Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The clown show continues
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Posted in:
* A post on arguments for and against gay marriage over at Illinois Review contained this comment…
We are being asked - no told - to change and accept something many are repulsed by.
* The Question: Do you think the “Ick Factor” plays a dominant role in the opposition to gay marriage and/or gay rights (the same basic argument was used against the public accomodations legislation here)? Explain, and tell us if repulsion for the act of homosexuality itself is a valid objection in your view.
Also, keep it clean, please. Thanks.
Here are some related stories, but try very hard to stick to the question at hand…
* Illinois gays not betting on marriage
* Quinn tackles income tax plan, gay marriage during Harper visit
* Quinn Expects State Will Approve Civil Unions
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The clown show continues
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think PFLAG President John Cepek summed it up in the Tribune piece: “We’ll just be creating a larger population of boring, middle class, married fuddy-duddies”.
Comment by Rep. Greg Harris Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:33 am
I don’t know if the “Ick” factor is dominant, but it’s significant. I don’t think personal feelings on sexual acts between consenting adults should determine equal protection under the law.
I think the biggest issue for most opponents is that it’s a fundamental change on how they were brought up to view marriage. I suspect most would be against benefits for couples cohabitating outside of marriage. Pretty simple and very powerful.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:37 am
I firmly believe that marriage is a special sacrament between a man and a woman. However, I am not opposed to legalizing a civil union between same sex couples so they may have legal benefits extended to them; i.e., specifically health and death benefits. I do believe when there are instances of a life-long commitment same sex couples make to each other that health and death benefits (to name two) should be extended to them. But I would never be in favor of legally calling that relationship a “marriage”.
Comment by Just My Opinion Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:39 am
As a straight, married man with children, I am repulsed by the idea that loving, committed couples of any orientation would be denied legal rights that are taken for granted by people like me. I think the “ick” factor, while real, is probably far less important than the biblical factor — and while I don’t question the validity of the icky feelings people have, I also don’t think that’s a legitimate reason to set public policy the way we have.
I suspect that many of the people who oppose gay marriage on either religious or “ick” grounds are far more tolerant of gay people in daily life than some of the zealots who get the most media play. But I hope we’re closer to a day when gay couples in Illinois can enjoy the basic legal protections that married couples take for granted.
Comment by Kyle Boller's Clipboard Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:42 am
As becomes very clear in the comments on that post, most of those folks have no idea for what reasons they oppose SSM. When directly asked, some winger says:
—-
If I print my own $100 bills, how does that affect the value of the $100 bills in your wallet? Calling it money when it is not devalues all real money. Calling something marriage when it is not devalues all real marraiges.
—-
When pressed further, he was unwilling to articulate exactly how this devalue will take place and what it even means, only the much expected “if j00 don’t know j00 r st00-pid brain washed lib-ruhl lol obama is a socialist”.
The rest of the arguments presented there (and frankly, anywhere) are the usual battery of:
1. “Well if we let those homos get married, we’ll have to let X get married” (where x is equal to animals, brothers and sisters, and/or polygamous couples.
2. Queer folks have AIDS
3. For the children
I think for those that are just against SSM in the benign way are driven mostly by the ick factor. However, those that perform the mental gymnastics to convince themselves of these vast societal break downs are more driven by ignorance and bigotry.
Alternately, if you notice: I really behaved myself on that post. I’m not known for it. I think I only had one smug comment.
Comment by dan l Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:44 am
Just My Opinion expressed it well and I share that opinion! I am opposed to gay “marriage” because it is an abomination to God. I don’t understand homosexuality, though, and know that God created all of us and has instructed us to love one another. it isn’t my place to judge the homosexual’s behavior any more than they are to judge my behavior. there are many same sex couples who have remained committed to each other much longer than heterosexual couples and having some sort of legal rights should be in place. but it isn’t a marriage.
Comment by susie Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:48 am
Explain, and tell us if repulsion for the act of homosexuality itself is a valid objection in your view.
Since you asked - yes.
You see, the “Ick-factor” is biological. How does biology ensure that genes are passed on if males, via their surging hormones, willingly engage in non-reproductive entertainment? How does nature steer these males towards reproduction?
The “Ick-factor” is Darwin approved, because it ensures evolutionary reproduction. It is nature.
Now, some will claim that the “Ick-factor” is sociological or cultural, and that it is steer via bias and hatred. OK - perhaps. But that doesn’t really explain why even in societies that have strove against the “Ick-factor” through history, has failed, does it?
Men are square and ugly. Women are hot. Just as it is also an “Ick-factor” for most of us to think of overweight couples engaging in intimate relations, there is an “Ick-factor” built into each of us so that we build the next generation with mates we find attractive. To us.
You can’t stop biology from doing what biology does. We can curb it perhaps, but we have to first acknowledge it.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:49 am
Actually, maybe I should stop behaving myself. Franny is displaying her remarkable lack of understanding:
—-
By definition, bi-sexuals cannot be monogomous. Will they be restricted from being allow to civilly unite?
—-
My point above proven. When Fran makes another one of her intentional mental side steps, it’s not “ick factor”, it’s flat out bigotry.
Comment by dan l Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:51 am
Is Fran proposing that monogomy be the law? That hetero couples do not commit adultery? Ha! Talk about the ick factor. GOP Bedroom Police at work again.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:53 am
—–
there are many same sex couples who have remained committed to each other much longer than heterosexual couples and having some sort of legal rights should be in place. but it isn’t a marriage.
—–
So Susie: Despite the fact that you recognize that there are queer folks in committed and meaningful relationships and the fact that you agree that they should have legal rights, why would you want to put them in that second class category?
Comment by dan l Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:53 am
OH brother, this thread is going to get really stupid - fast.
Can you people just answer the question without bashing one another?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:59 am
===The “Ick-factor” is Darwin approved, because it ensures evolutionary reproduction. It is nature.===
Tell that to the ancient Romans or Greeks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:00 pm
Who’s bashing Vanilla?
Comment by dan l Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:01 pm
I see it as just an effort to divert attention from the $14 billion budget shortfall.
Comment by Joe Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:01 pm
Tell that to the ancient Romans or Greeks.
I thought I had that covered.
But that doesn’t really explain why even in societies that have strove against the “Ick-factor” through history, has failed, does it?
They gave us Democracy, but it seems the old gay marriage idea hit the evolutionary wall, again, right?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:03 pm
I think that the “ick” factor is really the biggest reason behind a lot of anti-gay attitudes. It’s not a basis for policy.
Fortunately, the younger folks who have been exposed to gays as people rather than sex acts seem to be much more accepting of granting marriage rights to same sex couples.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:06 pm
—-
They gave us Democracy, but it seems the old gay marriage idea hit the evolutionary wall, again, right?
—-
Oh. Crap. He’s right!! We’d better regress back to slavery and fights in the Colosseum.
Comment by dan l Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:06 pm
“Men are square and ugly. Women are hot.”
To you, perhaps, but as a gay man, not to me. Hetero sex is “icky” to me, but I don’t try to prevent straights from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage because of it. I just ask for the same courtesy.
