[I started this back in November and never bothered to finish it until now].
While looking up a link on the gay mariage debate at Lawrence Auster's site, I found a link to a very interesting article, that, in my opinion, reveals the big problem with the same-sex "marriage" debate.
Written by the (apparently female) Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, "No on 8 wasn't no on hate" accuses same-sex marriage supporters of "homophobia" because their ideas about marriage are apparently too hetero-ish.
If we take a look at the failed No on 8 campaign, we can see the usual "we're just like you" charade, and it seems to me that this whole gay marriage effort already cedes the battlefield to the homophobes. Accept us on your terms, without making any structural changes except for a copyedit in marriage documents, that's how this argument goes.
Translation: the goal here is not homosexual inclusion into the current institution of marriage. It is not about that sort of equality, about just being able to be like straight couples. No, the goal is not to be able to participate in the same structures as heterosexuals, or to help end discrimination against homosexuals who want their behavior to fit the norms associated with marriage; to behave as heterosexuals would but with members of the same sex. Uh-uh. The goal, rather, is to adapt the institution of marriage so that it will fit in with homosexual norms and behavior.
After ranting on for a time about how wrong it is for gays not to be dyed-in-the-wool leftists on all issues, she sarcastically pens:
No, we are not men lingering in toilets or alleys for a taste of cock, we are not women teasing with whips or turning tricks on the corner, we are not furious gender deviants or ferocious sexual perverts, we're just like you -- we tuck the children in at night and we wage war inside the home where no one else can see.
And guess what? I know it sounds awfully strange, but somehow this argument doesn't exactly challenge structural homophobia.
Translation: public sex should be considered a fundamental right, and it is homophobic to suggest that any sort of sexual restraint should be encouraged.
Are we going to continue protesting on the terms of the right-wingers, with signs like "God Supports Gay Marriage?" Could anything be worse?
Translation: belief in God is a tyrannical thing that must be fought against.
If you read the comments, it soon becomes clear that the goal for many of these people posting on the site is not to expand marriage to include gays, but to denigrate marriage totally as an oppressive institution.
Now granted, one could argue that these folks who feel this way generally do nto appear to be for gay marriage, and therefore their goals cannot be used as examples of the potential problems with expanding marriage to same-sex couples.
But the issue comes down to the fact that these opinions are of a piece with the idea that heterosexual marriage is inherently discriminatory. The expansion of marriage to same-sex couples will be followed by demands that marital norms be watered down to conform to gay norms, with increasing acceptability of open marriages, polyamorous marriages, etc.
The goal here is not mere legal equality. The goal is the complete deconstruction of society by those who are marginalized by it, and who, not seeing anything beyond themselves, wish to therefore destroy whatever they are unable to participate in, like a blind person who wishes to gouge out everyone's eyes so that he is on the same level with them.
The point is, same-sex marriage is being promoted with the idea that gays are just like everyone else. I do not think that this is true, nor do I think that the pretty little image we are supposed to have of John and Jack, the loving couple just like eeryone else on the street, is what we will be in for.
That is all.