In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Professor Jerry Coyne has authored a post in which he offers his thoughts on the ruling. In a telling passage which is remarkable for its myopia, he writes:
To those who oppose gay marriage, I say this: Is it really hurting you? What does an opponent have to lose if two homosexuals get married? I suppose they could say it could lead to the dissolution of society, but that’s clearly not the case.
Is it really hurting us? Yes, and for a very simple reason: from now on, those who oppose the Supreme Court’s decision will be branded as hateful bigots who are morally on a par with members of the Ku Klux Klan, despite the fact that most American blacks say gay rights are not the same as civil rights, and despite the fact that the Reverend Martin Luther King, America’s foremost civil rights activist, described the homosexual lifestyle as a “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”
A Canadian commenter named Timocrates explains how bad things are going to get in America, in a response to philosopher Ed Feser’s brilliantly written blog article, Marriage and the Matrix (June 29, 2015):
Well, coming from Canada, let me warn my American friends about what you are soon going to be facing for anything remotely like denial of legitimacy or anything short of outright approval of homosexuality and all sexual deviance.
1. Social ostracism:
– In your workplace, where you are likely to be fired and not hired at all if you are known to have “controversial” views on homosexuality;
– You family. Friends stick out much longer than they will, but even they will become much, much more quiet and reserved and increasingly hesitant to help you.
2. Social madness and increased degeneracy:
– Polite social parties may well include the suggestion, nonchalantly, to consider throwing on some porn for entertainment;
– Men in women’s bathrooms in gyms, and they kick the people who try to intervene or complain about it out of the gym
– Endless sensitivity training in the workplace so everybody knows what they are and are not allowed to say or suggest to ensure a ‘safe and comfortable’ working environment ‘for everybody’
3. School torture
– Kids will begin learning about sex and how two moms and two dads are a normal kind of family as early as 6
– Sex-ed will begin as early as Grade 6, including descriptions of oral sex
– Any child who at any time identifies with any sex will be accommodated, whether bathroom or locker room
And the final stage that is now happening in Canada, the Trannies.
Transgender people will increasingly agitate that society, government, institutions and businesses facilitate their lies. They will agitate that dating sites and services simply portray them as their chosen sex without any warning to normal, unsuspecting users of services.
That last line is arguably the scariest for single people, especially single young men. We all know how a man is likely to respond after finding out she isn’t actually a she at all – and with gender change surgeries now, this may come later.
And here’s an excerpt from a poignant article on Patheos by Rebecca Hamilton, an 18-year member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, titled, Gay Marriage Sets Friend Against Friend, Brother Against Brother (July 3, 2015):
I’m going to share my own experiences in trying to deal with the question of saving relationships in the face of gay marriage and abortion. I don’t have a magic bullet to offer. What I bring instead is a hard reality.
Here’s what I’ve learned in my own life about the question of keeping your gay friends and following Christ: You can’t do it. They won’t let you. And that’s it.
The deepest personal wounds I’ve suffered since I became a Christian have to do with gay friends that I loved and trusted with all my heart. Two of my gay friends turned on me in a sudden, absolute and public way.
One of them, in particular, I loved with all my heart. He was — and is — as dear to me as my own blood. We shared so many good things through the years. I trusted him and cherished him.
I never once tried to change him or argued with him about these differences in our beliefs. In fact, I tried to avoid talking to him about it altogether. When he realized that I did not support gay marriage, he flew into a rage and … well … it was a horrible experience.
Among other things, he accused me of lying to him because I hadn’t been more up front on the issue.
Then, he went on the internet and publicly attacked me.
The other friend turned on me over abortion. I know, gay men and the abortion industry seem to be bizarre allies, but the gay men I’ve known are pro abortion fanatics. In fact, a good many gay men work for Planned Parenthood.
I do not have one encouraging word to share with those of you who want to keep your relationships with gay people and still follow the Church. My experience is that, no matter how you try, you cannot keep your relationships with your gay friends and follow your faith. They will not let you.
Even sadder, my experience is that they do not just end the friendship. They then go out and do everything they can to hurt you.
I can honestly say that I have not retaliated. I have never broken the confidences they shared with me. I have never attacked them. I have never tried to hurt them. And I never will.
Representative Hamilton adds:
I know one homosexual person who has been willing to accept me as an individual and at least be professional friends with me. When I told her I opposed gay marriage, she said, “I would never try to force you to violate your personal morality.”
I was so grateful to her I almost cried.
But she is unique in my experience. And, as I said, we have a professional friendship, not a deep personal friendship.
Finally, in a recent article on RealClearReligion titled, Beware of the Gaystapo (July 6, 2015), Catholic author Mark Judge equates the treatment of Christians by the gay rights movement to a form of emotional abuse:
Christian America is being emotionally abused by the gay rights movement.
