-RSS Feeds
The Boiled Frog Blog
Boil a frog slowly and it fails to appreciate its own peril.
Subscribe to Comments
Comment RSS I Want to Marry my Rottweiler
Opponents to marriage equality are perfectly content to make dishonest arguments. That includes the Manhattan Declaration, an anti-choice, anti-gay statement of "principles" signed by more than 125 right wing Christian literalists. Signers include Robby George, Maggie Gallagher, Frank Schubert, Tony Perkins and James Dobson. There is nothing new in this screed except for the attendant publicity.
Of all the dishonest, offensive and nonsensical arguments in opposition to marriage equality, perhaps the most vile and least genuine is the one formed by the slippery slope that leads to incest and polygamy. The reason that they posit this argument is simple; They don't have a valid argument that supports the idea that same-sex marriage affects anyone other than the same-sex couples who choose to marry. The marriage equality movement seeks recognition of lawful relationships. Incest and polygamy are criminal offenses. To suggest that the recognition of gay marriage could lead to the legitimacy of illegal activity is no more grounded than the potential for recognizing marriages to pets, plants and various household appliances.
We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being "married." It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.
By the way, that smiling creature isn't really mine. But I digress. These fundamentalists have some rather odd ideas about gay people.
We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter.
They don't show respect for me as a human being when they attempt to frame sexual orientation as behavior and "immoral conduct." Furthermore, the rather transparent effort to equate sexual orientation with polygamy insults the collective intelligence. The only reason that a gay person pretends to be straight is because of religious bigotry and oppression. Sexual orientation defines a person's attraction to men, women, both or neither. No amount of prayer is going to change who someone is attracted to. Science trumps a narrow minded interpretation of 2,000 year old scripture that also instructs that the sun revolves around the earth.
"There is no debate that incest is ever acceptable in any circumstances." There was, once upon a time, no debate that homosexuality was ever acceptable in any circumstances. Given cases of infertility, contraception, sterilization, post menopause, and the likely legitimacy of same sex marriage; on what grounds could an incestuous relationship be denied, since the denial was always due to the danger of birthing handicapped persons or persons with gross deformities? Clearly, laws outlawing most incestuous relationships are grounded in the mores and laws of religious bodies even as are the homosexual marriage prohibitions, if we follow the arguments for homosexual marriage. On what grounds could the state stand in opposing the marriage of two brothers, a father and a son, a mother and a daughter, two sisters; two members of the same family who have had hysterectomies and on and on? What grounds, other than religious, which proponents of marriage equality oppose, what grounds might there be to deny two brothers the right to marry each other? Answer, please!
No, they don't want to be forced to go against their "principles" (not that anybody is trying to do that). They just want to be able to continue to force them on everyone else.
Buffy, let me just add a comment to your allegation that "not that anybody is trying to do that." Surely you know that is not true. Of course, when a diiferent idea of what it means to be human in the world is presented for acceptance, it fundamentally seeks to change the principles of others, their ideas about humanity. To advocate the normalization and social approbation of homosexuality as a way to live life, ie in sexual unions, marriage, adoption etc., is to ask those who are not homosexual and those who, though homosexually oriented are opposed to legitimization, is to ask those folks to put aside their beliefs, their principles, not in their personal life, but in their social life. One can not be publically supportive and in affirmation of what one deeply holds to be abberant and in private remain a man or a woman of integrity, of truthfulness to self. Buffy, already in Massachusettes there are programs in the elementary schools which present homosexual behavior as acceptable. These programs were upheld by a Massachusettes court. How is that not "trying to force others to go against their principles?" Indeed, you put the word principles in quotes to show your lack of confidence that indeed they are worthy of the name principles. Buffy, be honest. This is a struggle to change principles, a struggle to change the minds and hearts of those opposed. This struggle is being waged in many ways, most effectively, thus far in the courts, but even in growing public support on the matter. But it ain't over yet. I wish that those who are waging this war would be honest in their thinking, but, as we all know, the first casualty of war is Truth.
Stop with the condescending BS.
We don't care if you accept us. We just want to have the same rights you take for granted, and for people like you to stop harassing us. It's that simple.
You can still hate us with every fiber of your being. You can still teach your children that we are degenerate scum hell-bent on destroying America (even the world). You can think and feel whatever you want about us. Laws giving us rights and protecting us from discrimination don't change that.