Comment by Rick Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:06 pm
===OH brother, this thread is going to get really stupid - fast.===
I guess that means we won’t be subjected to another pithy song from you on this thread?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:11 pm
Absolutely. The “Ick Factor” (a well-coined phrase for this issue) is what I have long detected as the problem most people have with gay rights/marriage. There is no rational reason for people to feel threatened, or that their marriage is somehow compromised by what other people choose to do with their own sexual lives.
When there are any number of legal rights, taxation issues, protections, and privileges that are afforded to one segment of the population, but are denied to a smaller minority (in this case on the basis of sexual preference) undermines the principles the Constitution are based on, in my opinion.
That said, I absolutely believe that there should be no obligation for any church to perform a homosexual wedding if they choose not to. This I hardly an issue I think, just more a worry in the minds of those against the issue. It would be hard issue that many congregations and/or church bureaucracies would have to debate and resolve for themselves.
To those whom may bring a biblical argument (probably from somewhere like Leviticus): shall we beat our children with rods then as well, as is advised? Additionally, marriage is not a concept exclusive to Judeo-Christian origins, as it is practiced in every culture I’m aware of, so quoting the Bible on the subject is just looking at one of numerous sources on the subject.
The fact (to me) seems to be that humans are predisposed to pairing up for companionship as they reach adulthood. Also, homosexuality occurs in species all over this planet. While I’ve long been in the “Civil Union” camp, mainly due to reasons of political feasibility…it does feel discriminatory to somehow label their committed relationships as something “different” from a heterosexual marriage. I now see no reason why a judge shouldn’t be allowed to perform a marriage for gay couples.
Comment by Baines 4 Prez Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:11 pm
Yeah, it’s likely the “ick” factor. Add that to the many insecure people out there. But don’t discount the “ick” factor as a basis for certain verboten relationships. Now, don’t take this out of context, because I am not comparing or saying they’re equivalent, but…
1. Incest is forbidden. Marrying close relations is forbidden (even if you’re of legal age you don’t plan to have children). Now that’s icky, and illegal.
2. Beastiality - pretty icky, and illegal.
3. Slavery. It’s allowed in the Bible, but you can’t own your mate anymore.
Bottom line to the Bible thumpers, though. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality (or abortions for that matter). The Old Testament has a lot of prohibitions that we just don’t follow anymore. And maybe evolution factors in homosexuality as an overpopulation release valve.
Anyway, I don’t really think about what people do in the bedroom. If you look at some men and women, and think of them procreating, you might say “ick.” But we still let them get married.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:11 pm
– ===The “Ick-factor” is Darwin approved, because it ensures evolutionary reproduction. It is nature.===
Tell that to the ancient Romans or Greeks. –
Did it occur to you that that may be a good reason why “ancient Romans or Greeks” aren’t still running around and are in fact “ancient”, indeed extinct, as are their languages?
The heterosexual monogamy model promoted by the Christian church had a lot to do with its survival as opposed to the the homosexuality-tolerant model of the classical Greeks and Romans. Not the linch-pin, but not unlikely a factor.
Comment by Conservative Republican Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:13 pm
The First Amendment is kinda a joke if third parties being offended trumps freedom of association.
And what’s this line mean, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? If you can’t marry the person you want to marry because somebody with no direct stake in the relationship can veto your marriage, is the country allowing its citizens to pursue their own happiness?
It’s time for the Republican Party to quit trying to win elections by harnessing bigotry and time for the GOP to offer policy solutions to policy problems.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:18 pm
===Did it occur to you that that may be a good reason why “ancient Romans or Greeks” aren’t still running around ===
I’m sure the invasions and a long slide into insane dictatorship had nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire. Absolutely sure of it. Yep, it was all the gays. Rightyoh.
Causation is not the same as coincidence. Using your logic, we could say that togas and collonades were behind the fall of the Romans and Greeks.
In other words: Try to leave somebody else’s talking points out of this comment thread and think for yourself if possible.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:19 pm
We’d better regress back to slavery and fights in the Colosseum.
We kinda dropped that idea around 1865, right?
It sounds like I have to be clearer.
There are thousands of societies, and we have had thousands of societies over thousands of years. We know that a few of them tried gay marriage, just like we’ve witnessed a myriad of other societal forms.
Look around. No one is doing it, although it has been tried. It must not work for a reason.
While many conservatives blanch with my explanation, I believe the reason gay marriage isn’t around, and has died out after having been tried is just plain simple biology.
It ain’t evolutionary.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:20 pm
=== Look around. No one is doing it, ===
Look harder. Like, maybe, Vermont.
I’m going to insist very firmly that people stick to facts here. Last and final warning.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:21 pm
I guess that means we won’t be subjected to another pithy song from you on this thread?
Sorry, it’s too Icky.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:21 pm
this so-called “ick factor” would also require parents to stop have sex, if you take the argument to its logical conclusion. oh, hell, maybe we should just exterminate people once they’ve reproduced. that would keep parents from embarrassing their children once and for all.
i’m with david brooks. people who really believe in marriage want everyone to be able to get married. personally, i try not to think of anybody else having sex. not surprisingly, i seem to be immune to the “ick factor” — i suspect that’s the reason why. perhaps if social conservatives spent less time focusing on other people having sex, they’d be happier and less offended…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:22 pm
—–
While many conservatives blanch with my explanation, I believe the reason gay marriage isn’t around, and has died out after having been tried is just plain simple biology.
—–
Ok Vanilla. If it will just die out here like everywhere else, than what are you so worried about?
Comment by dan l Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:22 pm
@Conservative Republican What percentage of the population is gay? I have a hard time believing that gay marriage can derail an entire society seeing as how they are a minority population.
Comment by Dirtybird Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:24 pm
Men are square and ugly. Women are hot. Just as it is also an “Ick-factor” for most of us to think of overweight couples engaging in intimate relations, there is an “Ick-factor” built into each of us so that we build the next generation with mates we find attractive. To us.
I find it interesting that you only talk about men being ugly, and refer to women as hot. So what about women being attracted to women. Is that okay? Is that less “icky,” and in turn more biological?
Comment by dave Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:27 pm
Yeah I think ICK factor plays a role. Marriage was based in religion and there in lies one of the biggest problems with Same Sex Marriage. Some of the posters here have said they don’t want SSM but a Civil Union is ok. Well there is the solution. Government gets out of Marriage (blessing a union) and licenses Civil Unions.
If you want the your partners health care and death benefits go to the government and get a Civil Union License; if you want that union blessed in a church to become a Marriage then feel free to do that also.
Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:29 pm
The ick factor is a driving force for many people. Look at the comments in response to the Tribune’s article if you have any doubt.
I strongly disagree with Vanilla Man’s point of view that it is biological/evolutionary and therefore okay.
First off, I don’t think that repulsion to homosexuality is primarily biological, I think it is much more cultural. My evidence is the number of cultures that have accepted it throughout history.
