Comments on: Andrew Sullivan gets Prudenized

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:22:38 +0000

Nat, What I mean is that, if not for widespread anti-gay bigotry, people wouldn’t see same-sex marriage as a BIG DEAL. And if people didn’t see same-sex marriage as a BIG DEAL, then no one would oppose it. Since people see same-sex marriage as a BIG DEAL, there are some people who aren’t anti-gay bigots who oppose it—because it’ll be a radical change in the notion of marriage or whatever; but I think that’s unfortunate. (And Peter, I haven’t seen any good arguments against it that don’t rest on a more or less unargued sense that it’s a BIG DEAL; so in that way I agree with Sullivan.) As has been pointed out on this blog before, divorce (and contraception) involve much greater changes in the concept of marriage than same-sex marriage does. And the Rev. Moon certainly does more to make a mockery of marriage than Gavin Newsom. Anyway, I’m glad that you’ve come to recognize the importance of conversational context; I refer you to our previous argument, so you can re-evaluate the statements under dispute in light of the questions to which they were responses.

By: Peter Cuthbertson

Peter Cuthbertson — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:17:55 +0000

Sullivan has linked to op-eds from his blog with the words “Confronting bigots” – the op-eds in question dealing specifically with a Georgia measure to define marriage clearly in law as the union of a man and a woman. To those who criticise him for being so closed-minded as to think only bigotry could provoke disagreement with him, Sullivan has sneered “Am I allowed to call those who wanted a constitutional ban on inter-racial marriages bigots? Or were they just concerned about the ‘sanctity’ of civil marriage?” Of his argument for same-sex ‘marriage’ he has even said: “I think most reasonable people, if they take the time, will find the case impossible to refute.”

By: mon

mon — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:12:10 +0000

Oops, I meant, “married”.

By: mon

mon — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:11:02 +0000

I think Nat and Al should get married.

By: Al

Al — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:15:30 +0000

Sullivan puits up with that shit because queers are pussies. That’s why. The discussion was getting involuted.

By: JBJ

JBJ — Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:41:14 +0000

In Virtually Normal, Sullivan argues that it’s possible to oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot. (Which is not to say that such a position is easy to pull off . . . only that it’s possible.) Perhaps rather than seeking answers only on The Corner or in the blogosphere, it might help consult Sullivan’s fullest presentation on this topic?

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:40:00 +0000

Brian Weatherson wrote: “Sometimes silence doesn’t imply consent, or dissent, it just implies we couldn’t be bothered talking about just whatever it is someone wants us to talk about.” True. Do you think that Andrew Sullivan can’t be bothered with talking about bigotry and opposition to gay marriage?

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:33:20 +0000

Matt Weiner wrote: “Well, not saying that it is not the case that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot is not the same as saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, I’d say.” Well, yes, but not saying that it is not the case that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot is also not the same as repeatedly refusing to answer the question of whether everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Forgetting to tell your wife today that you love her is, at most, a minor cause for concern. Responding to your wife’s question “Do you love me?” with stony silence is probably another matter. “it’s not automatically bigoted to oppose same-sex marriage, but no one would oppose it if not for widespread anti-gay bigotry.” Is this one of those limited “no one”s I’ve heard so much about recently?

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:22:05 +0000

I absolutely hate these “X hasn’t said Y, so let’s conclude something bad about X” arguments that seem to turn up everywhere in blogistan these days. I’m normally perfectly happy to conclude mean things about Andrew Sullivan, but I won’t stoop to using that argument form even against him. From the fact that he hasn’t answered your particular question, we can’t conclude a single thing about what he thinks the answer is. On the other hand, these argument forms are amusing I guess. Looking through the CT archives, I’ve never said that the moon is not made of orange cheese. From that I think it’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion that I do think the moon is made of orange cheese. I never knew I believed that, but there you go. Sometimes silence doesn’t imply consent, or dissent, it just implies we couldn’t be bothered talking about just whatever it is someone wants us to talk about.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:13:28 +0000

Well, not saying that it is not the case that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot is not the same as saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, I’d say. I’ll grant you that Sullivan may have implicated it, if you grant me similar rights to implicatures. (I’m treating this as a philosophical discussion about the semantics of Brian’s utterance, BTW. As far as the real discussion goes, I think Ted is clearly in the right—these guys are bigots.) I’ll go further—it’s not automatically bigoted to oppose same-sex marriage, but no one would oppose it if not for widespread anti-gay bigotry.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:41:18 +0000

Is there a question whether Moon’s mass marriages meet the standard definition of marriage? My dictionary (which was admittedly published in the unenlightened year of 1992) says that a marriage is “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.” Those mass marriages seem to fit this definiton, as did, I suppose, the marriage of Moon’s crazily abusive son to Moon’s daughter-in-law.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:34:39 +0000

Brian Weatherson wrote: “Well, I meant Ted and Roger, who were the only salient people.” I’d think the person whose name appears in the title of this thread would be salient. On Feburary 25, 2004, Michael Graham (of, er, National Review Online) said: “I’ve asked Andrew Sullivan several times if it is possible to oppose same-sex marriage and NOT be a bigot. I’ve never gotten an answer and I’ve never seen one posted at his site—though it is certainly possible I missed one.” I’ve searched the archives of both Andrew Sullivan’s blog and NRO’s The Corner for the week in which Michael said this and the week after and can’t find an answer from Andrew to Michael’s question.

By: freddie

freddie — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:30:35 +0000

Moon’s money keeps that rag afloat. If he and his minions want to define what is and is not marriage ask him (his holy eminence) what massw mariages represent or why his daughter-in-law had to seek a safe house when chased by her crazed hubby, Moon’s son, the abuser.(for which,k see her book)

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:16:44 +0000

Nat, assuming you’re interested in argument, your new trouvaille will become pertinent if you now change Brian’s quote to read “no-one has ever said…”. “No-one said you don’t have to brush your teeth” does not mean “No-one in history has ever said you don’t have to brush your teeth.” That kind of statement would be hard to be sure of. As for Sullivan, I’d say this course of action is linked to his “ethics.”

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:08:17 +0000

Well, I meant Ted and Roger, who were the only salient people. I bet someone somewhere in the world sometime has. I bet somewhere in the world someone sometime has said that everyone who supports gay marriage is bigoted too. No view so absurd that someone hasn’t supported it sometime. (Except for the view that everything in the world is made of fingernails. No one ever has endorsed that. All the other views have been endorsed though.)