NYT's Keller Hints Arguments Against Gay Marriage Are Just Arguments Against Gays
Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller wrote on how four Republican state senators put gay marriage over the top in New York State for the Times Sunday Magazine, "When Is a Flip Not a Flop? -- The Fate of the Republicans Who Supported Gay Marriage." Keller stated righteously that "It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for gay people that doesn’t sound like an argument against gay people." He included his version of a conversation he had with New York Conservative Party chairman Mike Long in which he comes off cool and Long comes off snappish.
At the end of January, New York’s Conservative Party, the most influential of the minor parties that complicate the state’s politics, celebrated its 50th anniversary at a Holiday Inn near the Albany airport, a vast and dingy venue that reminded me of athlete housing left over from the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Politicians like former Gov. George Pataki, who owed his election to the Conservatives, came to pay homage to the party for its record of steering the state’s politics to the right.
But one calamity darkened the mood of nostalgia and self-congratulation: the passage last summer of a law legalizing same-sex marriage. For many New Yorkers, the June 24 marriage vote was a rare moment of goosebump drama from a capital better known for tedious dysfunction. For the Conservatives, and in particular for Mike Long, the ex-marine who has been the party’s chairman for nearly half of its history, the vote was a triple humiliation.
Four Republican state senators who voted for the bill and allowed it to pass had been elected with vital Conservative Party endorsement.
It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for gay people that doesn’t sound like an argument against gay people. Mike Long and his fellow partisans, like many conservatives nationwide, build their case on what they call “the defense of traditional marriage.” No society in history, they told me repeatedly, has extended marriage rights to homosexuals, and so we shouldn’t risk the unraveling of civilization by starting now. (Apparently they don’t count the 10 countries, from Canada to South Africa, where gays may legally marry and civilization endures.) I’ve had a few conversations with Long, trying to understand what harm they think they are defending marriage from. In one conversation I recounted my own classic wedding at the Holy Name of Jesus church, and wondered how somebody else’s less conventional marriage could diminish the joy of it.
“Well, I don’t think it hurts anybody,” Long replied, “but I think a society has to have certain standards, and since the beginning of time, marriage has been between a man and a woman.” Marriage, he elaborated, is about children. “You’re not going to procreate children with same-sex couples.”
I told him that would be news to my daughters’ school classmates, the ones with two moms or two dads. And by the way, we don’t prohibit elderly, infertile or just plain procreation-averse couples from marrying.
“I know plenty of gay couples, O.K.?” he snapped back. “Some of them, if not all of them, are very good people, O.K.? I just don’t believe that society needs to change what the definition of marriage is to accommodate their lifestyle. That’s all. You know, that may be old-school. But I think Western civilization has done pretty good old-school.”
Keller wrote a celebratory column in the wake of last summer's vote that made gay marriage legal in New York State:
Even before New York passed its law last week, the move toward legalization of same-sex marriage in America had become inexorable. It may feel excruciatingly slow for those who are waiting their turn, but it's just a matter of time until the country lives up to what it believes.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Here's the argument
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:02am.
1. The "Fact" that homosexuals are born differently and have no choice in the matter has still not been proven scientifically, and beyond the shadow of a doubt.
2. Homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disorder within my lifetime. Just because Psychiatrists took it off the list doesn't mean it isn't still a disorder. I'm not a head shrinker, and I don't think it's a psychosis, but more along the lines of an alcoholic or drug addict. Dr Sam, correct me if I'm wrong.
3. Making "gay marriage" legal isn't granting them anything the same as marriage, it is changing the legal definition of "marriage." Once marriage is no longer 1 man, 1 woman, then the word has no meaning, or any meaning that the next group wants it to have.
We're beyond a slippery slope. Our legislative and judicial systems are sliding downhill at terminal speed. The next step in the Progressive goal of destroying our country from within will be to change the legal definitions of "consenting" and "adult." Then marriage can be between any combination of beings of any age, or species that is imaginable. With the definition having already been changed, there will be no legal argument left to maintain what the homosexuals are currently asking for.