Second and more importantly, I think the point of civilization is to rise above pure biological urges. For instance, there may be biological reasons for treating people of a different race as an enemy, but that doesn’t excuse racist behavior. Likewise, there may be a biological reaction to people with disabilities, but again we don’t legislate their ability to reproduce because we find them “icky” or “genetically inferior.”
Additionally, homosexual behavior has been around since the beginning of time in all cultures. If it is so bad from a evolutionary point of view, why does it still exist? The one theory is that homosexuals provide a needed service because rather than being linked to one specific family they provide general assistance to the community.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:30 pm
i don’t think it’s the ick, i think it’s the fantasy….Leave it to Beaver, mom and dad, mom is at home with pearls, dad works,
mom does not, two kids, mom and dad in missionary position, if at all,but always if daddy wants it. The fantasy world is how it “should” be. anything that deviates, is deviant.
this fantasy world does damage in the public policy world in lots of areas, including the marriage/civil union realm. let’s not forget that rape in marriage was legal not too long ago in the State of Ilinois. and that rape was defined as what a man does to a woman with a part of his body. sexual assault laws were changed in the 80s!!! we forget how slow progress is even
in this blue state.
Comment by Amy Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:31 pm
–They gave us Democracy, but it seems the old gay marriage idea hit the evolutionary wall, again, right?–
VMan, your argument is not science, but it is incoherent. Somehow you’re applied “biology,” homosexual acts by some individuals, “evolution,” and the end of Greek city-states. What in the world are you talking about?
The Greeks were defeated militarily by the Romans, whose empire later collapsed. Yet even with homosexual acts taking place among individuals, there were and are still plenty of Greeks and Italians, I believe.
I haven’t noticed any lack of pro-creation on the planet, so I think the species will carry on whether gay couples get health or death benefits.
You really ought to just state your “feelings” and not try to dress them up in your own stew of pseudo-science.
A couple of weeks ago you said gay marriage was a violation of 10,000 years of human law. That was putting the introduction of “law” at the end of the Stone Age and six thousand year before Hammurabi, truly one of the great anthropological discoveries of our era.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:34 pm
I want my neighbors to pay their taxes, mow their lawns, and vote. I couldn’t care less what they do in their beds, whether straight or gay. Two adults who are committed should have the same rights and responsibilities as any others. The gay people I know in committed relationships are as responsible as the straight couples I know and I would support their right to marry. I am a Christian, I am a married heterosexual, I have two daughters, and I would and have told them the same thing. The Jesus I believe in is a lot more concerned about acceptance, tolerance, love and commitment than judgement.
Comment by Irish1 Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:34 pm
One other quick example. There is something biologically/culturally icky about a young person having sex with an old person. (Although the older I get the less I feel this way). But once they are adults, we don’t legislate the appropriate ages for marriage.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:35 pm
=== Likewise, there may be a biological reaction to people with disabilities, but again we don’t legislate their ability to reproduce because we find them “icky” or “genetically inferior.”===
That’s a pretty fascinating comment. Not sure I’ve ever seen that before. Interesting.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:37 pm
The “ick-factor” certainly plays into people’s concerns about same-sex marriage. Is that a reason on which to base public policy? No. However, sometimes public policy seems to be based on a lot less.
Government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrament. However, since government is in the legal business, it should allow civil unions among homosexual couples to provide them with the same legal benefits as married couples.
That would likely bring about protests from unmarried heterosexual couples who would demand the same rights without marriage. If granted, it would cost a lot.
Comment by Fan of the Game Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:38 pm
—-
The historical bases for the legal recognition of marriage between a man and woman just don’t carry over to gay relationships. But almost all of the same legal affect could be obtained just by putting property into joint ownership, executing agreements, etc.
Most people have gay friends and don’t even think about what they do behind closed doors. And I don’t think most people would oppose a civil union system. But its not ‘marriage’.
—–
Ok. So how about the government doesn’t define ‘marriage’. Everybody (gay/straight) gets a civil union. A church can make it ‘marriage’?
That seems fair, under your argument.
Comment by dan l Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:39 pm
People, let’s try to stick to the question, please. I’m just gonna delete strayers from now on.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:40 pm
I support gay marriage along the lines that it is something instituted by civil authorities. Call it what you want “marriage”, “Civil Union”, but I believe that the same civil rights guaranteed to those of us that are heterosexual should be guaranteed to those who are not. That being said, I do not believe that the government’s place is to force any religious organization to perform marriages that they do not believe they should perform. Keep the government in the government and the church in the church.
The ‘ick’ factor I feel plays a great deal in all of this. I am a married heterosexual man with a child. My brother is a monogomous homosexual who has been with his partner longer than I’ve been married. I’ve come to believe that there are many factors that go into how someone’s sexuality is formed. I do not believe it is entirely biological, but believe that biology certainly plays into it, nor do I believe it is entrirely based on how one was raised, nor how one relates to his father, nor other family situations, but they all have a role in forming the person.
I’ve talked at length with my brother and many of his experiences growing up, his feelings about our family life and our father, and his difficulties in peer relationships were exactly the same experiences as mine. (I’m the only one in my family who has actually talked to him about this–after all I’m the one who moved away to the ‘librul’ big city) Why did he make the decision he did and I make the decisions I did, I do not entirely know.
Having a brother in this situation and talking about it certainly has put a human face on the issue and covered over a whole lot of the ‘ick’ feelings.
That being said, I certainly support the concept of gay marriage as I listed above. Don’t get me going on how I feel about the ‘family values’ crowd and their complaints.
train111
Comment by train111 Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:44 pm
=== Likewise, there may be a biological reaction to people with disabilities, but again we don’t legislate their ability to reproduce because we find them “icky” or “genetically inferior.”===
Perhaps it wasn’t legislated, but it was quite common well into the 20th Century to routinely sterilize developmentally disabled people who were wards of the state. Parents and guardians would sometimes also do the sae to keep them out of “trouble.”
And the history of the planet is chock-full of societies and races who sought to rid themselves of those they considered “icky.”
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:44 pm
The Ick Factor may play in to the debate, though the God Factor is stronger. Without devolving into the inevitable “holier-than-thou” or “hypocrite” arguments, many religious people simply are uneasy about how to proceed legally with an issue they see as improper. Many laws are based on moral and ethical feelings, and it’s difficult to know where to draw the line between what should or shouldn’t be a legally-backed moral/ethical provision.
Comment by Sewanee Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:45 pm
Greeks are extinct as are their languages?
Oh? Us Greeks who have survived it all and can read and comprehend the Greek etched on ancient marble ruins in the “old world” will disagree with you folks who think that. But then, all man-made empires eventually come to an end, a historical fact that cannot be denied.
And if this were a Republican vs. Democrat issue as others have tried to shoe horn in, then why hasn’t a gay marriage bill sailed through Democrat dominated Springfield?
The “ick” factor is a big part of the argument. When I watch a movie where two men or two women kiss or engage in some affections in or out of bed, my “ick” factor kicks in. I know I could never be in a gay relationship because of it. Does that make me evil? A discriminator? Yet I don’t feel that way when I see a gay couple at a restaurant, perhaps because I don’t see them doing anything that would cause my “ick” factor to kick in. Yet, I don’t see a problem with a gay couple adopting a child or living anywhere they like, etc. etc. etc. So perhaps the “ick” kicks in for me when I think of the bedroom or what is done behind closed doors?
