I guess I am just a sex-negative prude, but I really do not think that soliciting more porn industry support for marriage equality efforts is a great idea. I guess it is nice that NickYoungXXX-dot-com supports the cause and all, but the Maggie Gallagher press release kind of writes itself. And I really don't think we are going to win over any moms in Sherman Oaks with a porn-funded campaign of artsy NO H8 photos.
This whole thing is kind of silly, but it does illustrate a real problem in California. It seems like just about everybody out here has his or her own "grass roots" organization dedicated to overturning Prop 8. There is a real incentive for those groups to do outrageous stuff, because the ones who do the most outrageous stuff will stand out in a crowded field. That means attention that should be focused on nice boring gay couples will be diverted to Mormon-bashing or porn-industry fundraising or Perez Hilton.
2 Comments for “Public Relations”
posted by TS on
This is a matter of interesting moral philosophy. The first thing that comes to mind as a legitimate response to hypothetical Maggie G’s claim is “don’t think of the crazies when you vote to allow gay marriage, think of the gay conservatives that want to live lives of stability and monogamy.”
Which makes me realize that what the majority must really be asked to do is come up with a germane standard for determining whether two people can marry and/or stay married. If they are really worried about gays (who are indeed, on average, more libertine) wrecking marriage, perhaps a rule can be implemented by which any act of adultery, child abuse, or other familial moral failing results in penalization or annulment of a marriage.
I actually think the same way about applying insurance statistics. I believe companies should consider only causative factors of personal responsibility, not correlative factors. For example, blacks may indeed have a higher instance of diabetes. But a health insurer should not charge blacks more because statistically their care will cost more; instead they should offer premiums for dietary consultations, health education and other preventative care measures, and hike rates for failing to meet nutrition standards or keep up with preventative care. Blacks would end up disproportionately penalized at first, which would incentivize life-improving and cost-saving cultural change.
How about defenders of traditional marriage (a group to which I don’t really belong, but I would apologize for them if they did what I suggest here) argue for a similar system? The destroyers of traditional marriage can be anyone, gay or straight. Annul or put an asterisk next to marriages that are not virtuous in the sense they have in mind. Gays would be disproportionately affected at first, but as traditionalist gays took advantage of the opportunity to marry, others might see the nobility in that bygone lifestyle.
Yes, it’s a lot more work, but it’s worth it because it’s morally right. Not to mention the little benefit of incentivizing personal responsibility, which is what capitalism must constantly do if it is to survive.
posted by TS on
p.s. I meant to add a clever quip by writing “The destroyers of traditional marriage can be anyone, gay or straight. Annul or put an asterisk next to marriages that are not virtuous in the sense they have in mind. Gays (and, of course, politicians) would be disproportionately affected at first, but as traditionalist gays took advantage of the opportunity to marry, others might see the nobility in that bygone lifestyle.