More On Polygamy and Gay Marriage

After the previous discussion, there was a bit of clarification. Friend 1 continues:

Marc, since you were baffled by my argument, let me try to clarify. I did not dispute (in that memo) the gay activists' claim for a biological argument. What I meant to say was that a claim for a biological origin of homosexuality fails as an argument for acceptance of the gay agenda. Opponents of gays believe that homosexual behavior is either (1) morally wrong, or (2) emotionally unhealthy. In either case, acceptance of the biological theory for the behavior would not change anyone's mind about the morality or emotional health of homosexuality. The reason for opposition to the gay agenda would remain, even if the opponent agreed with the theory. It is a logical red herring.

Example: If I believe that alcoholism is emotionally unhealthy, I will still believe it even if alcoholism is proved to be genetically controlled.

I reply:

OK, that's clearer....

There is also another level too, where a person could find nothing morally wrong or emotionally unhealthy about homosexuality, yet still oppose the gay agenda, simply because it is a political agenda, that necessarily must vie for time and attention with balanced-budget agenda, troop deployment agenda, etc., and may be led by leaders whom one might not like. I remember once offending a local actress simply because I made that distinction. She thought that anyone opposed to the gay agenda must axiomatically be opposed to gays, but not necessarily.

(I guess I should be using the word 'agendum', not 'agenda', but nevermind....)

Right now, I don't see much of a constituency advocating on behalf of polygamy, so I don't think it's likely to advance by much. If it's an elite phenomenon, the Hollywood types will pick up on it first: if otherwise, you'll see it down the block first.

Doing the musical theater stuff, it's easy to effortlessly blend right into the homosexual milieu. Several months ago, I saw one fellow I hadn't seen in a number of months, and without even thinking, gave him a big smooch right on his lips. Afterwards, I wondered about that, but it was all quite sincere and in the moment.

Yeah, I know, I'm just a tool of the Left Coast gay agenda.....

Another time, in the early 90's, I saw a crew of young, flamboyant gay rowdies, with spiked hair, studded tongues, and outrageous clothing, who had been bussed into Sacramento from San Francisco to make an in-your-face political demonstration in front of the State Capitol, charge onto the K Street Mall in harrassing packs at the same, exact moment a large, somber group of Catholic mourners, many with small children, were leaving the Cathedral onto the K Street Mall, where a funeral service for the local Bishop had just occurred. Talk about a culture clash! Surprised, even panicked traditionalists, shouting excitedly and clutching small children, ran down the streets to escape the activists. A lot of wounded feelings that day. I always wondered whose lame idea that was....

And to clarify further regarding that particular political demonstration, I don't think the demonstrators deliberately planned to harrass the mourners, only that they came to town to offend the sensibilities of the political class, and they happened upon the mourners as targets of opportunity, quite by accident.

Political demonstrations are always risky because they will inevitably offend someone. The calculation that must be made is whether the heightened visibility is worth alienating people who might otherwise be supporters.

The "Act Up" AIDS demonstrators of the 80's were willing to risk great offense, because the danger of lack of public awareness about AIDS was extreme. By the 90's, the calculation was much harder to make. When I have time, I should look more into this particular demonstration, see who organized it, and whether they thought it was a success, or not.