Or do I simply urge myself to be even more “tolerant” and try to ignore the “ick” inside of me?
Religious teachings are another large part of the argument that everyone tries to ignore. My Greek Orthodox Church (which has been around for nearly 2,000 years by the way) is opposed to gay marriage. So are other faiths. Am I to ignore the teachings of my faith and urge “tolerance” instead? Become “tolerant” in spite of my faith? Where is the “tolerance” which respects my faith and my Church teachings on this subject? Why is “tolerance” such a one way street? Why are those “tolerant” types calling me “insane” (Nyberg in one of his poorer arguments) for my reluctance to climb aboard the gay marriage bandwagon?
The concern lies with gay marriages sanctioned by the state, and then forced upon religions who disapprove of them. Some have argued that the “tax exemptions” of religions in the US should come to an end to force changes in faith and beliefs on this and other topics.
If our constitution guarantees us the right to worship in the faith of our own choosing, then our constitution also allows us the right to oppose gay marriages without facing retribution.
And allows us to feel “icky” about it without facing the wrath of those who are not like minded or don’t necessarily feel the same way.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:49 pm
It seems that the “ick” factor is largely generational. Younger people have grown up with friends who are gay or lesbian. They see real people–not just sex acts. There is no repulsion–unless they are instructed to feel repulsion by their church (and even then numbers show increasing young people rejecting church instruction on this matter.)
There really needs to be better reasons to legislate for/against anything. “ick” falls seriously short.
Comment by generational Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:52 pm
I would say the ick factor is the driving force behind the vast majority of the opponents.
Should it be? Not in the least. The “ick” factor actually represent the prcoess of dehumanization. its a way to look at others as being somehow lessor in order to justify (in war) killing them, in earlier times enslaing them etc. First you think of a classification as being below you, then you refer to them not as peiople but by a slang term to help set them apart from humans, then you say things like they have smaller skulls and so forth to justify their sub classification at a lower rung.
Ick factor is just a form of creating a sub class and mistreating them, and we should abandon it.
BTW the “Darwinism” discussion is a red herring. Most o his work focuse on the extinction of species in favor of those who had developed adaptive capabilties. those that did not adapt perished. technically, those standing in opposition to gay marriage are refusing to adapt to the advancing culture and social system, so they are the ones who are in danger of extinction for being unable to adapt.
marriage under the law is a legalact and status. For example, we allow those who do not beleive in god to marry, we let non-religious persons such as judges and boat captains mary individuals, we do not require proof of consumation or fertility to approve a marriage. You may remian maried even if you fail to tithe or attend your church services. So marriage has no real connection to ones religious beleifs, practices or complete lack thereof. Interestingly, under VM arguments, we should bar those who are unable to to old to reproduce from marriage.
mariage as it exists right now is a legal certification and action undertaken by the governemtn to confer property rights. it should be available to all.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:54 pm
Of course the “ick” factor plays a role. But more important, I think, is the contempt factor. There is virtually no acknowledgment that the issue of gay “marriage” is really quite new in American society, and that there is not a consensus on the question (or if there is, it is for the status quo). And, in my opinion at least, the burden of proof for change lies with those who advocate the change. But instead of argument, they simply assume that anyone who disagrees is a bigoted, homophobic, religious nutcase. Lincoln would have gotten nowhere making arguments like that against slavery.
Comment by Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:58 pm
===or if there is, it is for the status quo===
Wrong.
Total those who favor civil unions and those who favor gay marriage and it’s a pretty big majority, from all polls I’ve seen.
Those who favor the status quo are in the minority.
===Lincoln would have gotten nowhere making arguments like that against slavery. ===
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”
“Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”
Etc.
Now, back to the question, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:04 pm
A lot of people find pornography to be repulsive (or so they say in public). The same is true for killing animals (read: PETA).
By the logic I would say no, a personal repulsion is not necessarily appropriate grounds for a policy objection.
Though to counter my own point, I find torture to be repulsive. In my opinion, that does constitute sufficient grounds for a political stance.
The truth of the matter is that I would never want to be on record opposing gay rights of any kind (to be clear I support them wholeheartedly). I have a feeling that we will be talking about gay rights in 40 years the same way we talk about civil rights and desegregation now.
Not many would dare to come out in opposition of desegregation in 2009; it’s frankly absurd at this point in history. Mark my words, the same will one day be true for gay rights and I cannot wait.
Comment by Obamarama Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:09 pm
Your commenters are just as stupid as the rest of the blogosphere. Wow, I thought this was a special place.
The ick factor is huge, but its underlying and it is a hidden factor. Much like racism plays a role in voting patterns too. When asked they can’t tell you why they are against it, they just are.
Same sex marriage won’t affect my marriage at all. There is a same sex couple with kids on my street, I think it would be better for them and their kids if they were allowed to marry. At the same time, if they marry or don’t - doesn’t impact me or my marriage.
Comment by Hon. Cranial Lamb (formerly carbon deforestation, formerly . . .) Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:26 pm
Dude, take a breath. Are you saying every comment here is stupid or just a few?
I didn’t think so.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:29 pm
Sorry. I didn’t read all comments before I wrote that. Apologies to all, you’re not all stupid.
Comment by Hon. Cranial Lamb (formerly carbon deforestation, formerly . . .) Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:31 pm
“Ick” is a socially acceptable word for bigotry, which itself is grounded in ignorance. Bigotry and ignorance are absolutely not valid grounds for rational public policy, fairness or justice.
Personally, I favor the civil libertarian solution: Allow churches to define and recognize “marriage” however they like, without government interference; government confers equal recognition and benefits to all couples under the law.
Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:31 pm
yeah, it’s the ick factor…my husband will not watch BrokeBack Mountain because of the gay sex…I try and tell him what a beautiful love story it is and a commentary on intolerance of people who are different than you…he still will NOT watch it…BTW, he is a liberal Dem…when you think of our State legislature, think of the number of white men on both sides of the aisle, and African Americans of either sex who will not vote in favor of gay marriage due to their evangelical upbringings, and I think gay marriage in IL is a no go…politicians in the public eye who represent liberal Democratic districts almost have to be for it in principle, but I wonder what they would say publicly if they weren’t elected officials…yeah, it’s the ick factor because heterosexuals are grossed out by the physical acts (even kissing) of gay men, not gay women…
it’s an affront to their masculinity…
Comment by Anonymous45 Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:31 pm
I should have typed hetrosexual men are grossed out…
Comment by Anonymous45 Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:36 pm
Sexuality is a social construct, not ordained by the St. James bible. I’m disappointed Rich, that you would frame this argument in these terms. I’m sure Southern Whites during the Jim Crow era would describe an “ick factor” upon seeing a person of color venture into white only facilities.
All those who argue against equal rights will in 10 or 15 years look as backward and willfully ignorant as those who opposed the end of segregation.
