Comments on: Voting dogs

By: Progenital

Progenital — Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:07:08 +0000

Methinks the anal philosopher really needs to get laid.

By: bellatrys

bellatrys — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:12:34 +0000

Bruce, that's exactly what they're arguing. And there are "colonized mind" women as well as fundie preachers of all denominations pushing this (I grew up among RC conservatives myself who taught that the Pill was an abortifacient and all contraception against nature, and the state had failed its duty when it legalized any of it.) And some of these folks get money from oil barons and steel barons and are very close to the WH these days...

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:37:01 +0000

omg lolz nic you were just kidding i thought you were seriously attempting a counter argument by showing a reductio. guess not :(

By: nic

nic — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:47:02 +0000

enthymeme, you bring the definition of “humourless” and “literal-minded” to new levels…

By: Bruce Baugh

Bruce Baugh — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:21:59 +0000

I recently read a bit of speculation that made sense to me. The theocratic approach to marriage is not a union of equals: there’s a superior partner and an inferior one. In the evangelical Protestant version of this, the one I’m most familiar with, the man’s authority over his wife is a symbolic expression of God’s authority over the Church. There is worth in being the subordinate part of such a pairing, but there’s no question of it being equal with the dominant one. Now, there’s always been some conservative derision aimed at couples who specifically aimed for an equality of condition in practical terms. But gay marriage pushes it much father. If there are two men…which one is the wife and therefore subordinate? If there are two women…which one is the husband and therefore superior? It’s a challenge to the whole tangle of symbols, raising the ghastly possibility that perhaps if there is no image of Christ and Church in this marriage here, maybe there isn’t in any other. That seems to me to fit the emotional intensity one sometimes sees applied to the issue, at least.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:48:34 +0000

nic, Let’s follow this theocratic argument against gay marriage to its logical conclusions. Why not start demanding that only virgins are allowed to marry? I don’t see how this follows. And of course, casting secular policy considerations as ‘theocratic’ is probably another manifestation of the pathological need to ascribe bigotry to opponents of same sex marriage. Then, let’s add a requirement to make adultery illegal. Well, adultery is grounds for divorce. But let’s say you criminalize adultery – what would the sanctions be, and how would it be enforced? Even assuming we have the resources to do so, would the costs of surveilling instances of adultery exceed the costs of pecuniary benefits accorded to marriage? If so, then what is the point of criminalizing adultery in the first place? The resources could be better spent achieving the policy end via some other policy instrument. Further, would it discourage reconciliation, which may be better for the child? And if it does, would not such an outlet be better provided for by the civil law, where the parties may choose whether or not to pursue sanctions (in the form of suing for alimony, or getting custody of the child), or to pursue reconciliation? Criminalizing adultery precludes or creates disincentives for the latter, is difficult to enforce, and is likely to be inefficient as a result. So it’s not just about “carrying policy arguments to their logical conclusion” (what you say doesn’t follow anyway) – rather, it’s about whether the law encourages certain policy ends for which the institution is meant. And while we’re at it, let’s require contraception to be banned for married couples . . . And you’d enforce this how? Apart from practicability of enforcement, you forget that the policy end of child rearing may be enhanced by the couple having only the number of children they can afford. It’s not about quantity. How would banning contraception encourage this end? . . . children to be conceived, born and bred within five years of marrying, otherwise the marriage will be declared null . . . And what if the child is better served if the parents decide to put off conception till they are able to afford it? This severely limits the autonomy of couples who do serve that policy end, and creates disincentives to get married, thereby defeating the policy reasons for the institution to begin with. If the requirements are so draconian, why would people want to get married in the first place? How many people would still get married? it’d effectively kill marriage as we know it. Exactly – how do your suggestions achieve that policy end? They don’t, by your own admission. Here the old saw that legislation does not need to be carried to its logical conclusion is pertinent. By contrast, legal precedent set by judicial fiat has to be carried to its logical conclusions, or be thus compelled. In short, none of your suggestions follow from the premise of encouraging the policy aim of marriage – indeed, they create disincentives for that aim, limit the autonomy of those who pursue that aim, and are a waste of resources to boot.

By: John

John — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:07:28 +0000

If all these people worried about the sanctity of marriage put half the effort into preserving the marriages between heterosexual couples, they’d do a lot more to protect the institution of marriage then prohibiting people in love from being a part of it would accomplish. Seriously, to say gay marriage isn’t valid in a country where the divorce rates are showing straight marriage to be pretty invalid is really just funny.

By: nic

nic — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:38:39 +0000

Let’s follow this theocratic argument against gay marriage to its logical conclusions. Why not start demanding that only virgins are allowed to marry? Then, let’s add a requirement to make adultery illegal. And while we’re at it, let’s require contraception to be banned for married couples and children to be conceived, born and bred within five years of marrying, otherwise the marriage will be declared null (exceptions allowed only when infertility is medically ascertained and certified). Proof of paternity would also be required, if the husband and father don’t match, another motive for annulment. Plus, a $10,000 fine for wasting government resources on fake claims. How many people would still get married? it’d effectively kill marriage as we know it. Anyone who cares about marriage should be thankful gays are trying to revive the institution.