Schools are about teaching facts, not religious dogma. If you want to teach your children that the earth is flat, we were created by a magical fairy, some people are better than others, you're going to live forever because you worship a zombie, etc, it's your right to do so. But the school has no obligation to teach that or to refrain from teaching facts like the earth is round, evolution, there are families headed by single parents/mixed couples/same-sex couples, and so on.
I am innundated by religion wherever I go. That doesn't change the fact that I am an atheist. I can think for myself and don't fear hearing or seeing religion will cause me to "turn religious". I don't need to have religion banned because I'm so fragile I can't stand the sight of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other structure on a street corner. I don't have the vapors if I'm told I'm not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion even though I have very serious objections to many religious tenets. I don't demand religion be banned because I don't approve of it.
Get over your belief that because you disapprove of something it must be banned. If everything someone disapproved of/disagreed with were banned nothing would be legal--including your religion, your marriage, your political party, your choice of diet, etc. Again, we don't want your approval. We just want our rights, our freedom and our safety.
Anytime there are ideologies radically opposed one to another, there will be, necessarily, a struggle. That is the state of affairs today regarding the issue of legitimization and inculturation of homosexuality as normative behavior along side heterosexual behavior. There is no denial that homosexuality exists as an orientation and there is no denial that homosexuality is enaged in behavorially. That will not cease anytime soon. But to legitimize such behavior, to mainstream this behavior as an alternative and entirely acceptable way of living in the world, well, that is going to be a struggle and nobody suspects that it won't be. It has been. It will continue to be. Don't suppose that those who oppose the acceptance of homosexual behavior, of homosexual unions, of granting marriage licences to homosexual couples, of allowing the teaching of homosexuality as an alternative normality in the schools K-12; don't suppose that those who oppose will forever baste themselves in apathy. No there will be a tendentious struggle and likely worse to come on the part of both sides. You can not expect that people who see humanity in a particular way will abdicate their deeply held beliefs and acquiesce in the demands of others who put forth their deeply held beliefs. Struggle will ensue, as it must ensue, as it ought to ensue. We ain't seen nothing yet. Personally, I am on the side of those who oppose legitimization. I don't have an answer to all the many brothers and sisters in humanity who bear this orientation toward their own sex. Their numbers are considerable. A resolution must be found. It will be found, perchance, but not without a huge struggle, an historic battle, a world changing conflict concerning what it means to be human in the world.
Let's avoid the same dishonesty Mr. Hart so despises in opponents of marriage equality. Same sex intimacy was in fact illegal in 24 states as recently as 1988. Remember Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)? That's the U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld criminal sodomy laws, often selectively applied to same sex partners. Bowers v. Hardwick wasn't overturned until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, just six years ago, at which time 14 states still had criminal laws on their books.
Mr. Hart conveniently forgot that decriminalization was part and parcel of the long, slow progress toward marriage equality. Opponents of marriage equality remember this part of the process all too well. They recognize that if sodomy laws can be overturned, so can other laws. When they fearfully predict a similar path for incest or polygamy, their concerns are honest and valid.
Instead of dishonest dismissals that deny the truth of our history, opponents who raise these questions deserve respectful, thoughtful responses.
Wait a minute. If they limited the argument to polygamy I might agree with your point. However, Colson (or whomever) is using incest as a paradigm, There is no debate that incest is ever acceptable in any circumstances.
As David wrote, this meme is due to the absence of a meaningful argument to oppose same-sex marriage. There really are no "consequences." In my opinion, the objection to gay marriage is the same as the objection to ENDA and hate crime laws. These things officially sanction homosexuality. Religious conservatives have a very hard time with that.
At the end of the day, though, MA is a huge success for everyone. They still have the lowest divorce rate in the country.
Given today's specialty fertility techniques -- specifically, sperm banks -- it's very possible that two people could meet each other, fall in love, and marry, and THEN discover that they are siblings. Not to mention a straying father who learns to his horror that his acknowledged child is dating his unacknowledged lovechild down the street. Are these situations incest? They're siblings, so it looks pretty clearly like a Yes. In these cases of incest, is there no debate about its acceptability?
Incest has three primary problems.
(1) Genetic problems with offspring, which can be solved by either not having children together or rigorous genetic screening.
