Duncan v. Koppelman debate

[Rick Duncan]

Prof. Newsom asked me some thoughtful questions and I will try to respond to
at least some of them. He asks whether what folks like me want is to control
the lives of others, since all folks like Koppelman want is to adopt a live
and let live attitude.

Actually, I think almost the opposite is true. The gay rights agenda is
largely a regulatory agenda designed to impose Andy's morality--i.e. that
homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally identical--on everyone. Thus,
the Boy Scouts must be punished if they organize around a different
morality, Mrs. Smith must be punished if she attempts to manage her fourplex
around a different theology, and more generally "homophobia" (i.e. the
belief that homosexuality is a moral disorder or a sinful way of life) must
be eradicated from society (or, at the very least, stigmatized and
marginalized).

I do not support the criminalization of sodomy between consenting adults; I
am basically a libertarian who wishes to see the role of government much
(MUCH) smaller than it is. In other words, I believe the law should leave
gays alone and allow them to do whatever they wish in the privacy of their
homes. I also believe the law should practice live and let live when it
comes to the Boy Scouts, Mrs. Smith, etc.

Now about marriage. Civil marriage is a *public* institution in the sense
that the state is recognizing a class of preferred relationships for
encouragement and special benefits. Andy's side of this issue doesn't want
equality with all classes of relationships (brother-sister,
grandmother-grandson, priest-housekeeper). What Andy wants is to have
homosexual "marriages" accepted (along with marriages between one man and
one woman) as a class of preferred relationship entitled to the special
encouragement and benefits and celebration that our society extends to
man-woman marriages. The effect of this is a public declaration that gay
attachments are *good* things, things worthy of support and encouragement. I
do not desire a public declaration that homosexual attachments are evil or
bad; but I will resist to my death a public declaration that they are good
and worthy of public support and encouragement. Public recognition of
homosexual marriage will result in the imposition of Andy's morality on
everyone (e.g it will be taught in the public schools in social science and
family life classes--"What is marriage, Dick?" asked Jane. "Marriage is a
relationship between any two unrelated individuals without regard to
gender," replied Dick. "Sometimes Heather has a mommy and a daddy. Sometimes
she has two mommies. And sometimes she has two daddies. These are all
equally good ways of being a family.")

I believe in live and let live at least as much as Andy does. But when it
comes to codifying a definition of marriage, either his view of marriage
will be imposed on everyone or mine will. Andy believes time and truth are
on his side. I think he is closing his eyes and wishing with all his might.
I think gay marriage is the flavor of the month in Hollywood and academe,
but that the truth about the nature of marriage is stubborn and will
prevail. Stay tuned.  --Rick Duncan


Prof. Rick Duncan (keaggy at excite.com)

"He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad."
Rafael Sabatini (put this one on my tombstone!)




________________________________________________________________
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com