Comment by Alex Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:36 pm
What sexual behavior is exclusive to only gays or staights? The ‘ick’ factor is simply an excuse to rationalize a belief. There is virtually no behavior a gay couple can do that a straight couple cannot do. Is the ‘ick’ factor involved with people who are obese, disabled, drunk, sick, involved in S/M, have a fetish, or are asexual? There are hundreds of potential sexual acts. What any one person enjoys can easily be repulsive to someone else. Just because you do not like it does not mean no one could possibly find satisfaction in it. It’s a pretty individual thing.
That gay/straight line gets pretty blurred for many people if you simply look at the behavior and not who is doing it. There is extensive research showing the range of human sexual behavior is very broad, has a huge number of driving forces (it’s not all reproduction), many societies have conflicting rules on what is acceptable, and it has been that way for a very long time.
If someone is worried that two guys getting married is going to destroy the concept of marriage, they have a pretty weak belief in the strength of their own relationship. This has only been happening for a couple thousand centuries now. The population seems to keep growing no matter how disapproving any group gets over anothers behavior. The genetic drive finds a way even if I personally may not like the method someone else uses.
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:40 pm
You mean opposition to gay marriage might be an impulse reaction instead of a logical one? Say it ain’t so!
Comment by Eighty Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:53 pm
What I find interesting is the response that goes from “ick” to “treat people differently.”
Is there a legitimate “ick” factor? Probably. I have many gay friends and the “ick” of the sexual thing is never something that occurred to me. Frankly, as hetero male I just don’t give the sexual habits of my friends much thought.
However, that being said, there is also an annoyance that I have with prissy people (usually waiters). I don’t want to be around them and I find the mannerisms annoying, but I also don’t want to tell them how to live. I note that there are a lot of hetereo people that I find equally weak and annoying.
But that’s the great thing about America. I can decide I don’t want to have a beer with certain people for whatever reason, but we can still live in peace with neither one of us infringing on the other.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:55 pm
It is the ‘Ick Factor” which has proven to be very weak. In states where gays have been allowed to marry for a few years, opposition goes away (for the most part). Why? Because nothing icky happens!
If SSM is allowed in Illinois, most of us will see absolutely no change. SSM turns out to be icky in theory (to some) but not in practice (for most).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 1:59 pm
===I’m disappointed Rich, that you would frame this argument in these terms===
Then be disappointed for all I care. It was a simple question and legitimate, as the comments show. Are you saying that the ick factor doesn’t exist so I shouldn’t ask the question? No. Are you saying that the question is somehow inappropriate because it offends you? Well, I’m sorry you’re so easily offended. lol
Seriously, it’s not “framed” one way or another. It’s a question designed to see what people think about one type of response to this important issue. Deal with it.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:04 pm
The Ick Factor has dramatically lessened as people from all walks of life have come out of the closet: family members, celebrities, athletes, people of talent and accomplishment.
Today most if not all of us know same-sex couples through work, school, church, the neighborhood and of course popular culture. Ten years ago, many of us did. Twenty years ago, it wasn’t that common.
Back then, the Ick Factor was called “homophobia,” a term carelessly used to describe everything from a low-grade eeew to stronger reactions. This unhelpfully masked and minimized the real violence behind the most extreme reactions to homosexuality. It took Matthew Shepard’s violent death to pry us away from that generalization.
Today, the Ick Factor, at its most benign, is something that straight people experience as an initial reaction, before moving on.
Those who don’t will continue to deplore SSM and wring their hands over so-called threats to the sanctity of marriage (please — what about our own rate of divorce?) while the rest of us keep evolving toward greater acceptance of our GLBT neighbors. I believe we’ll see SSM legalized in the next ten - 15 years.
Comment by Zora Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:04 pm
I think the Ick factor is definitely part of the reason why so many people are against gay marriage. Along with that is just plain bigotry. I mean, what is happening today with gay marriage is similar to what was happening 50 years ago with inter-racial marriage. My guess is that most people here who are saying gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry would NEVER say that blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry each other. And in another 50 years homosexuals will also have the equal protection of the law and will be able to marry. Unfortunately, it is a slow process, but it will inevitably happen.
People who are against gay marriage should try to really examine the reasons why they’re against it. A lot of people say because it is against God and the bible. The bible says a lot of ridiculous things that most Americans do not follow…
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:05 pm
Also, Alex, if you think I’m somehow promoting or supporting something that”Southern Whites during the Jim Crow era” would support, then bite me. Discussion does not in any way imply endorsement. How daft can one be?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:12 pm
Onthebeat, congratulations. You’ve just been banned for life. Go away and never come back.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:13 pm
See!
How is that question relevant?
Comment by Hon. Cranial Lamb (formerly carbon deforestation, formerly . . .) Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:13 pm
What question?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:15 pm
Great monitoring Rich! Tribune/topix & Chicago Reader need a lesson in comment monitoring from you. Honestly, you could probably make some money giving a presentation on that . . .
Comment by Hon. Cranial Lamb (formerly carbon deforestation, formerly . . .) Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:15 pm
You deleted it, never mind.
Comment by Hon. Cranial Lamb (formerly carbon deforestation, formerly . . .) Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:16 pm
And banned a subscriber. An expensive act for me, a very silly act by him or her.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:17 pm
As a basic rule, government should stay out of sexual relations between consenting adults. Marriage/Civil Unions are a contractual commitment between two individuals….I don’t care one way or the other about their sexual preferences.
Comment by Louis Howe Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:18 pm
Ok Vanilla. If it will just die out here like everywhere else, than what are you so worried about? - I’m not worried. It is a dead end and a waste of time. Vermont can try it, but most likely whatever keeps killing off gay marriages in the past, will reoccur and kill it off again.
_________________________________________________
Excellent post, Objective Dem!
_________________________________________________
I find it interesting that you only talk about men being ugly, and refer to women as hot. So what about women being attracted to women. Is that okay? Is that less “icky,” and in turn more biological?
That is a good question, I don’t know.
__________________________________________________
You really ought to just state your “feelings” and not try to dress them up in your own stew of pseudo-science.
You first.
__________________________________________________
That seems fair, under your argument.
I have read similar comments using the words, “argument”, and that’s OK. But we are not discussing legal reasoning here. The “Ick factor”, regardless of the name, is real and has a biological function. (If you would like to give it a fancier name - go ahead, but the negative commentors seem to like how insulting it is and how it makes them feel superior.)
If nature supports gay marriage, why don’t we see it’s development throughout history? Why did it die out? It isn’t like homosexuality died out or something. Perhaps in the past, societies hit biological challenges which shoved non-productive couples out? (Please note I am saying non-productive couples.) Nature trumps cultures. Slavery falls away, inter-racial barriers fall away, women gain sufferage, but we don’t see gay marriage succeeding, even when it is tried.
Non-productive couples defy nature, and in the end, nature wins - perhaps that is why gay marriage continually died out?
__________________________________________________
You mean opposition to gay marriage might be an impulse reaction instead of a logical one? Say it ain’t so!
Your logic isn’t acknowleging the very real reaction historically placed on gay marriage, so it ain’t very logical, is it?
