Sunday, May 25, 2014

Why laugh at a gay wedding?

Ed O'Neill has the answer.

Unlike a lot of social conservatives, I'm not particularly worked up about the judicial activist forcing of gay marriage in just about every state. While I oppose it - well, insofar as I think gay marriage isn't a reality no matter how many laws are passed - in a way the whole thing is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

See, one thing to keep in mind is that the legalization of gay marriage isn't really the end goal of most LGBT activists, or the "progressives" in general. The end goal is respect. Not the mere gesture of respect in public, or formal signs of respect, but the sincere and deeply held conviction - on behalf of just about anyone - that a gay couple is equivalent in all ways to a traditional heterosexual couple. Gay marriage is, in that way, not even an end goal of LGBT people, but the means to an end - just as civil unions were, just as every forced gesture in every bit of media has been. They don't want laws. They don't even want changes in culture. They don't want mere acceptance. They want that personal capitulation, the conversion of the mind and soul.

And it's not going to happen.

I don't mean it's not going to happen because of the dedicated conviction of social conservatives or the like. I think it's entirely possible they will altogether roll, at least for a while, in the public sphere. But that's back to the public gesturing, the 'what will they say when the cameras are on them and the public is listening' situation. But no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how dangerous it is oppose gay marriage or criticize same-sex sexual behavior, once you get past those public acts of capitulation, you still have the mind behind the mask to deal with. And I really believe that most people - even most "progressives" - will, when the lights are off and they're among friends, frankly admit that two lesbians in tuxedos walking down the church aisle is, like Ed O'Neill says, pretty funny.

"Progressives" will object, of course, since I'm including them in this silent conspiracy. Here, look at these pictures of these two clean-cut men embracing at their wedding! Their love is every bit as genuine and worthy of calling a marriage as... etc, etc. Pardon me if I say that's hard to believe, if only because of the number of people - and I'm including, by the way, gays and lesbians in this - who will insist on this "progressive" orthodoxy in public, but in private admit that, okay, yeah, this is a bit of a farce when you get right down to it. It may be a nice ceremony. There can be some real affection, of course, beyond the sex. But the relationship, such as it is, is undeniably distinct - its own thing - compared to a man and woman committing to a monogamous child-rearing lifelong relationship, end of story, and a million and one laws, gay video game characters and more won't change this.

Eventually, I suspect, this is going to sink into the public consciousness as well. It may take fifty years, it may take a hundred, but sooner or later there's going to be a moment where the world looks back at this period and goes 'What in the world were they thinking?' and the sociologists and historians will try to frame it this way or that. In the meantime, I'm a bit more optimistic about the change of laws. Legal, celebrated gay weddings give cynics something to grin at, a religious sacrament we can honestly feel comfortable blaspheming against.

Let's do it with good cheer and humor, eh?

3 comments:

Syllabus said...

This also gets at something I find inconsistent: proponents of gay marriage are always going on about how cultural acceptance of gay marriage is at an all-time high, and that the majority of people think it should be allowed, yet they choose the single most anti-democratic way, short of a coup d'etat, of bringing about their goal. So either a) the support of gay marriage is not at such a high ebb as they seem to want to portray it as being, and they therefore want to get their way by force if necessary or b) they never really cared about acceptance anyway and just want their will to be done. Either one strikes me as rather at odds with the public face that one often sees them putting on.

Crude said...

I think there's a disconnect in attitude, in part, when it comes to that. If I were to take a shot in the dark I think the attitude among most people is less 'Gay marriage is a human right it is a TRAVESTY that this is being denied to these poor souls who are so deeply in love and.. etc etc' and more 'Oh God, whatever, just let them get married, who gives a shit.' But of course acknowledging that isn't in their interest, so instead we're supposed to believe that 54% or whatever of the country is full-blown rainbow warrior.

Even among people who are very pro-GM, I just don't see that key belief there underneath the rhetoric. I'm slipping into psychoanalysis here, which is always dangerous and which is less argument, more perception, but there you are.

I mean, to compare, remember that in France gay marriage opponents were pulling like... literal million member crowds. The public was still polling in favor of gay marriage I recall, but where were their crowds? Why was the opposing crowd not dwarfed by feet on the ground?

The Deuce said...

Crude:
"Progressives" will object, of course, since I'm including them in this silent conspiracy. Here, look at these pictures of these two clean-cut men embracing at their wedding! Their love is every bit as genuine and worthy of calling a marriage as... etc, etc.
In fact, they are so effusive in their praise that it just screams "trying too hard." They don't look at homosexual relationships and just naturally think of them as being the same as marriage because nobody does. It's something they have to constantly reaffirm as adamantly and enthusiastically as possible, to continually maintain their own illusions as much as anyone else's.


Syllabus:
This also gets at something I find inconsistent: proponents of gay marriage are always going on about how cultural acceptance of gay marriage is at an all-time high, and that the majority of people think it should be allowed, yet they choose the single most anti-democratic way, short of a coup d'etat, of bringing about their goal.
It's because in their heart of hearts, they're making war on reality and they know it. Hence they sense and fear that reality may reassert itself at any moment. Regardless of how much pressure they apply, regardless of what the polls say, they can never be comfortable allowing this matter to go to the public, because common sense is a constant threat that can never be vanquished, and the people may acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes at any time.

They know the people can't be trusted to think of sodomy and the marriage act as the same, because deep down *they themselves* don't think of them as being the same.