Someone is sure to say that this will lead to this. I mean: this thing has been tried in Rome before. Oh never mind, I already missed it by six months. Man, it’s like there aren’t any bad arguments about this left to make.
by John Holbo on January 15, 2006
Someone is sure to say that this will lead to this. I mean: this thing has been tried in Rome before. Oh never mind, I already missed it by six months. Man, it’s like there aren’t any bad arguments about this left to make.
{ 50 comments }
Brendan 01.15.06 at 11:55 am
Y’see what bothers me about articles like this is that they argue that gay marriage will lead to ‘every’ kind of vice and depravity, orgies, complicated sex, men in dresses you mame it…but they seem to think that this is in some way a bad thing.
Gene O'Grady 01.15.06 at 12:24 pm
I’d rather see the Vatican facing up to its responsibility for the apparent assumption in Italian society that children are just a drag that prevent one from leading any sort of fulfilled life.
And if you’re looking for Roman moralists on the subject (and since when is this part of Tacitus a source for anything other than the vocabulary of insult over one’s dead enemies in the Roman world?) Juvenal has a lot better stuff.
Jim_L 01.15.06 at 1:04 pm
Never mind the slope, what about level ground?
http://billandkent.com/gallery/hate-crimes-iran
Or is this just another of the current Iran regime’s “speculative threats”?
abb1 01.15.06 at 1:33 pm
Marriage in general is a bad idea that leads to pain, disease and all kinds of calamities; assassinations of members of the Senate and nobility being just one example.
freddie 01.15.06 at 2:32 pm
One reason (for me) that blogs will never take the place of print articles is represented in this post. We have no idea what the poster is interested in till we begin to click on the links–sort of opening birthday or Christmas gifts. I am an old guy who likes to know in advance what he will find in a p[ost or article so that my time, though not worth much, is not wasted. As for gay marriage: I worry enough about keeping my marriage a fun-filled thing and care little about what others do for or about their relationships.
Brendan 01.15.06 at 2:47 pm
Jim_l
Could you please kindly explain what the HELL your comment has to do with the post about bad arguments against gay marriage?
Another Damned Medievalist 01.15.06 at 4:49 pm
“…cats and dogs … living together …”
nik 01.15.06 at 5:47 pm
Are there any good arguments against gay marriage, in your opinion? It’s easy to have a go at cranks – do you think there are any non-cranks out there on this?
washerdreyer 01.15.06 at 6:04 pm
Are there any good arguments against gay marriage, in your opinion?
I imagine, though can’t guarantee, that John is at least somewhat favorably inclined towards this argument against gay marriage.
'As you know' Bob 01.15.06 at 10:57 pm
I’ve been around and around this with my conservative friends. They never seem to be able to convey to me the pure horror, or how allowing more people to get married will destroy the institution of marriage.
After much discussion, the opponents of same-sex marriage always seem to be reduced to one of two arguments:
1) gays are icky;
or, alternatively:
2) if men had a legal alternative available, no man would ever want to marry a woman. (Opponents don’t seem to be quite as obsessed with the prospect of lesbian marriage…)
These arguments leave me unpersuaded.
Jim_L 01.16.06 at 1:06 am
Oh, sorry Brendan, I didn’t realize that this thread was limited only to polite homophobia. I’ll try not to offend your sensibilities in the future.
abb1 01.16.06 at 3:08 am
Since we already slipped to Iran here, could someone explain this part of yesterday’s Wolf Blitzer show for me:
What the heck was that? What’s the wolf-fella doing?
bad Jim 01.16.06 at 3:20 am
With the Vatican sitting in the middle of the city, you’d expect Romans to be used to the sight of men in dresses.
Brendan 01.16.06 at 4:35 am
‘Oh, sorry Brendan, I didn’t realize that this thread was limited only to polite homophobia. I’ll try not to offend your sensibilities in the future.’
OK right, now that you have followed up one off-topic incomprehensible post with another perhaps you’d like to explain what BOTH posts have got to do with bad arguments against gay marriage?
Jim_L 01.16.06 at 6:29 am
(Speaking of “off-topic incomprehensible” posts,) I think you’re slipping, Brendan. We can’t consider your outrage genuine, or truly progressive, unless it is expressed in a missive of no less than, say, a dozen paragraphs and a hundred lines in length. (And preferably contains — as Abb1 knows — some homiletic reference to the perfidy of America, the West or Israel.)
g 01.16.06 at 8:22 am
OK, Jim, so you don’t like Brendan (or Crooked Timber, or something).
Be that as it may, *what are you on about?*
Kevin Donoghue 01.16.06 at 8:51 am
Since Jim is too coy to present his argument in a forthright mannner, let me quote Judge Noel Ryan, who wasn’t coy at all. I think they are on the same wavelength. If I’m wrong Jim can say so, or he can go on being coy if he wishes. Giving judgement in 1984 against a schoolteacher who lost her job after she became pregnant by another woman’s husband, the judge remarked: “In other places women are condemned to death for this sort of offence.”