__________________________________________________
Wow, I thought this was a special place.
Yes, it is. I would make a joke out of that comment, but President Obama beat me to it last month.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:25 pm
To be honest, I get the “ick” reaction. And while I’m not ashamed that I get that feeling, I try hard to not let it guide my gay marriage stance. I think that’s critical to my general libertarian approach–that despite people’s ickiness surrounding a given issue (say, prostitution or trans fats), we give deference to individual liberty unless presented with a darn good reason not to.
Comment by Greg Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:26 pm
dan l wrote:
“Ok. So how about the government doesn’t define ‘marriage’. Everybody (gay/straight) gets a civil union. A church can make it ‘marriage’?
That seems fair, under your argument. ”
———————-
Dan — for what it’s worth, this is exactly my position on things. Marriage is a religious act. Civil unions are a legal procedure. I think people should be able to tie them together (e.g., priests/ministers should be able to sign both documents) but the two procedures should also be allowed to happen separately.
But then, what do I know.
———-
As to the question at hand…I think the “ick” factor is vastly overwhelmed by the “bible” factor. I don’t think either is a good reason to be against gay marriage.
————
And Objective Dem: Rich is right, that’s a fascinating angle I had never thought of. I’ll be ruminating on that.
Comment by Concerned Observer Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:29 pm
One of the prime strategies in the gay rights movement has been encouraging gays and lesbians to “come out” and let people know they are gay. Part of the logic is to get rid of the “ick” factor. If you know a gay person you see them for the totality of who they are. You don’t see them having “icky” sex and it becomes less relevant.
The issue of gay couple is in many ways a second way of coming out. In the first wave, you could still generally ignore the person’s sex life. They might be gay, but typically you could ignore their sexuality and consider them as single. They also remained second class citizens destined to live a lonely disfunctional life, reconfirming your views.
In the second wave of coming out you have gay couples who openly display their relationship. People are confronted with a relationship and affection between the couple. They can take the next logical step and imagine sex. They can’t simply write them off as single and they can no longer assume gays are disfunctional people incapable of relationships. In this phase, gays are no longer asking for tolerance, they are seeking equality.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:32 pm
V-Man, the Ick Factor also describes how kids “naturally” (biologically?) respond when they learn where babies come from. But they outgrow it, as they get used to the concept.
So why won’t the Ick Factor abate for opponents of SSM? Why stay so attached to something that, for nearly everyone else, is simply an initial reaction?
Not trying to be high and mighty here, I’m honestly puzzled.
Comment by Zora Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:34 pm
===Seriously, it’s not “framed” one way or another. It’s a question designed to see what people think about one type of response to this important issue. Deal with it===
You pose the question, does the “ick factor” play into people’s opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians, I would have posed the question, Are people’s prejudice towards those who practice different forms of sexuality a factor in opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians?
===Also, Alex, if you think I’m somehow promoting or supporting something that”Southern Whites during the Jim Crow era” would support, then bite me. Discussion does not in any way imply endorsement. How daft can one be?===
Come now, that’s stretching it a bit. My point here that has been echoed by other commenters is that there is a sense that we are making progress on this issue, that what might not have been accepted 20 years ago is common place now, because people now recognize this as a civil right. Just as we look back on Jim Crow in disgust, I know that we will look back at the opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians in much the same way.
Comment by Alex Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:49 pm
===I would have posed the question,===
Then get your own blog. lol
Also, your alternative question is, sorry to say, completely unreadable. And it doesn’t address the specific point that I wanted to get at.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 2:54 pm
Pretty sure Christ wasn’t afflicted with an ick factor for anyone - thank you Greg Harris for fighting the good fight. Oh, and I am one of those old fuddy duddies - been married (hetro) for 27 years.
Comment by Collar Observer Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:04 pm
Considering all of the polling results on various issues in America these days, I’d like to paraphrase the great philosopher and social critic Homer Simpson:
Dear “Conservatives”:
Welcome to Abnormal-ville! Population: you!
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:11 pm
In regards to my earlier comment regarding people with disabilities. It is worth noting that well into the 20th century many western nations and states had government programs for compulsory sterilization of people who were deemed genetically deficient, including the mentally retarded and the disabled. I don’t know if there were laws limiting marriage to people with disabilities but if they were willing to tie tubes it wouldn’t surprise me if they also restricted marriage.
Initially I was going to say that opponents of SSM are not the equivalent of advocates of compulsory sterilization. But in many cases, the opponents of SSM are equally opposed to gays and lesbians adopting children or even maintaining custody of their own children. That is pretty close to being equivalent.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:13 pm
I support civil unions and it has nothing to do with any factor other than the right of every citizen to the basic privileges enjoyed by married couples. I don’t address the marriage issue as that to me is a church or religious issue. I see them as different. People are taught that homosexuality is wrong and as I recall most of this came from religious teachings when I was a bit younger. We fight to keep church and state separate but allow church and state to combine for the purpose of marriage and the benefits of the state bestowed upon those married. Seems odd to me and represents more of the “ick” factor.
Comment by Justice Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:22 pm
I concur with gOVernor Quinn - the state is moving toward the acceptance of civil unions in Illinois. There are some people (I suspect a large percentage of folks) who find any kind of PDA (public displays of affection) between heterosexuals, homosexiuals, bisexuals, transgendered, etc. unacceptable. I am 100% in support of GLBT rights, but I equally respect the rights of those who dissent. This is still a FREE country!
Comment by Black Ivy Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:32 pm
I think ick is indeed the main factor, at least for those whose objections go further than “my pastor/priest/rabbi/mullah said it’s bad”. I think most religious objections (aside from the aforementioned followers) are merely excuses for the ick, as are most political/social objections. And no, I don’t think it’s a remotely valid reason to prohibit SSM, or pretty much anything else, including some things that repulse me WAY more than SSM.
I’d like to suggest to those who are for it as long as we don’t call it marriage to consider dan l’s suggestion: Why is the government in the business of “marriage” at all? Apparently many people are attaching significant, sacramental value to the term even when it’s just the governmental recognition. If that’s the case, then why not let the definition be religious? The government recognizes civil unions for everyone with no religious connotations, and the churches recognize marriages.
I hope this isn’t too far off topic for Rich’s purposes, but I’d like to briefly address VanillaMan’s evolutionary arguments. There are two problems there: First, it’s the naturalistic fallacy. Assuming he’s right, that does not necessarily mean we should not allow SSM. Second, he’s probably not right. There are several plausible mechanisms for how homosexual behavior can be preserved in a heterosexual species, and there us a fair amount of evidence toward some of these models. The ick factor could even still remain and function pretty much as he thinks it does, as a guiding factor to improve an average individual’s odds of reproductive success. I’m not committing my own naturalistic fallacy, saying it’s okay because evolution probably preserves it, but I am at least pointing out that the opposite version of this fallacy as proposed by vanillaMan–that the ick is valid because we evolved to have it–probably has false premises.
Comment by rrt Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:38 pm
One more note:
“We are being asked - no told - to change and accept something many are repulsed by.”
