Last week Saturday, and then again yesterday, I devoted some hours to bitter wrangling with Kossacks over the issue of same-sex marriage. My posts had caused a ruckus because, as I stated, I was on the left but against recognition of such marriages. I'm writing this little diary today to acknowledge that my position was wrong.
I'll try to be brief, which, as many Kossacks have noticed, is not my strong point.
On a few essential points my argument didn't hold up. This fact hit me when three or four comments (not the strident cries of "Bigot", etc.) suddenly fitted together and made me recognize something new. I could try to explain this "new" thing that hit me, but I won't bore you by doing so.
The upshot: I'll no longer keep arguing against recognition of same-sex marriages. In the Kos community, that was a futile argument to make in any case. Yes, I knew it was futile from the start, but my reasons for coming to you Kossacks to make my arguments weren't trollish. I decided to my case here at Daily Kos was because I felt I needed to see how you folks would take me down, what arguments you'd be able to muster, etc. I needed to see if you folks could take me down. Well, you succeeded on the big picture. On most points I'm giving up my former stance against same-sex marriage. Because I don't think it holds water. At least not enough water to make for worthwhile swimming.
I'm very sorry I had to ruffle a few people to get to my new thinking. I thank Tara the Antisocial Social Worker especially. Rserven and Kascade Kat were also very helpful and to the point. My thanking you may be small change in return for what felt like large insults. If so, I'm sorry. But consider: Two days ago, had there been counter rallies for and against same-sex marriage, I'd have been marching with the people against (regardless of the fact that I'd likely disagree with them on most other issues). Today I might not actually join the for side (it would depend on details of the legislation being debated), but I'd at the very least sit it out. I won't any longer be rallying for the against position.
As everyone knows, what we've been discussing here is a serious wound in our body politic. This wound has long been causing hurt and confusion for many. The pain LGBT people have suffered over the years is something I can't know firsthand. In any case, I know that pain dwarfs whatever I've experienced by way of pain via this issue. My own pain has mainly come from being in repeated disagreement with people I respect. Which is a small thing, not life-altering, and not to be given equivalence to the pain many LGBT people have suffered. I'm sorry my lesser pain pushed me finally to rile all of you. I want to apologize sincerely to the LGBT people in the community who waded through my arguments and had to put up with the sometimes nasty vehemence of my words. In the end, you managed to show me where I was wrong, which has made it very worthwhile for me; but you also had to put up with listening to someone launch the best attack they could muster against something you've long been fighting for. And I'm sorry for that unpleasantness.
Now I understand that both my vitriol and the tedious length of my pieces on this issue grew from an internal conflict in me. The position I was holding to didn't sit well with me, and I was wrestling with it, trying to make sense of it myself by articulating it over and over in different variations. This is kind of perverse no doubt, but I'm not going to try to cover it up. It's best to be honest.
I'm glad those who were trying to block or ban my diaries didn't succeed. Had they succeeded, I'd never have read the handful of comments that came together and finally convinced me to change my stance. I'm standing now on a somewhat different piece of ground.
One of the reasons I'm posting this today is to remind people of the usefulness of Daily Kos for people who want to discuss tough issues. Regardless of the unpleasantness of the issue, or how obvious it may seem to most people in the community, I think it's always worthwhile to discuss it openly rather than try to ban or "time out" the person raising it.
When I get time later this week, I'm going to post the results of this discussion, with links to Daily Kos, at my own blog index on marriage, so as to make clear to anyone who lands there how my own mind was changed on the issue, why I was finally left unconvinced by my own arguments. I'm also going to modify the essay Christian Homophobia for Beginners, in which I argue that Christians should not continue labeling homosexuality a sin. I'm going to remove statements against same-sex marriage from this essay. I'm hoping some day it will be a useful resource for Christians who are open to changing on these points.
A few weeks ago a friend of mine, Renge Grace, a woman I much admire, told me that my problem with same-sex marriage was that I needed to listen to my heart rather than my head. I now think Renge was basically right on this. And this is more or less what has happened to effect my change. Or at least: I've put to rest enough of the arguments in my head to let my heart take over.
There are of course some positions I argued in our debate that I still think are valid positions. Without going into details, I think my anthropological/historical arguments are valid and my slippery slope argument. (Though the latter is usually listed as a fallacy, in this case I strongly think it isn't.) If I've changed my position, it's because I recognized that my ethical argument was non-existent (Tara pushed this point home) and my religious argument itself was unnecessary (by staying against same-sex marriage in our current American culture, I wasn't helping Catholicism, nor was I showing the kind of justice I believe Jesus would have pursued). I knew all along my legal arguments were likely fallacious, but didn't know the specifics in terms of Supreme Court decisions (thanks to the various folks who pointed these things out). I should have gone and studied the grounds on which anti-miscegenation laws fell.
