Comments on: Hate, Fear, Tolerance, and Approval

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:05:33 +0000

Hi John,

I didn’t claim that heterosexual marriages are being handled all that well; the point was that society has compelling reasons to endorse heterosexual marriage, but not other forms of marriage.

As for your comments about rights, I addressed that above. You and I have equal rights under the law – we are both allowed to enter into marriage. The difference is that you want the concept of marriage to include something it has never meant.

About your second comment: it seems to be very trendy to claim that marriage as we know it – heterosexual, monogamous, and lifelong – is a new invention. That’s just not true; even though other cultures in other periods have had different sexual ethics, the concept of what marriage itself is has been relatively stable for centuries. The precise motivations – love vs. land or convenience – have varied, but the basic idea is much more consistent.

You’re probably right; the Western definition of marriage in 40 years probably will look totally different from the definition today. That doesn’t mean that’s necessarily okay, though; a lot of folks seem to think, “Well, it changes all the time, so this is just what’s next,” without considering whether there are deeper implications in “what’s next.”

Thanks for your comments.

-Ed

P.S. Just because bigotry has existed, previously, in a society, does not mean it’s automatically a motivation for many people, now. Sure, people have been racists and denied interracial marriage rights; that, by itself, does not make those who oppose gay marriage also bigots. There is a big difference between nature (physical characteristics such as skin color) and action (homosexual behavior). Whether or not one believes homosexuality is innate, homosexual behavior, obviously, is not, and that deserves attention.

By: John

John — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:46:52 +0000

Also, Love is not a baby contract. Love is a contract stating you two are an intity, and plan to live in such a way that you will be sharing investments, including time, money, love, etc. If two individuals are residing like a married couple, and interact like a married couple, then they should be allowed to. It is unfair that these people are double taxed. Your forfathers, from 1600′s until now have created the world you are in. And if that world accepts and tolerates homosexuals, then that world should step forward and give them marriage rights… but i guess you won’t realize what this blog symbolizes until looking at it in retrospect 40 years down the line. Then you will realize it wasn’t that big of a deal, and marriage means something completely different than it did when you wrote it. And it has meant something different every decade since marriage began.

Trying to label something as ‘traditional’ that has morphed and changed all the time for heterosexuals is not tradityional at all. If you were to reinstate traditional, arranged, noninteracial marriages from the 1600′s, then I would have to agree there is no room for homosexuals. But if you change it for you, then you should change it for us

By: John

John — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:36:16 +0000

I personally don’t think you straight people aren’t handling your marriage rights properly with so much divorce. So why am I not allowed to disagree with your right to get married? I would accept this argument if it were a two way street, but it isn’t. You shouldn’t be able to deny my rights, even if you don’t believe in them. And vice versa.

By: EdBlog » Blog Archive » Becker and Posner Take on Gay Marriage

EdBlog » Blog Archive » Becker and Posner Take on Gay Marriage — Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:57:37 +0000

[...] enefits such as Social Security rights or reduced taxation, does not make sense, as I have posted, previously. There are good and valid reasons, outside of r [...]