Join the club. I’m repulsed by a lot of stuff — smokers, American beer, baseball post 1994 strike — but I manage to accept them.
Welcome to civilized society. We tolerate some stuff we don’t like.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:40 pm
What about the “Ike” factor? In the Ozzie & Harriet era of the 1950’s, the debate about same-sex marriage would be unthinkable. The 1960’s started the ball rolling. Remember, IL was, I think, the first state in the union to eliminate the archaic sodomy laws (was it in Ogilvie’s administration?) It takes time to adapt to new ideas.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:42 pm
V-Man, the Ick Factor also describes how kids “naturally” (biologically?) respond when they learn where babies come from. But they outgrow it, as they get used to the concept.
Yes, but you seemed to have forgotten the role hormones played into this situation. Hormones are what causes that child-bearing “Ick factor” to fade, while at the same time, among young males, the classic homophobic “Ick factor” is just beginning.
Hormones are what causes both. I believe there is a biological reason for it because nature wants us to reproduce as early, as soon, and as often as possible. The “Ick factor” pushes sexually curious males towards reproductive sexuality. Society also plays a role, because children are a society’s future. Non-reproductive couples have no offspring to which to pass their genes and are weak links in the biological chain. Societies with large families are more conservative and have a longer impact on history. Gay marriage, and small liberal families don’t survive. We can see this happening in Europe today with the decline of many Western European countries with negative population rates. Japan is hard-hit too.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:43 pm
The decision on who they want to marry is for a church to decide. Let the members of the church fight it out. The civil rights that go with being a united couple should be a right available to anyone, regardless of sexual preference.
It is my understanding that in Puritan New England, marriage and civil unions were separate functions of the Church and State.
I think the “ick factor” is relevant only to people that are very immature.
Comment by Religious Liberal Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:48 pm
Nice report, Dr. Vanilla: “Dammit, our hatred is based science!”
Now, I’ve got this knee problem. Could we schedule an appointment?
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:48 pm
hahaha! V-Man, thanks. That last comment really made my day. I haven’t laughed that hard in a long, long time.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:48 pm
Bad news, VMan. I did a quick search. Turns out Albert Einstein only had one child.
That sort of does a number on your “have a longer impact on history” theory.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:51 pm
So VMan,
Are you suggesting “re-education” for Gays, and Hetro couples that don’t have children? And perhaps we should have a policy similar to China’s “One Child”, except if you only have 1 child you should be punished?
Maybe we should start testing people for fertility before they get married as well. If you are not fertile, you should get a big I branded on your forehead for “Infertile”. Then they shouldn’t be allowed to marry either since they can’t make society larger.
Your arguement=Epic Fail.
Comment by How Ironic Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:58 pm
Move along, please. Everyone.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 3:59 pm
“- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 12:30 pm: The one theory is that homosexuals provide a needed service because rather than being linked to one specific family they provide general assistance to the community.”
My question is very simple - How so? How does being gay “provide general assistance to the community”?
Comment by Toni H. Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:00 pm
As a practical matter from a purely pragmatic political standpoint, I support a civil union law that gives gay couples the same legal protections that married couplse enjoy. Personally, I have absolutely no objection to gay marriage, but prefer not to deal with the political backlash from the cultural conservatives/relgious right.
The “ick” factor and repulsion to homosexuality play a signficant role in the opposition to gay marriage. My philosophy is “live and let live” ,and I think gay marriage will become an accepted reality in the next generation.
Comment by Captain America Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:00 pm
Love Vanilla Man! Why don’t you run for office - I would raise money for you!!!
Comment by Toni H. Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:02 pm
Rich, you banned a subscriber…talk about acting with standards. really gutsy. now, for some humor, i loved Jon Stewart’s take on the Vermont legislature decision….new Ben and Jerry’s flavor…
Chubby Hubbies! come on Illinois Legislature, enact fairness for people in love!
Comment by Amy Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:23 pm
Vanilla Man,
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I for one don’t have a problem with civil unions. They will provide for the same benefits as marriage (and downsides, for that matter) without pushing into an area that bothers many people. That isn’t an ICK factor for me but could be for many conservative church goers. We have a societal duty to ensure equal protection under the law. It may be semantics but I think the gay community should not try so hard to push at the conservative church goers with the marriage thing. Both sides can live together with less hostility, I think, if the gay community can accept the historical male/female nature of marriage.
BTW, Europe won’t be european in about 50 years due to a birth rate that can’t keep up with the death rate. Italy is probably in the worst shape. Those w/more education and higher income have smaller families. The figures don’t lie.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:25 pm
An interesting day of posts, covering many of the good public policy reasons for supporting civil unions/marriage, a lot of the traditional pro and con arguments….but mainly a provocative topic that has caused a lot of the underlying emotion to be expressed that rarely does in these debates. Thanks for posting it Rich.
Comment by Rep. Greg Harris Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:37 pm
Toni H.,
The theory is that the gay man does not need to feed and support a wife and children. Therefore the products of his labor is used to support other families or parents. In the ancient world this meant produce from farming or meat from the hunt. In the modern world, it means financial and other support for nieces/nephews or elderly parents and taxes for schools.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:40 pm
Yes. It’s very icky when Catholics marry Protestants… I mean when a white person marries a black person… I mean when two unrelated adults who love each other and care for each other want to spend the rest of their lives together and have a legal document as proof of their devotion to each other….
Either it’s childish “ickiness” or it’s disgusting discrimination against couples who are in love.
And VanillaMan’s crass argument about weak links and non-child bearing hooey proves the point. Plenty of heterosexual couples are biologically unable to have children and many others simply choose not to have children.
What does that have to do with being gay, especially since many gay couples can and do raise happy, healthy children that they adopt or create through IVF?
The same arguments you’re making now were used to rationalize bans on marrying people of different faiths, races, etc. in the past. Didn’t hold water then and they still don’t hold water today.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:42 pm
When I saw Brokeback mountain it was opening weekend in N. Lincoln park and I (straight male) was with my girlfriend. I was kind of proud to be the only straight couple I saw in the theater that night. I cherish my gay friends and family, and fight hard for equality in marriage every chance i get. And during the first sex scene, which is passionate, well acted, and between two objectively great looking people, I went ‘ick’.
So yes, I think the ‘ick’ can exist, even for the most progressive of us. Making this a basis of how we treat people, and especially about how we make law, is absurd. If we made no-ick the basis for marriage licenses, only about 4% of the population would be allowed to marry, and most of them would live in Southern California.
Comment by Bacon Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:42 pm
I’ve enjoyed all of your postings today on this Objective Dem. The only one that lost me for a moment was when you wrote:
Initially I was going to say that opponents of SSM are not the equivalent of advocates of compulsory sterilization.
Compulsory sterilization wouldn’t be supported by traditionists because they support life and freedom.
Besides, what would cousins do?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:49 pm
PS Vanilla -
Where has gay marriage “died out”?
