Jonathan Rauch has written a characteristically generous, thoughtful, and engaging review of David Blankenhorn's recent book arguing against gay marriage, The Future of Marriage. Rauch writes:
[Blankenhorn] wants to lift the gay-marriage debate from its isolation in the mud-pit of the partisan culture wars and place it within a larger theory of marriage. He also wants to put an end to the days when gay-marriage advocates can say that there is no serious case against gay marriage. In both respects, he succeeds.
Nevertheless,
Blankenhorn has painted himself into a corner, one where the American public will never join him. If, as he insists, we cannot sustainably mix and match values and policies–combine adult individualism with devoted parenthood, for example, or conjoin same-sex marriage with measures to reduce divorce–then we must choose whether to move in the direction of the Netherlands or Saudi Arabia. I have no doubt which way the public would go. And should.
In fact, however, the public will reject the choice Blankenhorn offers as a false one; and, again, the public will be right. . . . People in countries recognizing same-sex unions are more accepting of co-habitation and single parenthood than Blankenhorn and I would prefer; but their project is not to reject marriage, except perhaps on Blankenhorn’s reductionist account of it, but to blend and balance it with other values of liberal individualism.
States are experimenting with reforms to strengthen marriage and reduce unnecessary divorce, and the proportion of African-American children living in two-parent, married-couple homes has stabilized or increased. Those modest but heartening improvements come at precisely the time when gay Americans in the millions–the ordinary folks, not the academicians–have discovered and embraced marriage and family after years of alienation from both.
. . . From his new book, I’ve learned that the public’s view of both marriage and society is nonetheless richer, wiser, and more humane than David Blankenhorn’s–and possibly, for that matter, than my own. Which gives me hope that, whatever the experts say the real purpose of marriage is or is not, the public can ultimately get it right.
For my critique of Blankenhorn's argument, see here.
(just wondering... you may resume your persuading....)
I've had my mind changed on several subjects through discussions on this site. More usually, though, the arguments are useful in educating me as to the various bases for competing opinions, and that's useful in its own right.
And Colin is right that VC in particular is helpful at examining opposing views. I oftentimes feel I learn from opposing views, even if I still disagree with them.
By the way Henri, I have not seen you post on Eugene's question regarding names--and I was curious about your perspective of "Henri" versus "Henry."
In any event, we can now return to our regularly scheduled programming and Dale's thoughtul post.
As to the question Henri raises, I guess (not based on a study) the following:
(1) Persuasion can work if people aren't deeply committed to one view already (but see Daniel Chapman's point about who reads the blog);
(2) If your mind is made up, you migh not be persuaded, but you might learn some facts you didn't know (that support one side or the other), or some arguments you hadn't thought of -- that might make you think, "well, I'm not convinced, but the other side isn't as completely off the wall as I once thought." Maybe.
The only thing that will be interesting to see how long it will be before the homosexually-obsessed troll [DC: deleted name] appears here.
DC: This sort of comment is not acceptable. It’s one thing to disagree strongly with someone. It’s another thing entirely to post a comment that does nothing more than call someone a name. Please keep in mind the civility standard for this blog and in particular this post on keeping things civil in discussions of gay marriage. There are plenty of places on the Internet to personally insult people. This is not one of them.
The best we can do with persuasion is to provide another way of looking at the limited set of facts, or demonstrate that what one considers a fact is really not a fact. Even the firmly committed can be infected with another way of looking a question which, over time, may change their attitudes.
We can observe that attitudes do indeed change, so there is some mechanism at work.
Speaking of persuasion, and its effects. It is most timely for Rauch to express his faith in the people. I'm very happy that people like Rauch are out there trying to position same-sex marriage in a way it still tries to recognize and respect what marriage is. As I believe Rauch and Carpenter both seem to agree, if they really thought it would hurt marriage, they'd stop arguing for same-sex marriage.
And it is good to see Rauch and Carpenter who both, on this week that a marriage amendment is slated to be voted on in Massachusetts, wish to see a more democratic and representative process enact their social proposals. Their belief in the people, I hope, has a great persuasive effect to help that state vote on the proposed amendment. That people will not take after the Iranian and Saudi Arabia way of doing things, with a robed council interpreting a piece of parchment for the people to follow. The concept of our own free will in establishing government is a struggle Massachusetts originally fought for. I have faith that Rauch and Carpenter are doing what they can to let the people decide the government.