1. What malarkey. Science has
Submitted by goldwater89 on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:21am.
1. What malarkey. Science has proven many things that you and your buddies still try and refute.
2. It was a mental disorder back during the days when they were giving people electro shock therapy against their will.
3. Would it effect your marriage or anyone else's? No.
That's it?
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:42am.
Uh, science hasn't proven that gays are born gay, unless you consider Lady Gaga as science. "Science has proven many things..." Really? Ooof.
It was a mental disorder before hybrid cars too; what's shock therapy got to do with anything?
So the standard for behavior should always be how others are affected?
You seem to be presenting the "nanny nanny boo boo" argument.
goldwart
Submitted by cocodrie on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:46am.
Did you borrow Balboa's "Stupid Post of the Day" calendar?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Science has proven many things.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:51am.
like Anthropomorphic Global Warming?
2. Ok. So, it's just a behavioral disorder. Happy?
3. It's not so much about "my" marriage. It is the constant chip, chip, chipping away of societal values. It affects society as a whole by undermining its moral foundation.
I presented an argument that didn't attack homosexuals
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 12:37pm.
Unless you consider any criticism at all to be an attack.
You presented nothing in a way of refuting any of the points I made.
I'm going out on a limb here....you're not very smart.
Please provide links to this branch of science "Homotology."
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 12:39pm.
I want to learn more.
Incrementalism.....ain't it a great thing?
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:04am.
.
Get ready to expand this argument.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:10am.
"It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for gay people that doesn’t sound like an argument against gay people."
"It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for pedophiles and little kids that doesn’t sound like an argument against pedophilia."
"It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for goat humpers and their goat that doesn’t sound like an argument against beastiality."
"It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for polygamists that doesn’t sound like an argument against polygamy."
Let's start a pool to pick which "marriage rights" are next after gay marriage.
➚ Goats?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:17am.
You didn't have to bring Muslims into the conversation
LOL!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:47am.
Good one, C.A.
Newsubba, I agree, but you need to
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:27am.
Newsubba, I agree, but you need to change the phraseology a bit to match Keller's assertions:
"without it sounding like an argument against pedophiles"
"Without it sounding like an argument against "polygamists"....
See what I mean? Their tactic is to cast it as an attack against "persons," not actions or institutions.
A non- sex analogy would be "It's difficult to construct an argument against stealing without it sounding like an attack on thieves"
Get ready to expand this
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 9:19pm.
Get ready to expand this argument [...] "It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for pedophiles and little kids that doesn’t sound like an argument against pedophilia."
Oh look, it's the saddest, tiredest, most fallacy-riddled anti-gay marriage argument ever.
How is...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:18am.
"And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man" (Gen. 2:22) against "gay people"?
First Corinthians 7:2-3 says: "But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband."
That's "marriage". Nothing else is.
lets see...
Submitted by Tatfreak79 on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:44am.
Republicans hate gays because many oppose gay marriage.
Obamas view is "evolving" so he gets a pass. Along with other Dems.
Sounds like MSM bullshit to me.
THE NYT - THEY ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE REST OF US
Submitted by Sgthulka on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 10:49am.
So tolerant, so understanding.
It's hard to see how they could stand to be around the rest of us unwashed heathens.
Really Bill?
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 11:07am.
"I told him that would be news to my daughters’ school classmates, the ones with two moms or two dads."
They were able to do that by themselves, with no opposite-sex "input"?
To be more accurate (actually truthful)
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 11:33am.
the statement...
""It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for gay people that doesn’t sound like an argument against gay people."
should be rephrased to...
"It is difficult to construct an argument against marriage rights for gay people that doesn’t sound like an argument against the gay agenda."
I have no problem with arguing against the gay agenda, but I fully support the notion of gays being people.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
You Know.....