The so-called Illinois “Family” Institute and similar conservative-partisan groups try to use a similar argument, insisting that the decline in gays applying for marriage licenses in Massachusetts is somehow “proof” that it was just a fad and is now in decline…
Nevermind the fact that after having been banned there would be a natural spike in marriage applications as the first group that is eligible to marry does so. Since that time, the rates of applications have become steady.
It’s kind of like all the people who rush the stores at 4am the day after Thanksgiving.
At 3:59am there are no customers in the stores because the doors are locked… At 4am there are suddenly hundreds… By 6am the number of customers has tapered off as the early birds have finished and left, but there’s still a steady stream of other customers throughout the day…
Duh.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:53 pm
And PS Dupage Dan -
You may not have a problem with “civil unions” (whatever that is) but there are plenty of anti-family conservatives out there who automatically decry civil unions as “just another type of marriage” and thus pooh-pooh the very notion of it.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 4:58 pm
Are you suggesting “re-education” for Gays, and Hetro couples that don’t have children?
Have you ever heard of a conservative proposing re-education? “Re-education” is a term only an elitist would use. I believe in freedom, diversity of opinions, and intellectual respect for one another.
So we differ.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 5:01 pm
anti-family conservatives
You must be late to this conversation. We’ve established the fact that historically gay marriages have existed but have died out. Go to any natural history museum and take a look at Roman or Greek culture. Or Alexander the Great.
Your straw men arguments are…um, straw.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 5:05 pm
“We’ve established the fact that historically gay marriages have existed but have died out.”
I fail to see where we’ve “established” this point at all. You asserted it, but I don’t see it being proven.
Comment by Rick Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 5:07 pm
As someone who grew up in Mississippi in the 1950s and 1960s, I think the “Ick” factor is very real in this debate. Before desegregation, I well remember the fears my parents and other Southern whites expressed, openly and often, about blacks contaminating public swimming pools and bathrooms, about how having blacks co-mingle with white students in classrooms and school locker rooms would cause all kinds of diseases. It’s just not natural, they said, over and over and over. If God had intended blacks and whites to mix, they said, he wouldn’t have made different races. Blacks and whites have always been separate, for thousands of years, they said—it’s even ordained in the Bible.
And what happened when my school and thousands of others had to desegregate? Almost overnight, you just quit hearing those arguments. Why? Because people saw with their own eyes that none of those fears came to pass. The way those arguments just literally vanished remains to this day one of the most striking things I have ever witnessed.
And guess what? The exact same thing has happened across Europe, in Canada, in Vermont and Massachusetts with state recognition of gay relationships. A few people still go on about it, but most people have seen with their own eyes that a gay couple getting married has absolutely no negative consequences in their lives, and, like people in the South in the 1960s, they’ve shrugged their shoulders and moved on. Nothing destroys the “Ick” factor like reality.
Comment by OldSmokey2 Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 5:22 pm
VM,
(First apologizes to Rich for getting slightly off track)
I don’t necessarily agree with your statement “Compulsory sterilization wouldn’t be supported by traditionists because they support life and freedom.” This type of statement is broad and the reality is more complex. For instance many, if not most,traditionalists are not opposed to the death penalty or war because that is considered different where the death is justified.
One of the underlying issues with SSM is people will make broad statements about the importance of their beliefs and how these values keep civilization intact, but they only care about these core values when it comes to gays. For instance they say that they believe in the importance of marriage, but yet they don’t oppose divorce. They say that marriage is for procreation, but they don’t see anything wrong with elderly or infertile people getting married. They say that marriage is ordained by God, but they don’t mind when people get married in another faith with a different God. They say civil unions are the equivalent, but fight tooth and nail to prevent gays from using the same word to describe their relationship.
Going back to the original question, the ick factor is a component but I think change is the bigger issue.
Comment by Objective Dem Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 5:28 pm
Rich, I think it’s probably the same “ick” factor that created “white” and “colored” drinking fountains and restrooms. To most of us, it seems silly now, but it didn’t seem silly to many people at the time. I don’t know exactly what you do about that.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 5:52 pm
–Non-productive couples defy nature, and in the end, nature wins - perhaps that is why gay marriage continually died out?–
Sigh… a lot people I respect here refuse to bite on this nonsense, but sometimes I can’t resist.
VMan — what exactly are you talking about? It’s gibberish. Let’s take the first “point” —-”Non-productive couples defy nature, and in the end, nature wins -”
. If by that, you mean, two individuals who can’t conceive will not have children, very true. What’s your point? That was true billions of people ago.
The next point: — –”perhaps that is why gay marriage continually died out?’ ‘’-
Where, when, what are you talking about? And what’s your point?
I have to borrow a phrase — are you daft?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 6:04 pm
Perhaps the biggest fear among cultural/religious conservatives is that their moral convictions (developed and passed on over thousands of years of human history) combined with the inherent distaste heterosexuals have for homosexuality are going to be criminalized or branded as bigotry. The actions of Proposition 8 opponents in California (boycotts and protests against Mormon churches, etc.) certainly do not allay these fears.
To some extent, the “ick factor” will always exist. The fear is not so much that other people are doing it, as that those who find it “icky” will be forced to think otherwise, or else.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 6:37 pm
It’s totally about the ick factor for me. I hate fashion, show tunes, and the theatre…
Comment by Frank Sobotka Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 8:35 pm
Toni H. asked: How does being gay “provide general assistance to the community”?
Let’s leave aside the fields of interior design and fashion, and focus on the local.
In many urban neighborhoods, they are the ones with the nicest homes on the block and are generous about dividing perennials and sharing garden tips. Having gay neighbors was actually great for my home’s property value over time (not to mention the quality of our block party chow. I mean, no one else was bringing duck sausage in brioche).
I know of at least one alderman who used to “recruit” gay couples to buy homes on troubled blocks in her ward, to help turn them around.
Comment by Zora Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 9:39 pm
Two guys beat on each other to a pulp in a boxing ring. Cheers! Two guys kiss. Ick. I see.
Comment by David Ormsby Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 9:51 pm
Right on, Zora!! Some of the nicest houses in my neighborhood are owned by lesbians…and there’s the gay couple who both have SmartCars (fantastic gas mileage, less pollution)!
Comment by Lynn S Tuesday, Apr 14, 09 @ 11:17 pm
—–
Let’s leave aside the fields of interior design and fashion, and focus …… party chow. I mean, no one else was bringing duck sausage in brioche).
—–
Not to mention, if you had a some arch-conservative types on the block and a lgbt couple, I’ll guarantee you that the lgbt couple will throw a way better party.
But seriously, while I get it, why does this question even have to be answered? There’s no burden of proof here. It’s a very simple issue of equality.
Comment by dan l Wednesday, Apr 15, 09 @ 7:34 am
People should mind their own business, Period.
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Apr 15, 09 @ 8:52 am
“But seriously, while I get it, why does this question even have to be answered? There’s no burden of proof here.”
Because, dear Dan L, the Ick Factor is operative whether we like it or not. Wish I knew the cure. A GLBT couple on every block? Lamba and LISC should fund that, kill two birds w/ one stone.
Comment by Zora Wednesday, Apr 15, 09 @ 9:28 am