I have faith that the readers who appreciate Rauch and Carpenter will also join in their call for faith in the people.
Money quotes in describing each position
Jon Raunch(note though Blankenhorn also recognizes other good benefits and main effects marriage creates, but creating biological children is its "purpose" and detaching marriage from its purpose risks losing marriage as an institution which creates a whole lot of problems.)
Rauch has a lot of arguments that will resonate with many conservatives of non religious origin of the younger generation (younger than 30). Blankenhorn has a lot of arguments that will resonate with the older conservative generation (over 55). Both have arguments that will resonate with the in between generation (though Blankenhorn probably has a lot more of these conservatives, though Rauch occasionally resonates with them.)
It isn't though a question of age whether you will favor gay marriage or not, but instead the type of society you grew up in. For example, to illustrate my point about culture lets talk about an iconic person in the discussion of Morality, Jerry Falwell. Jerry Falwell in the early 80s, harped on 3 major issues, Abortion, Pornography, and the Traditional Nuclear Family (issue number 4 would be defense/israel). The current religious right though now harps on Abortion, and Gay Rights/Marriage. We also are seeing a growing Religious Left who focuses on other issues besides Abortion and Marriage (Gay and the lack of Straight Marriage).
While now a days we still see the amount of single parents raising kids as a very bad thing (preferring two parents house holds and married two parent house holds), it has lost the effect of panic and feeling it may destroy society, and destroy it soon. (notice the word "destroy" not just make "worse"/make more "miserable") This type of culture shapes Blankenhorn beliefs (no I ain't saying he has identical beliefs as Falwell, I am saying though he was raised in a similar culture).
Compare this to how people under 30 view gay people, they now see it (as george will describes it) as no different than being left handed. Couple this with the increasing number (as a percent) of gay couples raising children, and you can easily how Jon Rauch's fear of not including gay marriage may be real (according to his beliefs).
Sometimes, I don't have a strong opinion on something, but when challenged, I will fight for one position or another. That I view is sort of an emotional response. If someone, for instance, says atheists are immoral, I will defend the atheists ferociously, much more so than I really believe. This blog has that strange effect.
However, the best is that by arguing with people, it has really honed my own arguments. I know which ones will fail, and I know the weaknesses of the other side. I know what arguments of my own are weak, or appear weak, to the other side. I've been caught wrong on certain facts, even. All this helps me argue in the real world. I can anticipate many of the arguments made on a particular issue. And sometimes I even steal some else's snappy comeback.
Well, I would say left handed people who can sing a good showtune or two.
If your sexual orientation is as innate as you being right or left handed, and we discriminate against people, it has the possibility of creating a taste of bile in peoples mouths (though a limited possibility). What though is even scarier from a a conservative position on marriage, is that people stop seeing the point of marriage. If gays can make it and be happy, why can't we do so? This logic also extends to domestic partnerships/civil unions/and marriage lite solutions. If such things are extended to straight people and gay people less people will see the importance of marriage. Civil unions may be actually more of a threat to marriage than gay marriage.
This was in 1994. And people wonder why the military can't shoot straight. simply unbelievable.
Here is a copy of the program hitting the news in Jan 2005, I bet if you do a lexis you may find a previous news story about the idiotic program BBC News Link
RandyR: this is off topic but in the previous thread on the surgeon general, now closed, you cited me as saying that the STD rate was high primarily among gay men. I think you may have confused my comments with someone else as I never said that. The only reason I would like the record corrected is that I am an epidemiologist and am fully aware that there is an STD explosion, especially chlamydia, among the heterosexual population.
I'm very confused about it.
Additionally each blogger has always had control over comments in their own thread, they can delete them, edit them, prevent all comments, hide/delete all comments, or close the comment period down early. Dale is now doing 1-2 days before he closes the comments periods on SSM/Gay posts, though there has been an exception or two where he hasn't done this for the thread was minor and didn't get many responses.
I think its a good policy with Gay/SSm posts, for after 2 days or 100+ comments nothing new is said, and often people are just bloviating, rambling, or beating a dead bush at that point. If more needs to be said after 100 comments a new thread in my opinion needs to be started to keep the discussion on track and focused. A new thread also makes it easier for readers to read and participate.