What good comes from denying gays the right to marry?

I've had a running debate with some friends regarding a number of issues. Recently Tom asked a simple question:

Tom asked:

Just curious. Please tell me what good comes from denying gays the right to
marry.

Johnh replied:

Hmmm… I could answer your question with another question: "Please tell me what good comes from pretending to discover non-existent "rights" in the Constitution?" Or more specifically, "Please tell me what good comes from pretending to discover the "right" to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?"

I suppose that such a response would be suitable for a Crossfire-style sound bite but it is actuality rather inadequate because this issue creates problems at several levels.

Judicial Activism. There has been a slow-motion takeover of the political branch of our government by the judicial branch that has been underway for the last 50 years. The essence of judicial activism is judges using their power to usurp elected official's roles—creating law—instead of passively interpreting law. The Massachusetts Supreme Courts decision—which discovered a constitutional right to same-sex marriage that had been undetected for over 200 years—is exhibit A as an example of judicial activism.

I would have no qualms regarding judicial activism if those who favor same-sex marriage were able to persuade the legislatures to pass laws that establishing same-sex marriage. (I would have other qualms, however.) This route would require these advocates to attract political support, build political consensus and perhaps accept compromises just like any other political faction. But, apparently, the political route is too inconvenient for them.

Instead—and as usual with leftists—those seeking to establish same-sex marriage are trying to obtain their desired policy desires through litigation and decisions of judges rather than through the elected representatives of the citizens.

The ideological civil war within the West. In this view, same-sex marriage is just another aspect of the multicultural assault on Western Civilization. (Update: I should have said Classical Liberalism not Western Civilization. My bad) I quoted extensive material describing aspects of multiculturalism earlier in this thread. One of the major aspects of the multicultural assault is " The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. " In this case the tactic is to redefine the word marriage to mean something fundamentally different to what it has meant for the last 5,000+ years.

Inverting the values and norms of the traditions that sustain our society is just another aspect of the left's multicultural assault. The struggle between the left and the conservatives over who controls the definitions of the words and concepts used by our culture occurs as the left seeks to inverted our values and norms

Acceptance of same-sex marriage defines deviancy down. Homosexuality is Both a fact of nature and an abnormality. Statistics show that somewhere between 2% and 5% of the population is gay in any given society, regardless of how tolerant the given society is of homosexual behavior. A reasonable conclusion is that homosexuality is normal in the sense that it is rooted in nature, but that sociality it is abnormal in that the vast majority of people are not and never will be homosexuality inclined. Consequently, homosexuality is a birth defect that should be tolerated but not accepted as a norm.

The last comment, of course, begs the question: So what's wrong with deviancy? Traditionally, social stigmas create a psychological wall or distance between members of a population who rebel against norms and engage in destructive behaviors. In evolutionary terms, this is the same as the herd culling unfit members from itself.

NB: This is a case where mentally or psychologically deficient individuals become less likely to reproduce because they are shunned as opposed to physically deficient individuals who become less likely to reproduce because of physical deficiencies. The ability to recognize and conform to norms is a survival trait for individuals.

With this last thought in mind, consider my statements—made in an earlier part of this thread, describing the utility of morals as survival skills. A culture's survival skills are encoded in its norms and traditions. A culture with dysfunctional norms will is ill adapted for success.
The anthropologist Margaret Mead discovered many small tribes with strange and bizarre cultures during her research. While the existence of these cultures shows how extreme cultures can get I believe that this also shows that the very oddness of these cultures is at least one of the factors that constrained these cultures' success and growth.

Continuing in this vein, defining deviancy down weakens a society by removing the ability to recognize and isolate self-destructive behavior. Defining deviancy down is the cause of the phenomena described by Theodore Dalrymple, whose description I quoted earlier in this thread.

Best regards,
johnh

From al CNN to al Jazeera

This is one of those "sheed-I-knew-it-all-along" stories. Riz Khan, who currently hosts Q&A with Riz Khan on al CNN, is making a jump to--where else--Al Jazeera.

What is taking the CNN staff so long to make the jump to the only network that is more blatantly anti-American than the BBC?

Hi five to LGF