First of all, I'm not "upset" and second of all I'm suggesting that gay marriage would not change marriage. Obviously. Not that we shouldn't lift the current set of rules that prevent it.

Ah, and thank you for elucidating me on the belief of "most people" which handily seems to be your own as well. Funny how that works. Civilization does exist to codify desirable human behavior, and marriage just so happens to be desirable behavior by societal standards at least. And yet, as a Civilization we have not gone the course of banning divorce--because obviously there are myriad ways in which human behavior works, and many, many trade-offs that need to be made in order to preserve civilization as we know it. And yes, you are correct to say that civilization is an extension of nature--but it is not only that. It is also a reaction to nature. Often it goes directly against nature. There is not always a rational reason for this. One might say that marriage is irrational altogether from the standpoint of nature, and yet in civilization it is an empowering act, creating stronger units than the individual. In nature, however, might it make more sense to eschew monogamy altogether?

In any case, bringing the gay community into the fold of marriage, into the mainstream, as equals under the law and the nomenclature, is an act that will strengthen our society and civilization, not weaken it. There is not one piece of scientific or sociological data that would suggest otherwise.

Is someone suggesting marriage be changed? I can't imagine my wife and I feeling that somehow our marriage was different should gays be allowed to marry, too. Wait-gays are marrying in MA and Canada--and guess what, my marriage is still exactly the same as before. Not one damn thing different about it.

And no, two dogs humping one another does not make up Civilization. That's why the "in nature" argument is useless. Civilization is made out of a breadth of things, including tradition, reason, trial and error, etc. etc. etc. Yes, nature plays a role, but one cannot say "In nature this and this don't happen and thus shouldn't happen in Society" first of all because, likely in nature you can find examples of just about everything imaginable (visit a Bonobo enclave sometime) and because the two are simply different. Civilization is not nature, nor is nature Civilization. Nor should they be.

Your argument is one that comes up every single time I make my statement.

There's a good reason for that, and I'm sorry but your riposte is empty and unconvincing. Not in nature, huh? And in nature I suppose there are such things as Marriage and Government, right? In nature two male dogs don't hump each other, right? Come on, you want to use nature as a guide for determining human laws? Isn't Civilization supposed to go beyond the laws of nature?

And the fact is, separate but equal will never be "Equal Rights" - did we not learn that during the 60's? You can't issue forth a statement like that without (perhaps unintentional) duplicity.

A valid secular reason? No same sex couple can ever naturally procreate. Never. Ever.

I call bullshit. No sterile man can ever produce offspring either, nor a barren woman. Should they be barred from marriage? What about quadriplegics? Nature dictates their inability to reproduce as well, no matter what.

The procreation argument is a false flag. It has nothing to do with marriage in this day and age. Besides, gay marriage provides more family units for adoption, arguably a "non-natural" means of gaining children, but something that exists regardless.

I might say post-modernity is an accident of inevitability, i.e. with the confluence of mass-media, globalization and modernity we were simply bound to reach both a philosophical and aesthetic post-modernism. And I'm not sure any of us can escape it, even its critics....

Rapid fire. Three long posts in practically as many minutes.... :)

I think nationalization could easily play out as a short-term fix, wherein nationalization is temporary and results in re-privatization. More on that later...

I become instantly wary, regardless of position, when anyone starts to say things like "my position is the truth!" I hold supreme authority on "the truth" and anyone who disagrees does so against "the truth!"

This is no way to dialogue. And by the way, I agree with you. I can find no reason to legally ban gay marriage either.

I'm Spartacus!

For most conservatives, their loyalty is properly targeted towards our country, rather than any individual entrusted with it’s stewardship.

Oh, indeed. That's played out exactly how you describe over the past eight years. And I'm sure conservatives will, en masse, get behind this President exactly in the manner they did with Clinton...The Limbaugh's of the world are already proving how conservatives' loyalty "is properly targeted toward our country."

Oh, and does hoping for one's President to fail fall into that category of national concern?

Ah, lovely idea, Freddie. Blogs are far too often completely bereft of poetry, and yet the two forms have so much in common...

Alright, John. Now what's the silver bullet? With the Supreme Court stacked against gay marriage, little political will in Washington, voter initiative sprouting up in the States...?