One point on which I still strongly disagree with many of you is your insistence on using the word bigot when you encounter people who think differently on this issue. I think this word is unhelpful and often factually wrong. A bigot is a person whose outlook or ideas are grounded in a deep and irrational hate or prejudice. I don't think this term has ever applied to me. Related to this is my objection to claims that the "marriage equality" movement is basically the same kind of movement as the civil rights movement was. The following exchange, from the tail end of yesterday's comment thread, should clarify. TeaBaggersAreRacists wrote:
Equality is not an "agree to disagree" issue. Racism and homophobia aren't fundamental policy positions IMO, they are fundamental moral failings. Racism and homophobia aren't wrong, they are evil. I simply cannot accept that people with racist/homophobic views are good human beings. They are not.
I cannot "agree to disagree" when it comes to homophobia. I see this as a moral issue, a good v evil one, exactly as the same as racial equality. This is the one issue where 100% of the argument is on the side of equality side. As the Supreme Court clearly stated, there is only one reason for opposition to equality, "animus" or otherwise bigotry.
There is no legitimate secular argument for denying complete equality and for complete acceptance of gays and lesbians. None whatsoever, just like there was none whatsoever for racial discrimination. It is a sickness on our society and our country, the same way that racism was and still is.
I do suspect that 20-30 years from now, there will be a lot of apologies from those who opposed equality for gays and lesbians, the same way that many Southern politicians had to apologize for segregation.
My response to this is (I add a couple sentences for clarity):
Can't agree with you here. I think it is possible to be against same-sex marriage without being homophobic. I know it is possible, because that has been my position for many years now. And I could even lie in bed with a couple of gay men and not feel uneasy about it. So what can you do with a case like mine? I had my reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, but had zero feelings of hatred or revulsion for LGBT people.
People's comments today, a certain combination of the arguments made, have convinced me I was wrong to keep opposing same-sex marriage. But I wasn't in the least homophobic.
I think racism, racial oppression, segregation, these were very great evils. I think homophobia is an evil. I don't think, however, that they're exactly the same kind of evil, nor do I think the "marriage equality" movement is comparable to the civil rights movement.
I can explain why, rather easily.
In brief: Not all cultures or historical periods have seen racism like we had it in our country until the 1970s. Racism was not a human norm constant through history. Rather, it was largely a modern Western construct. The Roman Empire, though it included many races, had very little of what we in the American context understand as racism. Marriage is quite different. In fact marriage has been based on a heterosexual norm in almost every single culture we know of. So reforming marriage laws in the way now happening is something quite different from getting rid of America's previous racist laws. The former establishes something that has virtually no historical precedent and in fact no precedent in Western culture.
Thus one might call someone a social conservative for opposing same-sex marriage, but one should not start off by calling the person a bigot. Because perhaps the person in question opposes same-sex marriage not on grounds of hatred, but simply because he or she isn't convinced that modifying such a central institution is a good idea (that the results of the modification are unpredictable and may very well bring more bad than good). Someone who believes this way is not a bigot. Would you care to argue that he or she is?
There are certainly many bigots who are against same-sex marriage. But there are also people against same-sex marriage who are not bigots. You have to make the distinction. When you right off the bat call someone a bigot, you are likely to make them less responsive to anything else you might say. I've had to keep brushing off this accusation so as to get to real arguments. I've finally gotten there. But someone just a tiny bit more defensive than me would have stopped talking to you people after the first comment thread.
Consider: I'm no longer going to write or speak in opposition. I see the points on which I was wrong. So you tell me: What happened to my so-called biogtry? Where did it go?
Really. Think about these things.
I never felt such bigotry in me, and I don't feel any traces of it now. It was mainly a cultural/anthropological/legal battle I was been fighting, not a battle based on prejudice.
Interested to hear how anyone may comment on this basic point.
I also still would insist, as argued in my diary yesterday, that sentences like "What does YOUR religion have to do with MY marriage?" are pointless and naive. But I won't repeat my arguments here today. Anyone interested may go and find them in yesterday's exceedingly long diary. I would not be surprised, however, if you had better things to do with your time.
These little grounds of disagreement between myself and most of the Kos community shouldn't obscure the two main points of my post today: 1) The community has done me good by showing me where my errors were. 2) I want to apologize to people I've offended. I was definitely a rude customer in my attempt to get the hard-edged answers I needed.
I won't be able to join the comment thread tonight because, in Taipei, it's more like today. As you settle in for the evening, I'm off to work. I'll definitely check back later however.
Thanks for the discussion, Kossacks.
Eric Mader