Same Sex Marriage- An Atheist's Analysis

March 2013

Introduction

This article was first written about the Supreme Court overrule of DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, that advanced a broad movement,  Gay Rights or The Gay Agenda, This was voided by the Supreme Court in 2013, succeeded two years later in the Obergefell decision that deemed limits on same sex marriage as unconstitutional.  The thrust of this now expanded essay, is to step back from the fray, to look at the dynamics of achieving this in an explanatory context  that transcends the zeitgeist, which by definition is impossible - well usually so.  Zeitgeist means those truisms of any society that are so ingrained as to be beyond discussion, either consigned to extreme partisanship or to ideologies that have become "verboten."  As an example,  a brief half century ago, distribution of a graphic description of a sex act was a felony, now it is the criticism of such an act that could be a hate crime. 

My analysis is that of "Non Overlapping Magisteria" The late biologist Stephen J. Gould's essay that attempted to separate the warring parties of the culture war, Religion and Science.  His conceptualization is valuable, as it provides the spirit of this essay, looking at how broad, social-value systems may not provide for resolution but only, at best, a truce with a neutral zone of separation. I am presenting the consequences of how this truce can be broken, and the consequences thereof to a society-  be it a country or a civilization.  

 "An Atheist's Analysis" is central to this essay as I will demonstrate, during the long war, those opposed to the ultimate ends of the Gay rights movement were able to define all opposition as emanating from a different magistra

This is written on the eve of oral argument on two cases that will affect the acceptance of same sex marriage in the United States.   The term that describes the issue, unlike others, does have the neutral term "same sex marriage."  Yet this may not be the most meaningful element of what is being decided in the next few months at the Supreme Court.  The more important issue may be this decision's effect on, as it has been affected by, societies view of--and here the terms have been politicized--Homosexual or Gay.

For purposes of this essay use of current popular terms of gay or straight falls short.  These words are laden with values, the speaker's group identity and implications that may or may not reflect reality. Gay as a common term for male and female homosexuality ignores how sexes differ, technically same sex dyadic interaction,  among all species. Yes, we humans are like our primate cousins in this aspect. The biological inequalities of the sexes can not be legislated away by legalizing "marriage equality."

Before I get into the substance of this essay, a word should be said about the depth of this politicization, that while tracking the left- right divide of the U.S. is considerably more than that.  We underestimate the need for affiliation-in all its guises- as the most powerful force in human affairs, as we focus on rationality, legality or implied cost-benefit analyses. History refutes this as the dominant force in human events, as this issue is a classic manifestation of this mass mentality effect.  This is known by many names such as, "bandwagon" or "social contagion" which expresses our need for belonging, and the other side of the same coin, our primal fear of ostracism leading to isolation.

Assuming the preceding paragraph's validity, this essay has an infinitesimally small potential readership, as it would be worse than useless for those who have a strong opinion on this controversy. My goal is to cast an objective light on those communal beliefs that are the glue of this needed affiliation.  And to make it worse, if I am successful, it will demonstrate that those who revile fundamentalist religious groups for their opposition to homosexual marriage, are equally culpable of the same irrationality.  And to add icing to the cake, I will argue that it is the liberals who have become more mean spirited in their advocacy than those on the other side.

While we look for those who have delved into relevant areas of scholarship or professions such as psychologists or psychiatrists for understanding of variations of behavior this is not available on this subject.  The word "political correctness" has been trivialized, meaning that the actual harm to explication of social events done by such soft censorship of views that the words represent has spread to these groups.  I have explored this in depth in the area of memory loss of aging and its redefinition into a disease, along with the reluctance of members of the UCSD faculty to deal with certain issues at a conference I attended.  (links to be provided)

If there's a political mob, my own affiliation group would be called,  "atheists of America."  The softer term for this is "agnostic" or better yet the now archaic word, "freethinker."   I'll use the term "we" for this loose association since there a dozen national groups around this central concept that usually is defined by fighting religion, the dominant one in this country being Christianity, from infringing on government affairs.  There are specific targets that keep all of us busy, such as preventing Christian symbols on public space or the intrusion of God stuff in affairs of state.  My own narrow specialty is returning to the constitutionally mandated  secular Presidential Oath of Office, that is targeted enough to get universal support from all atheist activists.