Freddie,

First let me say I'm absolutely in favor of equal marriage and terminology and all of that for gays and straights.

My concern can be summarized by "it's all in the timing" honestly. I fear that the hurried, messy legalistic approach of the current movement is resulting in unnecessary backlash. In Arizona the Constitutional ban on gay marriage is a symbolic defeat; but in California it is quite real, and truly tragic.

The civil rights of the sixties was certainly a good thing, a necessary thing, and well-timed, but it came on the coattails of literally hundreds of years of building political momentum. The gay rights movement does not have that momentum, at least not yet.

And so essentially I merely argue for more cultural oomph. Sometimes good ideas cannot bloom until old people, and the old ideas they harbor, move on, shuffle off their mortal coils and all that...

I wouldn’t want to say we just make traditions up.

But we can find which ones need to be re-invented, no? Like "new" ways to build cities--built like they used to build them, but with modern technology and efficiency...

I think those are extremely valid points, Josh. I have pondered this before, in a number of ways, in how not merely the stories themselves, but the means of telling them have impacted the way we hear those stories, and learn from them.

I think perhaps culturally we have sped things up to such an extent that we haven't learned how to incorporate patience into them--for instance, a show like Heroes. The writers rightfully felt that to keep audiences around (since so much competing media is luring them away) they needed a good season finale. And they provided one for the first season. But what they didn't do was figure out how to make that finale just one small finale within a larger framework. Instead they took an almost season-by-season episodic approach, whereas what was truly needed in such a show was a mounting plot, wherein one finale leads to the next, in a coherent manner. I would maybe cite the first few seasons of the X-files to show how this can be done well; and conversely, the last few seasons to show what not to do...

In any case, I think that our technology and media is maturing faster than we are, and it's a problem, but I have no doubt that someone will find a way to right it. Look what Pixar did for Disney movies....

Tom, thanks! Yes, incrementalism is exactly the word I was looking for...

Tom, thanks. And I generally agree with your post, the harms you've laid out, etc. However I'm still not convinced that we need to legalize all drugs, and feel that the wiser thing to do would be to begin with an end to marijuana prohibition and then take it from there.

Small steps can often help avoid one stepping over the brink...

Larison has some thoughts on the issue (and provides one of the first links to this site...).

Lincoln, Wilson and FDR–each of them was responsible for far more deaths and far more destruction than Che Guevara or any of a number of Arab nationalist figures ever was, but two important things separate them in the eyes of the general public: they did not personally kill anyone, and the causes for which their armies killed and destroyed are widely considered to be the just and right ones. That is to say, the exact same moralizing, or rather anti-moralizing, that the ends justify the means that Che used...

Very true, Mark. Overall the series portrayed Adams as principled to a fault, however. Stubborn and prickly--his great strength and fatal flaw.

At least you can admit it, Freddie.... ;-)

Mark, one problem with "expressly stated" is not all motives, even obvious ones, are stated. There is a certain amount of reading between the lines, or studying of patterns, requisite in attributing motive I think...

I should add, that after watching this scene I donated all my Samuel Adams t-shirts to Goodwill.

The HBO series "John Adams" actually had one or two pretty good scenes that cast Samuel in a none-too-favorable light. There was one tar-and-feathering in particular that was quite brutal to watch.

It is a creepy video. The Cult of Celebrity will do Obama more harm than good, after all. And where were all these celebs and their silly pledges the last eight years? Does it really require a new President to inspire rich, idle people to pledge their time to do good?

Hardly a liberal/conservative issue at all, to my mind. This is a class issue, methinks.

De nada, Freddie. Good post. I think it strikes again on that subject of genuine debate vs. verbal fisticuffs. I'd say there is a reason why one can read Larison or the C11 crew and maybe disagree but with a great deal of respect, and it's not anyone's lack of conviction. It's not simply tonal, either, but rather some level of mutual respect even when at odds politically. This is not to say everyone need play nice at all times, but respect does not always mean one need be nice or timid. But it does require honesty, and intelligence. And those have been meted out in very short order over the last eight years...

I fixed the video size on this Freddie...in html editor changing videos to 400 x 300 will generally keep them inside the borders...