more on that

[eub]

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.

Comments

[tylik.livejournal.com]

Beastiality? Really?

[eub.livejournal.com]

Rich Santorum does have a rather wide-ranging imagination.

[marzipan-pig.livejournal.com]

What do you mean by detesting promiscuity though? At one point the CDC defined 'promiscuity' as 2 partners a year. And lots of people go through what one of my friends calls 'extravagant phases', some longer than others, not everyone makes the same choices about sexuality.

I get upset about the 'legalize that and who knows what else will be OK', as if lots of stuff isn't already a part of people's lives, not everyone is going to get married. Like you say, yes, yes, and yes.

[eub.livejournal.com]

My phrasing was unclear but I hope context sets it straight that the blog post detests promiscuity and I don't!

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

This, absolutely. A boundary between "nice married folks" and "promiscuous sluts" (or whatever) is no less a boundary than the one between "heterosexual" and "GLBTI".

I still support marriage equality though because then it means more when a same-sex couple (or any other configuration) say "we reject the marriage model". (And yeah, the implementation details would get messy, but eventually some sort of poly-type marriage possibility would be nice.)

And btw, this heterosexually-married person is out to destroy American culture if "American culture" can only exist inside such tight boundaries; but I get the impression I'd have at least some of the founding fathers on side. (I'm not American, similar arguments apply in Australia except we, alas, don't have quite the broadminded founding fathers the US does.)

[eub.livejournal.com]

I like the point that there's value in having a choice to make in rejecting marriage.

Even if the liberty-minded of the 18th century had some big blind spots in their liberty, I like to envision they might think better of them if given a time machine and a chance to see what they never imagined. I hope the 23rd century would give me the same for my blind spots.