The Weekly Standard's Absurd Case Against Gay Marriage

[kweerwolf]

The latest Weekly Standard cover story, "HERE COME THE BRIDES: PLURAL MARRIAGE IS WAITING IN THE WINGS," proves something that its author, Stanley Kurtz, most certainly did not intend it to: The conservative case against gay marriage is growing weaker by the day. Opponents of same-sex marriage have traditionally relied on two strategies to drum up support for their cause: the "ick" factor and the slippery-slope argument. But now, even the staunchest of conservatives must admit that America is becoming more tolerant of homosexuality. National Review writer Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, pointed out in 2003 that

public opinion has been moving with stunning rapidity. In the 1970s and '80s, the percentage of Americans who believed gay sex was "always wrong" barely budged. The National Opinion Research Center found that 73 percent held that belief in 1973, and 76 percent did in 1990. By 2000, that number had fallen by 16 points. It fell another 6 in the next two years.

Additionally, a 2004 Los Angeles Times poll showed that 65 percent of Americans say "they can accept gays and lesbians living together." And as tolerance for homosexuality has increased--or, in other words, as the "ick" factor has become less prominent--the prospects for same-sex marriage have brightened considerably. Among 18 to 29 year olds, 71 percent believe same-sex marriage is inevitable. After reading poll numbers like that one, conservatives have found themselves in a bit of a conundrum; and with the "ick" factor heading towards irrelevancy, the slippery-slope argument against gay marriage is all they have left.

Enter Stanley Kurtz and his near-obsession with what he calls "group marriages." For the second time in two years, Kurtz has argued in The Weekly Standard that the only thing stopping the legalization of marriage among more than two people is the right's crusade against marriage between two people of the same sex. Once America begins to tinker with the definition of the family, the logic goes, we won't be able to stop. If we allow two consenting adults to enter into a legally recognized union today, tomorrow we will have to afford the same rights to everyone and his sister, his dog, and his lawnmower. The strategy is obvious. While Americans increasingly accept the notion of same-sex unions, 92 percent disapprove of unions between more than two people. If the right can convince the public that an acceptance of same-sex marriage inherently means the acceptance of polygamy, the chance of same-sex marriage becoming legal will greatly diminish. The problem for the right, of course, is that slippery-slope arguments are among the weakest forms of logic. They rarely leave people convinced. And Kurtz's article is a perfect example of why.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051219&s=anderson122305

(The Weekly Standard's story is located at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0... )

[davidinalameda]

1. I want to marry my computer desk

these people come up with the most inane arguments

[BOSSHOG]

2. Is kurtz floating a baloon for his perverted heterosexual travelers?

Polygamy? Marriage to sister or to dog or to lawnmower? Incest? A strong desire to get out of the closet? All on the radical conservative heterosexual wishlist?

If kurtz and his kind are truly concerned about the sanctity of marriage and the family then I suggest they propose a constitutional amendment banning divorce! Why not kurtz? That would impinge upon the constitutional liberties of you and your kind and we can't have that now can we?

In the 70's and 80's conservatives hated homosexuals because of their alleged hedonistic lifestyles (as if such did not exist among heterosexuals.) Today homosexuals want to get married and conservatives hate them even more. It must really suck for the kurtz' of the world when a rational liberal mind goes to work.

[Todd B]

3. I dunnno..

Senator Man-on-Dog's declaration that gay _marriage_ would lead to more babies being born out of wedlock is pretty insane too - but, you're right, this is pretty darn close!

According to them, since nearly 60% of people, back in the 60's, didn't think they could accept african americans having equal rights as whites, the civil rights movement shouldn't of happened either. Great.