Here are some things we've learned in the last week:
(1) If you are a faithful Mormon, but also gay, one day you can ". . . rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."
(2) "[A]ll pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."
It isn't hard to show how irrational these statements are: Of course it's normal for heterosexuals to have attractions to the opposite sex; it's a truism. But it's completely abnormal for someone who is homosexual to have such attractions; it's an absurdity. Pornography may, indeed, turn your sexual drive inwards, but even if you believe that, it's heterosexual pornography that turns heterosexuals' drive inwards, and it's homosxual pornography that does this for homosexuals -- and never the twain shall meet.
What is striking about these remarks from fairly respectable people in the modern world is how thoroughly irrational they are. And, of course, the fact they were delivered in all seriousness.
In the constitutional debate over whether laws prohibiting same-sex marriage have a rational basis, it is deeply held beliefs like these that are rolled into the motives of some people who support marriage bans. These are only the most recent eruptions of some fundamental misunderstandings about what, exactly, homosexuality is. Amid this muck, it is no small task for a court to discover any genuine reasoning. And it's proving hard even for same-sex marriage opponents to deliver any arguments that are much more coherent.
Yet in Iowa, where 92% of those surveyed said nothing much had changed in their state after same-sex marriage was made legal, 41% still said they would vote for a marriage ban. Why? If nothing much has changed since gay marriage became legal, and if states like Massachusetts can show an actual decrease in divorce rates after five years of same-sex marriage, what is it that is wrong with same-sex couples marrying one another?
Voters don't have to struggle with these questions if they don't want to. But courts have to, and have to explain their reasoning. That is one reason, on this issue in particular, that same-sex marriage opponents so love the ballot; voters never have to explain themselves.
2 Comments for “Rational Stasis”
posted by jerry on
If I were to hazard a guess, on the 41% who would vote to ban same sex marriages, I would have to say that it is because of the interpretation of their religion. The 92% who can already discern that SSM doesn’t have an impact on their lives is a good starting place. For me the troubling figure was the 17% who said they wouldn’t vote. It’s not a rational position if you can claim, that by living my life I am not causing you any problems, but if it comes to a vote you will not vote to protect my rights to continue not causing you any problems.
How do we convince these people that leaving us stranded is likely to cause them problems whether we take direct action against our enemies or not?
posted by Bobby on
“For me the troubling figure was the 17% who said they wouldn’t vote. It’s not a rational position if you can claim, that by living my life I am not causing you any problems, but if it comes to a vote you will not vote to protect my rights to continue not causing you any problems.”
—Believe it or not, a lot of people don’t like voting. They don’t want to be called for jury duty, they don’t like standing in line, they don’t trust the government, they don’t want the opposition to get their names and harass them (as gay activists have done with people who sign anti-gay referendums), it’s just not worth it for them.
Besides, it’s not like gays are rushing to defend whatever causes those 17% believe in. 75% of gays are liberal which means they only support liberal causes, why should the mainstream support them?