The Truth Is Like An Atom Bomb
Published on: November 23, 2009
show comments
  • Wayne Lusvardi

    I have a sociological hypothesis: those gays who advocate same-sex marriage have a proclivity to have a social location: members of the New Knowledge Class.

    To work their way into this class demands a lot of giving up family and traditional marriage for educational achievement and social status.

    But such persons end up psychologically and institutionally “homeless” to user Peter Berger’s terms. They often don’t want to bear and raise children because they don’t have time for it. They don’t want to give up the entrapments and liberation of high modernity.

    If they do want children they want to adopt or foster children. Even where children are not involved they want the same social legitimacy as is given traditional marriage. Some may even want to be icons of the individualism of modernity. Some liberal churches are willing to idolize them as icons of the free, liberated, individual free from all institutions. As cultural elites they don’t want a status inconsistency: a knowledge elite but with social opprobrium of their lifestyle.

    If this hypothesis is confirmed then Dr. Berger’s proposal to grant all couples without children the same social status — e.g., civil unions — and reserving “marriage” for a purely private or religious sphere may offer a peaceful resolution.

    However, there are those who may not be content until they are elevated into a specially favored class that conversely wants to disparage those in traditional opposite sex marriages. That there is a possible economic motive — affirmative action for educational elites — may be another factor. Here I think of the famous male economist who lacked the skills to advance in the quantification cult of economics and thus changed his sex to female to avail herself of affirmative action sinecures. Such a peace compromise may not satisfy those who are really not seeking equality of status.

  • JoeyProffitt

    Very interesting. I’m glad you understand that logical formula’s don’t and won’t necessarily work.

    I wish that “religion” was taken out of the conversation and replaced with “worldview”. Level the playing field. Everyone is certainly not religious they all have a worldview.

    The rulings of people led government will always be informed by a worldview, whether it be theistic or naturalistic.

    All wars are worldview wars.

    • Jim Luebke

      That would be particularly useful in clarifying the 1st Amendment, which lays down the principle that the USA shall have no Established Religion. Moral systems that are religions in everything but name (and frequently have greater persecutory zeal — you can be deprived of your livelihood in California for being “insensitive” if you publicly disagree with gay “marriage” at work) have an distinct advantage in enshrining their moral precepts in law.

      • JoeyProffitt

        Very well said. Secularism is not just the absence of religion, but a strong worldview that has transformed Europe and academia.

  • tamsin

    One point that is always left out of these discussions is the problem of agreement to core texts in public education, specifically for K-8.

    Families are depicted in children’s books. Marriage is inescapably depicted.

    It is easy to depict a single parent and child in books without taking any sides in the marriage debate. It’s very normal in a child’s life to spend time alone with one parent or the other. If the parent is a man, he’s a father; if the parent is a woman, she’s a mother.

    When two parents with one child are depicted all together, showing one man and one woman carries forward an ideal.

    Gay marriage will require the depiction, by quota, of two men and two women as parents of children (even though this is a biological impossibility so far).

    You name it: kindergarten storybooks, word problems in third-grade math textbooks, sentence worksheets teaching conventional grammar usage to fifth-graders. There will be a quota.

    This is very different from the situation that has arisen after no-fault divorce and the legalization of abortion.

    Divorce is always handled sensitively and as a regrettable event. Less than ideal. The ideal of not-divorcing is upheld. It never shows up in word problems. “Susie wakes up at 7am. She will be handed off to her dad at 1pm. He will return her to her mother at 7pm. Susie goes to bed at 9pm. What fraction of her waking hours are spent with her mother? What fraction with her father?”

    Likewise for abortion. You may think it’s fine, I may think it’s murder, but no kindergartner comes to public school at sharing time to describe her family and says “I have a mom and a dad and three aborted sisters and two aborted brothers. One of my aborted brothers had down’s syndrome. The other siblings would have ruined my mother’s life. Oh, and we have a dog named Timothy and a guppy we haven’t named because they die all the time and we flush them down the toilet.”

    So adults can war over abortion, out of sight and out of mind of children in the public schools K-8.

    Marriage is different. The legalization of gay marriage as a Civil Right will impose one absolute ideal on us all: the sexual plural, which will be taught in the public schools because gays are “parents” etc. Therefore, rather than sex being something that is kept out of sight and out of mind of the youngest children (which used to be a common understanding in America, the one absolute ideal), children will be exposed, as enforced by quotas described above, to (one) ideal of marriage as optimizing (plural) adult sexual satisfactions.

  • Lowering the temperature of the debate might just allow us to actually have a debate. Name-calling and bullying from the left, with full complicity in the media, has made reasonable discussion impossible. My hope is that the Supremes uphold Prop 8 and allow this whole thing to slow down so that states can observe over time the effects in states that have attempted to redefine marriage. Then we can begin a real conversation with some real data. If the Supremes attempt to force redefinition on everyone, we will all reap the whirlwind.

  • Grigalem

    This is factually challenged on so many grounds – not the least that “leftists” “supported” the mass killings in the Soviet Union, and “many communists in America, probably some who work for your magazine spent years of their youth working hard for the coming holocaust in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam”.

    Utter balderdash. Mean ugly balderdash, at that.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.