Several months ago, the umbrella group of all of these national atheist groups selected a new controversial  Executive Director, Edwina Rogers.  What made her choice interesting is her background as a Republican lobbyist, which flew in the face of the general overlap between liberalism and atheism in this country.  This was from an interview where she responded to this question:

Now, the others, which, I think is much, you know it’s easier. On the gender issues, with regard to marriage, if you take religion out, I haven’t, personally, run across anyone who happens to be a nontheist who has some kind of valid argument against ah, homosexuals getting married, for example. But, I’m going to save that, because it might be possible. I just haven’t seen it myself, personally.

This itself is interesting, as she had supported a party in her previous career that was strongly opposed to same sex marriage, yet said she never considered the basis for this support of her erstwhile colleagues to be valid. (This, and the foregoing is not a personal criticism, but an example of a universal dynamic of subordination of individual views to the group's) 

I had several conversations with her by email and phone, and when this came up she seemed eager to find out if I had such an non-religious argument, which I did provide to her.  She certainly could have rejected it, concluded that my presentation does not prevail over other arguments, but she can no longer claim that the elements of my thesis are "invalid."  In fact, when I brought this up to her, her response was that The Secular Coalition, as an umbrella group, follows the wishes of its constituent organizations which unanimously supported same sex marriage.

The current justification of this organization is not as Rogers had stated that there is "no" non religious argument against this change, but something different that is actually antithetical to the atheist ethos.  Atheism is not rejection of religion as such, but is denial of a unified belief that is not based on verifiable reality.  Support for same sex marriage has now adopted the mass influence techniques that characterizes the most oppressive religions,  including the distortion and demonization of the opposition-those outside of the fold.

This was included in an email from the group today in anticipation of the Supreme Court Case: The main motivating factor behind denying this basic human right is religion. that went on to reference this Gallup poll (pp3) that I tracked down with the following results:

ADULTS WHO OPPOSE SAME SEX MARRIAGE; ± 6 PCT PTS
2012 Nov 26-29
Religion/Bible says it is wrong  47%
The remaining six reasons for opposition, with rounding errors, totaling 59% were not based on religion at all.

This illustrates the mechanism of the bandwagon effect where exaggeration builds momentum, the message being if you don't join in the crowd you will be ostracized --with varying degrees of explicitness in the tacit accusation of hateful gay bashing that is "the only reason for having this position."  I have gathered the arguments on individual and cultural issues of homosexuality in other places, and will not attempt to include them in this essay. The hostility of the so called humanists who seem not to have much human compassion for those who don't share their views on this same sex marriage is rather stunning.

This culmination of the gay rights movement is an amazing phenomenon, one that arose from oppression to what is a variation of human behavior that certainly needed to be radically eliminated.  In doing so perhaps it was necessary to use all the tools of mass influence that were available and to simplify the issue into one between good and evil to provide a clear break from those days of shame and oppression of homosexuals-even if it meant damaging the very language that we use to explore and understand our world.  But in doing so, I see great collateral damage to the ongoing enlightenment project.

The study of cultural anthropology and of history is founded on the exploration of causation, and of what was gained by a given action or social custom. This kind of in depth understanding has been the province of higher education that was fought for by those who defied their zeitgeist and often paid a dear price.  It is based on the free expression of knowledge, irrespective of current social movements.

Edwina Rogers' never hearing about any non-theist argument against same sex marriage is understood by the distortion by the very organization that she now has authority over.  When she was a conservative a few years ago she was against gay marriage, but now she is part of a different affiliation group, and as such she oversees the false depiction of those who do not share her new cultural values. As this principle is adopted by both sides, there is only a rare voice that is not affected by these pressure.

While adoption of same sex marriage may be "the arc of history bending towards justice" it is a social dynamic that has no inherent direction.  The same type of mass enthusiasm that is growing for this movement was evident during the run up to our Civil War, but by both those who wanted to end slavery and those who wanted to preserve it.  Mass movements have no conscience, and certainly no idea of justice.

The rational argument against same sex marriage does exist, and it is not a manifestation of animus towards gays. As a matter of fact it can be based on a concern for those with characteristics that have in previous times resulted in the isolation of being different. This is a complex argument that can only be made to those with an open mind who are not benighted by a movement based on certainty of ones own belief with protective anger against those who challenge it.  In this respect, the mindset of fundamentalist religions is shared by the "marriage equality movement,  that this atheist most certainly and vocally opposes.
------------------------

AlRodbell.com for more on this and other subjects.

A comedic riff that gets to the deeper unexamined issue of same sex marriage.

Notes:  subjects to be included

George Weinberg Psychologist on political use of the word "phobia"
Robert Spitizer psychiatrist -  Homosexual can on occasion be reversed - and his apology
Include "Marriage Equality Among Primates
Article on Law firms shying away from SS marriage case in N.Y. Times