.<\/p>\n
Frequently, opponents of gay marriage are accused of trying to impose their religious outlook on society at large. Fundamentally, the dispute over acceptance of gay marriage is a religious dispute. But the religious stances fundamental in the dispute are not the Judaic, Christian and Islamic religions vs. secularism. The religious dispute is between different visions of the civic religions for Western societies.<\/p>\n
In my judgment coming out to endorse \u201cgay marriage\u201d is something like being
\nconverted to a religious doctrine and practicing a ritual to declare the belief. Declaration
\nof acceptance is like an offering of incense to a god of the Durkheimian religion of
\nWestern societies. (See Mary Douglas\u2019 Purity and Danger (1) for an account of how a
\nsociety\u2019s civil religion makes sacred the basic structure of the society.) Anecdotal
\nevidence indicates that switching to support of gay marriage is similar to having a
\nconversion experience. My interpretation is that heterosexuals who come out for gay
\nmarriage are switching to a progressive stance on sexuality. A progressive stance
\nchanges significant boundaries between males and females. Endorsing gay marriage
\nsacralizes this new social structure.<\/p>\n
In the Durkheimian sense of religion, a new religious outlook is emerging. This
\nnew religious outlook does not fit well with religions of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
\nWe can be told that nothing much will change if there are same sex marriages. So, why
\nnot accept them? Indeed, offering incense to the emperor did little or nothing except
\ncorrupt early Christians who succumbed to threats. Fidelity and honesty requires holders
\nof traditional sexual morality to speak against and to vote against same sex marriage if they
\nhave an opportunity to do so. <\/p>\n
If same sex marriage is not made a public issue, it is best to
\nkeep silence and hope the silliness passes away. I suggest regarding gay weddings as
\noutrageous \u201ccamp.\u201d The seriousness with which some heterosexuals discuss homosexual
\nmarriage is comic. They include the president of the United States whom I otherwise
\ntake seriously. Why classify gay-weddings as comic or \u201cgay theater?\u201d<\/p>\n
To gain some understanding of camp in the gay life style, see David Hailperin\u2019s
\nHow To Be Gay.(2) Participating in camp is a way of compensating for a homosexual\u2019s
\nsense of being marginalized. Dramatic mockery of structures, practices and institutions
\ntaken seriously in the larger society helps in some way to expose the boundaries of
\nstructures marginalizing homosexuals as ultimately not serious. Basically it is all role-playing
\nin a tragic comedy.<\/p>\n
1. Routledge and Kegan Paul London, 1966
\n2. Belknap\/Harvard U. Press, Cambridge MA, 2012. Reviewed by Edmund White, New
\nYork Review of Books , Oct. 25, 2012<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
. Frequently, opponents of gay marriage are accused of trying to impose their religious outlook on society at large. Fundamentally, the dispute over acceptance of gay marriage is a religious dispute. But the religious stances fundamental in the dispute are not the Judaic, Christian and Islamic religions vs. secularism. The religious dispute is between different … Continue reading Religious motivation behind gay marriage movement<\/span>