Submitted by dyardley on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 11:33am.
If all we homophobe married people would just change our status from 'married' to 'joined by God' the gay marriage people could have 'marriage.' But you see, that won't work because what they are looking for is 'acceptance' of their life style and they think being legally married like everyone else will accomplish it.
Of course since we would then have the state of 'Joined by God' they would cry foul and want the same rights. This issue will never be resolved by man for just that reason. Methinks God will resolve the issue in due time
Scopes Monkey trial and the Homosexual Community
Submitted by Founders1791 on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 12:14pm.
SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR MINORITY BEHAVIOR
As a nation, the Heterosexual Community MUST TAKE a STAND against the Militant Homosexual Community, who comprise only 1.7% of our population, but wish to force 98.3% of the population to 'their unreasonable demands' of acceptance.
MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT
The "invention of marriage" began as a societal creation. It is NOT A RIGHT. No one is "born to marry" anyone or anything. No one can tell if a person is a homosexual or heterosexual. Only the individual can confirm their "present status".
It is a willful attempt to dilute "inalienable rights" as to whatever "the advocate" claims it is. This is "corrupt selfish thinking" at the very least.
Society restricts right now:
Who you can marry – States “dictate” no first cousins, family members
What you can marry – States “dictate” nothing outside the species
When you can marry - States "dictate" the age of consent.
Where you can marry - States "dictate" Clergy, Judges, and Navel Captains.
The subject of "gay lifestyle" is not the same as "gay marriage". As a society we tolerate many behaviors and practices because we can. Just as we do not tolerate other practices because we can. Our society does not tolerate polygamy, incest, bestiality, witch craft, or homosexuality as ‘normal behavior’.
IT IS 'IN OUR SPECIES DNA' TO REJECT HOMOSEXUALITY
Science is the base of argument to proffer on this subject. At no time has Science afforded "biological equivalence" of "aberrant behavior", within a species, to the normal traits that species exhibits to fulfill its natural DNA instruction for propagation.
That is Scientific Fact. This is also why Marriage is a reflection of society’s recognition of that scientific fact. The Boy / Girl combination is not a metaphor, it is science.
CIVIL UNIONS WORK
It is ethically and morally wrong to codify into law what is scientifically proven to be bad for our species and culture. Modern day society has made a "generous accommodation" in the institution of Civil Unions to provide the legal equivalence of Marriage.
The Homosexual Community, so far, does not wish a satisfactory solution. They wish to "deprive others", in a selfish and vain, attempt at self cleansing their shame by spreading the misery to others by pretending to be the same as ordinary man and woman couples. They are not (scientifically) normal couples.
LIBERAL HYPOCRITES
Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr, is on record, AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 12:21pm.
and be united to his bowling partner Seymour, and they will become one flesh."
OMO, SoL.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 9:50pm.
You caused me to waste a perfectly good double shot of Canadian Mist.
Try this argument then
Submitted by Immortal Fish on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 12:28pm.
See, I have this silly notion in my head that different words have different meaning. To assure, ensure, and insure all mean different things, despite similar spelling and pronunciation.
Take, for another example, the words matriarch and patriarch. Two different words with two similar meanings, yet there is a very different use for each word based upon gender.
And that leads me to ‘gay marriage’. The first of those two words has already been hijacked to such extent where use of the word in original context is now offensive to politically correct liberals. Now we’re poised to reduce the meaning of the second word to something much more generic.
'Married' could apply toward the union of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. We'll intentionally blur the distinction here, yet we're going to keep the distinction between matriarch and patriarch in place.
If the importance of labeling gender differences are now a needless figment of my overactive imagination, then let’s start taking all the signs off the lavatory doors. It'll be fun!
Buggering ain't normal.
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 1:03pm.
Buggering ain't normal. Neither are queers. And "gay marriage" doesn't exist.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Keller must think we're all
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 1:31pm.
