Skip to Content

Why I’m coming out…against gay marriage

A New York progressive braves the opprobrium of his peers by questioning same-sex marriage.

Read my spiked article in full here.

 

12 Responses to “Why I’m coming out…against gay marriage” Leave a reply ›

  • Well then let the state get out of marriage. The result would be that homosexuals could marry if they chose to. They're only currently barred from doing so by the state.

    And to claim that gay marriage somehow alters aspects like family and child-rearing is quite ridiculous. It implies that somehow homosexuals are somehow less, that their family unit, with children included, is of lesser value than that of heterosexuals. It's correct to say that by preventing them from marrying we are denying them rights and protections afforded to heterosexuals.

    Worrying about the terminology the state uses to indicate the partners in a marriage comes across as very laboured and desperate. I can still call my partner my wife and the meaning of the word need not change.

    And ultimately many changes like this require concerted pressure to bring it about. If we all pussyfooted around I'd still be able to own black people and my wife would be my property too.

  • I have found this a very constructive argument against gay marriage, with valid points presented moderately, without distracting exclamations.
    My view is that every civil, legal or other binding between a man and a woman ensuing from their marriage, should also be an option for consenting people of same sex. However we should find a different word for their equally heartfelt binding commitment, as the word ''marriage'' is taken and used for centuries with a certain meaning that does not include binding people of same sex.
    It is like if one day we endorse and call ''marriage'' the aforementioned binding between three or more people who may like to commit so to each other. This would only add confusion and one should wonder what is the agenda behind such a propaganda.
    Gay groups should find straight ways to gain their well deserved legitimacy in society, whenever it is missed. By adopting the word ''marriage'', they make a few not-gay feel that their traditional values are attacked. But more importantly they more or less inflict to most unprovoking not-gay, a kind of -even minor - ''identity steal'' of the way they define and name a certain valued intimate relationship for so many years. As a result they draw attention and polarize against them the otherwise indifferent with the matter majority, they waste energy and distract even themselves from the real issue.

  • Thank you, Mr. Collins, for articulating the case against so-called "gay marriage" so well. What Dan does fails to understand (among other things) is the proper relationship of the state to other institutions (the Church, the family, etc.); he also ignores the elephant in the room: homosexual couples cannot procreate without the aid of a third party, whether directly or through some sort of medical procedure. Which means, frankly, that homosexual marriage is less than real marriage. What is most bothersome to me (and which you note) is how so many Democrats and even Republicans are willing to toss out the lessons learned from centuries of shared experience, tradition, philosophical and theological reflection, and commonsense. And for what end?

  • Ahhh, how refreshing. An article with balls.

  • Mr. Collins,

    You *rock*! Thank you for being so forthright in such a hostile climate.

  • labros the meaning of marriage has changed over time, so there is no need to not continue using the same word for same sex unions. And multi-partner unions were historically also called marriage.

    OK Carl can we then please have infertile couples barred from using this word marriage, since they're obviously not eligible. It should be obvious that whether a homosexual couple can have a child without outside assistance is irrelevant. Anyone using that argument just shows an incredibly desperate need to find some excuse to keep homosexuals from marrying. Further those now supporting homosexuals being allowed to marry are not tossing out what we've learned and gained, but in fact applying it.

    Mr Collin's article actually strikes me as a really laboured attempt to be a non-conformist. It's certainly lacking in any coherent argument against homosexuals being allowed to marry.

  • His argument is fatally flawed.

    Procreation is not, nor has it ever been inextricably linked to marriage. There is a popular, romantic image of the nuclear family associated with marriage, but romanticists have never had a right to exclude others from the institution.

    Not only can infertile and older couples get married, but couples also raise children they have adopted or who the result of IVF intervention. These methods do not involve a combination of the sexual act of conceiving and the bearing offspring which defines procreation. Unless you are arguing for marriage to only be available to couples who procreate, marriage offers a strong environment for raising children irrespective of whether they were adopted, conceived through IVF or conceived as a result of procreation. Indeed, and where your argument falls down, is that gay couples are perfectly able to raise children, and enjoy the fullest extent of family life as a heterosexual couple who have adopted or used IVF. Surely such a family deserves to be protected by marriage, perhaps more deservedly so than couples who will never have children?

    I am not an elitist, but it is a fact popular opinion and the sentiments of the day have been known to oppress unpopular minorities. You relish the fact that you are dissenting from middle class liberal opinion, but the basis of all your arguments is to condemn anyone who dissents from the views of the working class majority.

  • "Which means, frankly, that homosexual marriage is less than real marriage. "

    THIS attitude is completely ignorant. So infertile heterosexual couples have less than real marriages? Or people past child bearing age?

    Completely ignorant.

    Do you not understand that this IS about civil rights? Do you not understand that same sex couples cannot sponsor each other to immigrate without marriage being recognized federally?

    Call it marriage, call it civil unions, call it whatever you want but give ALL people the same rights.

    I cannot understand why you are so defensive about being bigots. Ignorant bigots. Thank god some americans are trying to evolve.

  • Great article! It makes me very glad to see this. For a while, it seemed that everyone on the left had drunk the gay marriage koolaid. At any rate, those of us who haven't have mostly stayed quiet about it (but maybe that is now changing).

  • This is about rights only in a superficial sense, like my right to get free hearing aids from the VA because of a combat disability. In both cases, it's really about enrolling in a system of benefits, honors, and preferences. In the case of marriage, the quid pro quo is that the maximum number of human beings have the stability that normally accompanies the combination of a masculine parental influence and a feminine parental influence. What has to be recovered is a rational and balanced sense of what men contribute and what women contribute. The idea that men and women are psychologically interchangeable is being increasingly undermined by social psychology and neuroscience, especially in studies since the beginning of the present century. Studies in social psychology confirm common observation that women tend to describe themselves more in relational terms, welcome more help, experience more relationship-linked emotions, and are more attuned to others' relationships (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Gabriel & Gardner; 1999; Tamres & others, 2002; Watkins & others, 1998,2003). These things are dismissed by the new ideologues as mere stereotypes, but the new tools of brain scanning have revealed the aspects of brain structure and hormones that underlie these tendencies, bringing balance to the debate of nature vs. nurture in the debate about gender-related psychological tendencies. To dismiss these things as they pertain to child-raising is to play the ostrich.

  • Great post – I’m sick of Hollywood imperialism.

  • Unfortunately men and women don't fall neatly into the male and female psychology bins. In addition even if it is true that the absolute best is to have one each of a stereotypically feminine and stereotypically masculine parent it does not mean that children are particularly undermined by not having that pair of perfectly modelled parents. Which is what some people try to imply in regard to a child having two mothers or fathers because their parents are homosexuals. Let's face it right-wing religious fanatics would probably brand my partner and I as people who shouldn't be allowed to have children because we support evil things like personal freedom. Maybe she and I should not be allowed to marry either?

Leave a Reply

Archives

CONTACT ME

I'd like to hear from you. Feel free to email me with comments, suggestions, whatever. I can be reached at mail@americansituation.com.