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:25:33 +0000

anticorium, Absolutely so, enthymeme. Absolutely so. One might even extend the same argument to same-sex marriage, eventually. Yes, very glib. One wonders why I bothered to write: “Burgess-Jackson addresses this argument and the ‘childless couple objection’ – so read it before you jump the gun.” Perhaps anticipating precisely this kind of response. Who knows. Quite the idiot, this enthymeme.

By: Anticorium

Anticorium — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:56:52 +0000

infertile couples do not have the capacity of participating in an institution the purpose of which is to raise children Absolutely so, enthymeme. Absolutely so. One might even extend the same argument to same-sex marriage, eventually.

By: bellatrys

bellatrys — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:55:01 +0000

No, the real reason is not that homosexuality is icky and our kids might be tempted. That is a decoy, and while it may be the conscious reason for many it is not the reason for the architects of conservativism, the plutocratic Hegemony which has been running what we see today most efficiently since Bill Buckley got togehter with the Booth Luces and Paul Weyrich and put together a disinformation project, which is currently to be seen in Town Hall, Moral Majority, Independent Women’s Forum, Institute For Justice, and any number of supposed independent, grass roots, nonpartisan think tanks. The real reason is that we are being outbred by them. From the point of view of those for whom “us” = “WASPS” or “assimilated” “ethnic Catholics” to use Huntingdon and Buchanan’s terminology, and “them” = brown people here or in other parts of the world. This has been explicitly argued in conservative publications for as long as I have been alive – back in the mid-70s when in addition to the Walker Percy-like fear of a Race War, (why is Zulu one of the NRO’s favorite films?) the “declining birthrate of Europe” was always raised in conjunction with the spectre of Islam immigrants, and the godless homosexuals and selfish feminists who contributed to that declining birthrate. (Overpopulation? No such thing, dear chap, no such thing…) And homosexuals who adopt children are not contributing more warm bodies for the Volk or for assembly-line/cannon fodder (which is why they don’t really want to stop the growth of Third-World nations either: we need millhands in Bangdalesh and enemies to keep the country in a Forever War.)

By: Richard Zach

Richard Zach — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:37:45 +0000

Is the argument is supposed to be that "gay marriage" is a conceptual impossibility (because "marriage" supposedly means "union between two humans of opposite sex" or something like that)? I thought that Adele Mercier had conclusively shown that that's not right, and why, in her affidavit for Halpern v Canada (one of the cases that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Canada).

By: harry

harry — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:10:50 +0000

I think enthymeme is right that there are serious public policy issues at stake concerning gay marriage. The case does need to be argued, and not presumed, and that is one reason to be uneasy about judicial activism on this issue, because it does preempt the kind of serious political debate and winning of hearts and minds that is needed in order for gay marriage—and, more generally, public acceptance of homosexuality as morally on a par with heterosexuality—to become a stable part of the social environment. For this reason I (personally) look very carefully at arguments against gay marriage. But 2 points. 1) despite looking carefully I am stunned by how poor the arguments tend to be. 2) I struggle to find instances of people who oppose gay marriage taking seriously the best arguments in its favour. If someone can point me to exceptions to either point I’d be grateful. There are lots of bad arguments for gay marriage in the public arena, but lots of them are made up by opponents as far as I can see. Sorry if this is off-topic.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:50:21 +0000

So basically it’s priests who require the burocratic procedures from the townhall to be completed before marrying people. Maybe that was it. I remember being surprised by the necessity of some paperwork between the church (sorry, the Church) and the state as he was describing the procedure.

By: John

John — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:20:29 +0000

[i]Sure, if they purport to speak about social phenomena in the US. But that wasn’t my point. My point rather, was that this tendency to dismiss arguments out of hand (not confined to the US Left) may be one reason for the Left’s spectacular failure in trying to unseat the incumbent in the recent elections.[/i] I continue to be amazed that a 3% margin is considered a spectacular failure. I am also stunned at the hypocrisy of expecting the so-called Left to be understanding and, what’s the word, concilatory towards the Right’s point of view, to stop deingrating and mocking it, when the Right seems to be quite willing to deingrate the left as over-intellectual hippies who smoke pot all the time, are obviously immoral, and are probably members of some feminist fascist conspiracy. I hear and have to take enough crap from the Right that I’m not going to suddenly back down from a viewpoint that I think is the correct and moral one; namely that all people are equal regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, that religion should not and was never intended to have a steering hand in our U.S. government, and that morality doesn’t mean beating up somebody else because he or she is different. If that steps on the toes of any number of bigots, even if it’s a majority of bigots, f*ck em, I’m not going to change my mind to something objectionable to me because otherwise I might offend someone, if I did that I’d be a flip-flopper. So press on with the civil unions, press on with reproductive rights, continue to fight for separation of church and state, and don’t listen when they try to tell you that 51/48 is some vast sweeping overwhelming victory. And happy frigging Thanksgiving.