Emotional abuse is a sinister human reality, arguably more iniquitous in its slow-drip subtlety than outright physical abuse or political aggression. In emotional abuse a partner … is lured in by love and affection, only to have their spouse or significant other exert more and more psychological and spiritual control, then curdling into abuse. The abuser might start as a loving person with a slight edge of sarcasm, but over time they methodically pick apart the self-esteem of their partner. The occasional cutting quip becomes a steady stream of put-downs. Nothing the abused person can do is enough.
Eventually there is an atmosphere of chaos and unpredictability. Victims often have emotional breakdowns…
In his article, Judge chronicles the events leading up to this abuse:
In the beginning, advocates for gay marriage assured us that they loved America. The country wasn’t perfect, but mostly what gay activists wanted was the ability to express love without violent reprisal. They didn’t want to control the rest of us, or dictate terms or tell us what to believe. No one would lose their job or business because of gay marriage…
For a few years things went well. Gay people got to live more openly. There were more homosexual characters on television and in politics. States were debating gay marriage.
But then something changed. Liberals didn’t just accept civil unions, they demanded gay marriage — or else.
Anyone who didn’t only accept gay marriage but celebrate it was isolated as a hateful bigot. Bullying and gas-lighting of resisters became common. Gay marriage advocates ignored or denied that they had ever argued that no one would lose their job if gay marriage was passed… Like an abuser who refuses to ever acknowledge wrong doing, preferring to turn the tables on the abused, gay marriage advocates now refuse to answer the most simple questions. To ask “What is marriage?” is to be emotionally blackmailed (shame!), isolated (go back to the 1950s!) and bullied (damn right, you’ll lose your business).
Judge’s last question, “What is marriage?” gets right to the heart of the matter. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court majority, in their recent ruling (Obergefell vs. Hodges), nowhere attempted to provide a clear definition of the term “marriage.” Instead, we were told that the meaning of marriage has evolved over time, despite documents cited by dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts, showing that the term “marriage” has been understood for centuries to mean: the lifelong union of a man and a woman.
Much play has been made in the media of Elena Kagan’s facile argument that if marriage were really about procreation, as traditionalists supposedly hold, then there should be laws on the books prohibiting elderly couples from typing the knot, as there is no chance that they will procreate. But the argument overlooks two very important points.
First, what defines marriage is not procreation , but its essentially monogamous character: it is a union of one man and one woman, for life. (There have of course been societies which tolerated polygamy, but the practice invariably results in the exploitation of women. What’s more, even in societies where the practice is allowed, it is relatively uncommon: the vast majority of men have one wife.) Now, there are heterosexual couples who have what they call “open marriages,” these are relatively uncommon, and even today in America, 90% of people still regard adultery as morally wrong. However, the great majority of gay “marriages” are not sexually monogamous: they are open relationships. And even if there are some gay couples practicing monogamy, I know of no gay couple who are willing to declare that open relationships between gays (or straight people, for that matter) are not real marriages. For this reason alone, then, a strong case can be made on legal grounds for refusing to recognize gay marriage: doing so would inevitably force people to publicly sanction relationships in which sexual monogamy is no longer even recognized as an ideal. That would in turn mean that schoolchildren are no longer taught that married people should be faithful to one another until death do them part.
Second, even if it is not the case that every marriage is potentially procreative, it is certainly true that the institution of marriage would not exist, were it not for the fact that humans procreate sexually. In a hypothetical world where intelligent life-forms reproduced asexually, there would be no marriage, since there would be no need for it. Why, then, do we allow elderly couples to wed? Simple enough: because the bond between them is of the same sort as that existing between couples who wed when they were young, had children, and have now grown old. In both cases, the couples in question physically express their love in exactly the same way, and under the same conditions: they promise to be faithful to each other until death do them part. Gay marriage does not even get a foot in the door here: the physical expression of their love is quite different, and there is usually no intention to remain sexually monogamous.
In his recent post, Professor Coyne argues that people who oppose gay marriage must do so because they regard it as un-Biblical and/or unnatural. But the argument I put forward in the foregoing paragraphs made no mention of the Bible or of natural law. All it assumed was that marriage is essentially monogamous – a sentiment still upheld by the vast majority of Americans.
But I can safely bet that gay rights advocates in America will make no attempt to respond to arguments like the one I have put forward above, in civil terms. Ridicule, scorn and abuse are weapons which suit their cause better, and no attempt must be spared to make their opponents look absurd. If Professor Coyne wants to know how the legalization of gay marriage has hurt ordinary people who oppose it, I can sum it up in one sentence: thoughtful public discussions of the pros and cons of gay marriage will no longer be possible, because one side has been demonized.
What do readers think?