Your post is rather fragmentary, I don't see one long chain of argument. So I'll just comment on a few bits of it.
Neal Patel writes:
Macklemore articulates the unfortunate choice presented to us by our present cultural dialogue:support same-sex marriage or be found guilty of hatred and bigotry. The fact that the dialogue is framed in this way is a glorious success for supporters. This unsavory choice is also reflected in the terminology now used. What used to be called gay marriage or same-sex marriage is now often referred to as marriage equality
This lexical maneuver is brilliant because it forces those who oppose same-sex marriage to say that they are against equality. Everybody knows that nobody but the ignorant and the bigoted are opposed to equality. I don’t really fault the supporters for shaping the dialogue in this way, since they are utterly convinced that this is essentially a civil rights issue—the modern-day equivalent of the anti-slavery and anti-segregation movements.
But this is not a "lexical maneuver". That's the question. Should a man have the same right to marry the man he loves, as a woman does to marry the man she loves --- or, indeed, the man she doesn't love but is a billionaire with a heart condition?
Now, Patel tries to reframe his opinions as support for "traditional marriage". But no-one's against traditional marriage. Go for it. Have all the traditional marriages you want. Your gay relatives will turn up and throw confetti. Preventing gay marriage will not cause a single gay man to think: "Damn, I can't marry my boyfriend, whom I love, so instead I will marry a woman to whom I am incapable of even feeling attraction". So "traditional marriage" is not hurt nor even reduced in quantity by all the gay marriages in the world, why should it be?
Of course, marriage can't be
quite according to Biblical traditions --- for example, we don't stone the bride to death if she's not a virgin on her wedding night. But that reform wasn't introduced by the supporters of gay marriage. That ship sailed long ago.
Keep in mind, now...that I had already stated that my personal rant was not in opposition to same sex marriage as a right. My opposition, which is directed at the church and not at secular society, was that we need to have a dialogue on our choices of morality and in setting an example for society to follow. The discussion should focus on what human behavior should be if in fact consensus is desired...a culture divided against itself is weak.
But "a culture divided against itself is weak" is something of an
ad hoc argument, is it not? After all, you do not on that basis demand that the government should legislate for One True Religion, do you? Or for One True Music or One True Literature? So why should it legislate for One True Form Of Marriage?
And as I pointed out on the other thread, a majority of Americans support gay marriage. If we want the culture to stop being divided, now's the time for you hold-outs to fall in line. But
I don't advocate that, I set a smaller price on cultural unity than you do. Some churches can perform gay marriages, and some can refuse to. That's OK with me, the gay people can get married in churches that
don't think they'll burn in hell for being gay.
Getting back to Patels question as to "who says" what is socially acceptable, I challenge anyone to tell me that everyone should butt out of any and all human desires and let humans do whatever they want.
Well, not "any and all", and not "whatever". We feel quite entitled to interfere with the desires of serial killers, to take an obvious example.
But when it comes to gay marriage, I always think of what Thomas Jefferson said about religion: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Now, does not the same apply to gay marriage? If two women get married, does it pick my pocket or break my leg? It does not.
---
So, is opposition to gay marriage bigotry? Well, I'm leaning on the "yes" side of this question. Because people who oppose it are not opposing it because it will "pick their pockets or break their legs" but just because they don't
like it, so they would like to stop people doing it. Well, I don't like rap music, but it would be bigoted and intolerant of me to call for a law preventing other consenting adults from making it and listening to it. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, why should I give a damn? It does not prevent me from listening to why I like. Nor does it hurt "traditional music" --- rap musicians do not prevent anyone who pleases from listening to Bach or English folk song if that's what they want to do. My position, probably shared by a majority of Americans (unlike opposition to gay marriage) is that rap music is simply not my cup of tea. Well, that's OK, I don't have to listen to it and you don't have to marry a man. Why should there be legislation against it?
™ Version 4.2