(2) Risk of abuse of power and coercion -- one sibling forces another, or a parent forces a child, all out of sight of the protective eyes of the community. If the siblings in the example didn't grow up in the same household, maybe didn't even know each other as children, this problem has no relevance to their situation.
(3) The "ick factor." This problem is the most powerful problem of all, and it can't be explained away by solving the first two problems. But is the "ick factor" by itself valid enough to base laws in it?
Oh, but note. The "ick factor" applies to gay rights too. It's the real issue that keeps the most ardent opponents of marriage equality fighting.
Marriage equality is important; the arguments against it don't hold up. That doesn't give us the right to dismiss the concerns of those who are opposed by ignoring the history of the process. Same sex relationships DID have to accomplish decriminalization as a first step. Same sex relationships DO stir up the "ick factor" in a lot of people. Since laws CAN be changed, how, they want to know, is this any different from other issues that stir up their "ick factor"? Pooh-poohing their questions makes us look dishonest. Preparing thoughtful responses makes us look well-reasoned, considerate, and kind.
"There is no debate that incest is ever acceptable in any circumstances." There was, once upon a time, no debate that homosexuality was ever acceptable in any circumstances. Given cases of infertility, contraception, sterilization, post menopause, and the likely legitimacy of same sex marriage; on what grounds could an incestuous relationship be denied, since the denial was always due to the danger of birthing handicapped persons or persons with gross deformities? Clearly, laws outlawing most incestuous relationships are grounded in the mores and laws of religious bodies even as are the homosexual marriage prohibitions, if we follow the arguments for homosexual marriage. On what grounds could the state stand in opposing the marriage of two brothers, a father and a son, a mother and a daughter, two sisters; two members of the same family who have had hysterectomies and on and on? What grounds, other than religious, which proponents of marriage equality oppose, what grounds might there be to deny two brothers the right to marry each other? Answer, please!
You obviously don't know your history. Same-sex relationships were acceptable, and same-sex marriages were even performed, in many societies around the world historically--including by the ancient church. Work Google and learn something. Read a few books not published by RRRW authors and open your eyes.
Buffy, sorry but history doesn't bear you out. You read some studies, perhaps by John Boswell, but his speculations do not history make. Clearly, anyone familar with the history of mankind knows that the prohibition against legitimizing homosexuality is overwheminly the attitude and public practice of both ancient and modern cultures. No one denies the presence of homosexuality throughout the ages. What is denied is its legal acceptance and social approbaton, obscure anecdotes and speculations notwithstanding.
According to the Declaration:
God created males and females with many different sexual orientations and different sexual identities. That's the part that the fundamentalists never get.
No He didn't. That's the part you made up.
typical christian right wing response...to throw stones from one's glass house
mr. hart references self because his inability to access federally recognized rights affects well himself
who gives two shits about a book of myths you call the holy bible.
it has no place in secular society
it has a place in your life and that's where it should stay just like my book of myths should stay in mine
i'm not trying to make you do anything that i believe from my book and you shouldn't either
however the problem is that you are
don't accept it
don't believe it's moral
glbt community could care less
the issue is you forcing your imaginary friend's "call for humanity" on anyone who knows your friend is IN FACT imaginary which might be ok except it compromises the ability of citizens to care for THEIR family
and if your book of myths emphasized the needs of others, remember that EVERYONE besdies you is others including the same gender couples
do you even know what your own book of myths says or guides its followers to do?
who gives a sh... about a mith called the Bible? It has no place in a secular society? You forget my friend that the basis for human rights, sanctity of life, religious liberties, freedoms come from the Bible. Why is stealing sanctioned? Murder? Why are whites not better than blacks? Or vice versa? Because we are all made in God's image, with the same value and honor. We are all fearfully and wonderfully made. The basis of societies and rights come from the Bible. The foundations of the US were based on these precepts. Remove them from society and we have no basis to determine what is right and what is wrong. Is right and wrong based on public opinion?? Majority?? Tell that to the Jewish people during WWII.
Zeus = myth
Athena = myth
Jesus = Not a myth. Do your research.
I see a long list of references to self. Ironic! Mr. Hart has expressed a great interest in his self interests, but no meaningful knowledge of what God calls humanity to do. It seems Mr. Hart remains self-centered while condemning the teachings of the Holy Bible, which strongly emphasizes the needs of others. Very interesting. . . .
Post new comment