(4) If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in. |Secular Right|
Adding: I'd like to know how you get from 'a cognitively-challenged underclass' to laissez-faire capitalism.
Speaking of teh gay marriage: Probably you've already heard about that new poll showing that support for gay marriage has risen dramatically over the last few years. Yglesias suggests that what's going on here is that public opinion is taking its cues from far-sighted politicians who, in deference to demographic realities, have been taking a more pro-equality stance. I disagree, and I'll stand by what I wrote back when Gavin Newsome took matters into his own hands:
Polls consistently show that Americans strongly oppose gay marriage but that there is growing support for civil unions. I'm not sure that I believe those numbers. I think a lot of the civil union supporters see civil unions as a way to advance gay rights without poking the religious right in the eye.
But, as Josh Marshall observed a few days ago, establishing civil unions for gays amounts to official endorsement of the idea that their unions are inferior to heterosexual relationships. It grants rights while taking dignity.
That's a realization he came to because he was confronted with the spectacle of the San Francisco weddings. For the first time he saw married gays and it forced him to rethink his position. Chalk up one vote less for civil unions.
The raw materials are there.
Americans don't believe in discrimination. Opposition to gay marriage can't withstand acquaintance with the real marriages of real gays. |source|