IT’S A MATTER OF HOW YOU LOOK AT IT, I GUESS

The gay marriage thing is really burning up the blogosphere these days, so I figure it’s time I weigh in on it a little more. Donald Sensing has said a lot which I agree with on the matter; you can get to his thoughts here.

The gay marriage debate is another skirmish in the culture war, and in case my Christian siblings haven’t noticed, we’ve pretty much lost that war already. If you click on Sensing’s first link, you get a very good argument for his thesis that the rise of gay marriage doesn’t represent a threat to traditional marriages; rather, he contends, it’s an inevitable consequence of how traditional marriage has already broken down. Sensing credits the introduction of the Pill as the turning point in the sexual revolution. He says that the Pill allowed women to act out sexually without the fear that they would wind up having to raise a child alone. This, in turn, made women more willing to engage in sex, and made men less willing to submit to marriage, since sex was more readily available.

All of that somewhat presupposes that the only reason a woman gets married is in order to have a father for her babies, and the only reason a man gets married is to have ready access to sex. I’m not so sure about that, so I’m not entirely willing to say that better birth control is the reason why permarital cohabitation has become the norm in our culture. Birth control technology has only gotten better since the early 1960s, but lots of women in our culture still wind up having to raise children alone. Likewise, I’m sure there are plenty of men who would argue the claim that marriage necessarily leads to more sex. Most of them, however, probably don’t really remember what it’s like to be single.

Still, Sensing is right that we as a society have largely forfeited the right to decide if heterosexual activity between two unmarried people is legitimate or not. That particular genie is out of the bottle, and it isn’t going back in. It is, therefore, largely inevitable that society will eventually lose interest in assessing the moral probity of homosexual activity as well. We no longer see (heterosexual) marriage and reproduction as inherently linked. We recognize that people don’t just marry to “start a family” (i.e., have children) these days; indeed, many couples remain childless by choice or by biology. Yet no one really questions the legitimacy of those marriages.
–> read more

BUT .350 IN BASEBALL GETS YOU THE HALL OF FAME

Today’s weather forecast: Mostly cloudy, high of 32.

Currently: Clear as a freakin’ bell, 35 degrees.

As my farmers in Nebraska said, “The reason they call ‘em ‘weathermen’ is because they don’t know whether it will or whether it won’t.”

ONE GREAT BIG TENT . . . ON THE LEFT

Today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune notes a rising problem at Minnesota’s prestigious St. Olaf College, a Lutheran school. Normally “problem” and “Lutheran school” means a Birkenstock shortage, or the cafeteria served Swedish pancakes on Syttende Mai, but in this case, the problem is a little more serious, if a bit more common. Conservative students are complaining that the campus doesn’t feel like a safe environment for them:

They shook their heads over the antiwar signs on the college president’s lawn. They rolled their eyes at a professor’s long e-mail message to students lambasting President Bush. But the final straw for some conservative students at St. Olaf College came when organizers for this weekend’s Nobel Peace Prize Forum rejected a speaker who wanted to talk about peace through strength.

There’s a lack of diversity at the Northfield, Minn., college, they say. Intellectual diversity.

So the conservative students are staging a shadow forum today to protest what they call the overwhelmingly pacifistic, left-wing tilt of the annual Peace Prize conference. They also want to draw attention to a virus they say infects St. Olaf and other campuses: liberal proselytizing by professors and administrators.

Those familiar with the culture of upper-Midwestern liberal arts colleges are permitted to snicker a bit, as St. Olaf has long been known as one of the most conservative colleges in this part of the country. (More than 10% of the student body belongs to the College Republicans, for example; that’s remarkably high for any liberal-arts college around these parts.) For cryin’ out loud, St. Olaf is all of half a mile from Carleton College, which is essentially Berkeley with snowdrifts.

But the Nobel Peace Prize Forum does bring a little bit of liberal flavor (and, frankly, a lot of cultural diversity) to several argyle-infected colleges in the region. It’s a pretty big deal; I remember it from Augustana College, during the brief period I was a student there in the early 1990s.

The article notes the standard conservative-student complaints–fears of reprisals and indoctrination of impressionable minds–and asserts that St. Olaf has an academic bill of rights designed to enhance freedom of thought.

I would say that the college is making a mistake by not presenting Churchill’s point of view as part of an examination of peace, but that’s got nothing to do with my opinion of Churchill’s political views, and a lot to do with Churchill’s historical significance. However, I do think the conservative students are expecting too much of the Nobel Peace Prize Forum. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that there’s not going to be much admiration of strong militaries at such an event.

Their complaints go further than this one event, I know. Still, I think they’re overreacting. Just do what I did on Peace Forum weekend: Drive home and beg your mom to do your laundry.