Keller must think we're all as dumb as a bag of rocks. I know what a family is, and it isn't two guys, one of them pretending and acting like he's a girl. These queers think they can throw their own twisted and illegitimate definitions out there, and have them stick, thereby overturn millinea of culture norm, replacing it with abnormal behaviour. That is just plain stupid. And if these minority "judges" think they can redefine society and make it stick, they're also in for a rude awakening. None of this is going to stick. As a society, we will wake up -- finally -- and begin to set things right, rather than allow a militant minority re-define "wrong" as "right".
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Homosexuality is a behavior; not a People -- and a dangerous one
Submitted by Skip Barrow on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 2:14pm.
....every US blood tainting incident in the US so far has been traced to people who chose to engage in same sex contact and donated blood or organs against the law (like many nations, medical boards don't allow donations from people engaging in the behavior). If death to the participants and even the innocent isn't an argument against forcing the taxpayers to support it, I don't know what is....
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ a Health Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians
February 17, 2005
"The document, signed by doctors in different disciplines from family medicine, dermatology and neurology, warns that sex as practiced by most gay men, has a large number of diseases associated with it, “many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population” as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others."
http://gayterribletruth.wordp
Submitted by Skip Barrow on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 2:14pm.
http://gayterribletruth.wordpress.com
Hey tugboat
Submitted by vaboxrboy on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 2:38pm.
Sign up for my site on Facebook- Newsbusters is a Bunch of Idiots on Facebook
Gee, vaboxrboy, you sure are
Submitted by bretzysdude on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 4:53pm.
Gee, vaboxrboy, you sure are either an idiot or a coward to not reply to Phil like that. And as for your little group, I'll bet I can get more people to join "vaboxrboy the troll on Newsbusters is a freaking douchebag" than your precious four friends. What, did you and your tiny little Occupy camp take a long time to come up with the name?
***WARNING-GRAPHIC CONTENT***
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 4:50pm.
If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then spectacles of unbridled debauchery such as this will become all the more commonplace.
Keller, of course, gets it
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 9:26pm.
Keller, of course, gets it totally right. Civilization goes on. Your preferred version of morality being violated in a way with no material consequences, shockingly enough, does not destroy the fabric of a society.
But okay, suppose it's unfair for us pro-gay rights folks to always make it into an attack on people instead of a behavior/philosophy/lifestyle. It would then follow that:
1. A criticism of nativity scenes in public spaces or the usage of "Happy Holidays" is NOT an attack on Christians.
2. Legislating for stricter gun control is NOT an attack on gun owners.
3. That criticizing the justification proffered for waging war is NOT an attack on the troops.
Only fair, right?
Must be nice to be a lib to
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 5:27pm.
Must be nice to be a lib to present strawman arguments and fake outrage over double standards long after the thread has died.
We have expressed publicly that it's an attack on the lifestyle and not the person. Meanwhile, pro-gay activists like Dan Savage will ALWAYS stereotype the lifestyle with the person, and is not ashamed at doing so. Will terrorize a hundred high-school Christians in the process. Figuratively, of course, but judging by his recent hate speech, wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to do it literally.
What are you, some sort of
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 11:57am.
What are you, some sort of right-wing hipster? Everyone else posted on it before it was cool? Please point out for me where NB specifies that one is not to comment on a story more than 24 hours after it goes up. Or maybe just stop acting like you're some sort of authority figure with your arbitrary standards of etiquette, posted (ironically enough) ten DAYS after the fact. By hipster standards, that's like saying now that you're got really into Arcade Fire after The Suburbs came out.
What on earth does it even mean to "stereotype the lifestyle with the person"? That makes no semantic sense.
Oh, you mean he acts as though all gay people adhere to stereotypes of the gay lifestyle? Oh, I see. Yes, and homophobes never do this at all, EVER! And yes, of course, Dan Savage is the official pro-gay rights spokesman!