the moronic, delicate little orchid that I am, I won't take it personally. Orchids are tougher than you think. I've met Doug, albeit briefly, and I know he's actually a nice guy. I'll just assume he means "moron" in a nice way. At least if i'm a "moronic orchid," I'll smell nice, no?

Never mind all of this nonsense about my ability to respect the views of those who believe differently than I do. It's apparently not relevant. I'm a moron because, simply by holding the views that I do, well, I've apparently, lumped myself in with those who would hate the defenders of traditional marriage. This position, of course, is about as nuanced as wanting to ban all defense systems because, perhaps, just perhaps, the proposed missile defense system is currently out of reach of our capabilities.

But I'm sure Doug will give me a fair hearing, right? He is a nice guy. He's all about debate and all of that fun stuff that comes part and parcel with blogging, right?

Well...

{...}Whoops! Look, let’s get through this together. You come forward and explain why every generation that came before you who agreed gay marriage was an oxymoron were stupid, and I’ll … well I’ll still call you a moron, but it will draw you out in the open as the egotist you are.{...}

There's not a lot of wiggle room in Doug's statement, is there? I should come forward, state my case as to why every generation that came before me was stupid for not allowing same-sex marriage and then he tells me that it doesn't matter if I make a rational case, because he won't listen. In his opinion, I'll still be a moron---and an egotistical moron to boot! Never mind that I might have different arguments to present in favor of allowing gay marriage. Never mind that I don't really think the generations who came before me were "stupid" in what they believed. Never mind that I can do this respectfully and allow that others believe differently. I'm only allowed to argue that point, and then it shall be declared "MOOT!" in a big, booming Jesse Jackson-ish voice.

Doug's the debate master---he who shall be obeyed.

{...]Folks, not supporting gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to oppress gays or anyone else. It doesn’t mean you hate anyone. All it means is you recognize that there is a reason that every previous generation rejected it – a reason a better than the narcissistic one that presumes every previous generation consisted of benighted bigots, unlike the “flower of morality” that our generation represents.{...}

Surprisingly, Doug, while having no problems with calling me a egotistical moron, wants us to believe that everyone who thinks gay marriage is a bad idea isn't a bigot, or wants to oppress gays. Hmmmm. If you want me to believe that, Doug, it seems to me that tolerance should swing both ways, eh?

But, in fact, I already do believe that. Quite the shocker, I know. Woooh. Hold onto your diapies, babies, it's gonna be a bumpy ride! I don't believe that previous generations were bigoted beyond reason, or that our generation is any better in this respect. But it's not like I'll ever get a chance to explain any of this. Because I'm an egotistical moron who's not worthy of being listened to.

{...}But marriage is about luuuuv. And gay people luuuuuuv each other too, right? Please.{...}

Um, actually gays and lesbians love each other, too. But that's not all marriage is about. It's about finding lifelong companionship---someone to go through the good and bad times with---and it's also about, perhaps, having children and raising a family. I fail to see where those activities are restricted (or should be) to heterosexuals only.

{...}When did public morality get reduced to the level of a seventh grade girl? Marriage is a hell of a lot more than teen-style puppy-love. So what is this marital “love” we’re talking about? Why has it become something that has become cross-culturally, and cross-generationally revered? Why is it something even anti-democratic societies have considered crucial to their civilzations’ sustainability back into ancient days?{...}

In reply, I would ask when did public morality become the equivalent of a fourth grade boy who doesn't pick you for his team because you're different?

{...}We live in a generation that has been raised to think of the very pillars of our society in terms no different than our luxuries.

Marriage? That old thing?! I wish it came in blue. And so now it does.{...}

So, marriage is a pillar of society. Ok, I'll buy that. No problemo. But, if we're talking about "defending" marriage, well, there should be a threat, involved, right? Logic dictates that you don't defend something if there isn't a threat to it. Doug believes that gays and lesbians are a threat to marriage; that it should be defined as being the union between a man and a woman. I can understand that. Marriage, after all, has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. Why shouldn't it stay the same?

This is all well and good until you take a good hard look at marriage as it exists today---only being available to heterosexuals. And, my friend, I am sad to say this, but marriage is in trouble already, and gays and lesbians are not the ones who are threatening it. They're not responsible for marriage's downfall. It's the stupid heterosexuals who have no respect for the institution itself that are ruining marriage. You know the people I'm talking about right? The people you know who've gotten married and are split up by the next year---and who are allowed to chalk it up as "a mistake." Or the ones who run off to Vegas, get hitched on a whim, and then have it annulled in the morning? Or the ones who get married not because they want a marriage, but rather a wedding? I'm sure you've known a few of these people, as have I. They're everywhere and damned hard to miss.

As far as marriage being "a luxury," well, you're right there. It is a luxury, but this is America, dude. The place where luxuries are necessities, and marriage is afforded to everyone who's heterosexual---no matter how silly they are. And that genie isn't going back into the bottle any time soon, ya dig? As such, why shouldn't marriage be awarded to gays and lesbians? Why shouldn't they be allowed to run off to Vegas on a whim and then get divorced the next morning? After all, you're not about oppressing gays and lesbians, so why shouldn't they have the same rights as heterosexuals?

{...}“Conservative” supporters of gay-marriage like to portray themselves as tolerant and principled. I find them anything but. Their tolerance extends exclusively to the current zeitgeist, much like affirmative-action hiring. Their principles are inarticulate and shifty on this matter. They’re simply followers. People who never bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society, but seize an opportunity to mask their ignorance as being “tolerant” and “progressive.”

Sorry. It’s just ignorant. And destructive to boot.{...}

My principles as a conservative supporter of gay marriage are anything but shifty. I've had a long time to think about this, being someone who was against gay marriage to begin with. Ah, yes. I used to be just like you, Doug. I was against same-sex marriage. For a very long time. Then I changed my mind, and as such I've had time to hone my arguments. Given that, I don't believe my arguments are inarticulate. Neither am I just a "follower" as this post shows.

As far as your last point: People who never bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society, but seize an opportunity to mask their ignorance as being “tolerant” and “progressive.” I've been married for ten years, Doug. I've been with the husband for thirteen. I'm married to a recovering alcoholic, and was told by many, many people during that span of time that I should have left him because of his disease and the behavior it provoked. Yet, I stuck around. Why? Because I believe in the institution of marriage. I believe in the vows I took on the day we got married. I believe in the until death do us part business that so many ignore nowadays. So don't you dare tell me I haven't "bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society," and that I'm masking my ignorance in an opportunity to be tolerant and progressive. I know more about what marriage entails than most heterosexuals do, given the divorce rate. If I want marriage to be available to gays and lesbians, it's because of my experience, Doug. I know what it's like to be married for ten years. It's not a parade or a bouquet of roses. Marriage is hard, hard work. Given the state that it is currently in, we need more people to promote the true value of marriage. And if a gay or lesbian couple can do that, their sexual orientation then becomes irrelevant.

But that's just my "ignorant," "moronic," "egotistical," opinion that you will declare to be moot, so honestly, what does it matter?

UPDATE: Doug responds and agrees that I kicked his ass. Which is always nice.

I'm all about the gratification, baby.

Anyhoo, he promises to come up with a more cogent argument soon. Which I look forward to reading, because I'm sure he's got something worthwhile to say. Will update further when he gets around to it.

Posted by Kathy at March 15, 2005 05:41 PM