Something didn't sit right with me about the marriage (in)equality thing I posted about
. I thought it was "why am I giving this guy attention and respect for having been a moral turd", but it on turning it over that's not it.
I'm not giving him any credit for bonus moral virtue just for doing the right thing. I do give him credit for his side of the communication with the protesters and blogger who convinced him -- listening. He deserves that, and that doesn't take away at all from the credit due to the protesters and blogger for their side of it. They're the heroes of this story, if being a hero is combining rightness with action.
No, it's more about RJ's blog post
, saying I detest promiscuity too, not all homosexuals are radical liberals[ETA <i>]
. The smothering feeling that toning it down is what works, meeting them halfway is what works. What the ex-turd said about it brings it up:
At that point, between what I had witnessed on the marriage tour and RJ’s post about marriage equality, I really came to understand that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly participate in it. A real life is getting married; American culture is getting married.
But you know, I brought that one in with me. Marriage equality as a goal is marriage-normative. And then norming monogamy, long-lastingness, high degree of interdependence, all of those are fellow-travelers. Despite that I think marriage equality is a positive goal, but: all of those other
family values and forms of respect that equality opponents fear that it's a gateway to? Yes, yes, yes, and yes.