In a thread devoted to bad arguments I think it’s highly relevant. Another version goes: the president is waging a war against Muslimo-nazis and here you are advocating social changes which are deeply repugnant to the brave Christian soldiers who guard you while you sleep.
stostosto 01.16.06 at 9:04 am
I am not very fired up over this issue one way or the other, but I do have a view and I have been wondering about it for some time.
I have always favoured the view that people’s choice of lifestyle is their own business. Thus, the version of the homosexual emancipation/gay agenda that I find eminently appealing is that there can be no basis for intervening in the behaviour of consenting adults.
I see this as the application of a universal principle, the basis for a tolerant society of free people.
Like the “black agenda”, or the “feminist agenda” advocate liberation from the social straitjackets of legal discrimination and common prejudice that constrained the roles available to them in society, the gay agenda does the same for gays. Particular applications of a general principle.
But it seems to me that having been fairly successful in getting (this version of) the gay agenda carried out in practice, insofar as the gay lifestyle has gained wide acceptance in western societies, the gay marriage agenda is very different.
It strangely wants to shoehorn homosexual partnership into a quintessentially heterosexual institution. Why? Because there is no difference between being gay or straight? But I thought the whole point was that there is a difference, and that we as a society and as individuals should tolerate, accept, and respect that difference.
What am I missing?
Jim_L 01.16.06 at 9:23 am
What am on about?
About (dropping the veneer of irony that sometimes seems to be required for commenting on CT) pointing to some truly horrendous examples of contemporary homophobia. Not the polite, pseudo-historicist variety constructed of “slippery slopes” but the real, current, murderous kind that goes conveniently unmentioned (not by John Holbo but) by certain commenters because it upsets the current line.
P.S., Kevin, I am not American, but am gay, atheist and democratic-socialist. My university colleague is an Iranian expatriate communist whose sister was raped in prison so as to “cure” her of “blasphemous [read homosexual] tendencies”.
stostosto 01.16.06 at 9:23 am
I mean, am I the only one who is reminded of this Life of Brian dialogue:
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But… you can’t have babies.
LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.
REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! — Where’s the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What’s the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
jet 01.16.06 at 9:34 am
abb1,
Perhaps you should read about what type of reactor Iran is building. It really isn’t a question on if they are building a reactor for energy or weapons as some reactors produce lots of energy and few weapons and some reactors produce little energy and lots of weapons.
Ray 01.16.06 at 9:35 am
Getting married gives couples certain rights before the law. Gay couples want to have those rights. It’s not complicated, and marriage isn’t very much like pregnancy.
stostosto 01.16.06 at 9:57 am
ray:
First, I am against having the law conferring rights on married couples that they are not already enjoying as individuals. This amounts to discrimination against singles, and I think this ought to be the issue here.
But given this situation, I guess I am all for what we here in this country (Denmark) call “registered partnership” and to equalise any such formally entered partnership between two people before the law whether homosexual or heterosexual. And yes, I am aware that such a condition hasn’t been obtained yet in many countries.
But at least some gay marriage advocates demand the right to be married in a church as opposed to being merely registered at the city hall. What has this got to with the possibility of obtaining legal rights as a couple?
MJ Memphis 01.16.06 at 10:27 am
“But at least some gay marriage advocates demand the right to be married in a church as opposed to being merely registered at the city hall. What has this got to with the possibility of obtaining legal rights as a couple?”
Which is rightly the province of the religion in question to decide, is it not? There are several churches which have made the decision to conduct weddings for gay couples; others don’t. Why is this the business of the government to decide?
stostosto 01.16.06 at 10:44 am
>Why is this the business of the government to decide?
Indeed.
Although in this weird setup of a country, there is no separation between church and state — i.e. it is enshrined in the constitution that the state “supports the Danish people’s church”. Which boasts membership of some 85% of the populace, yours truly included.
This de facto monopoly ensures a totally anemic religious life, but that’s a different story.
MJ Memphis 01.16.06 at 10:48 am
Interesting, I wasn’t aware Denmark still had a state church. I can see where it would be a lot different with a de facto state religion. So is the Danish church tax-supported by all Danes, or only by those who choose to follow it?
stostosto 01.16.06 at 11:13 am
If you’re a member you pay a designated “church tax” which is administered by the state. I am not sure this covers all the expenses though, even though it is not a negligible amount.
And you’re a member if you’re baptised as a baby, hence we’re typically members by default unless we choose to actively disengage as adults.
Ray 01.16.06 at 11:28 am
Well if you’re Danish, and a member of the state church, and you’re gay and want to get married, I could see why you’d want to get married in the Danish state church.
Most countries don’t have that kind of relationship between church and state, and so ‘getting married’ and ‘getting married in the church of your choice’ are different issues.
stostosto 01.16.06 at 1:02 pm
But that is the exact situation we have here now. Gays can be registered partners, they just can’t marry in the church. But some of them want that, too. Because otherwise, it’s like they’re treated, well… differently. Even though, apparently, they are not any different. Except of course they are, and we should all respect that.
stostosto 01.16.06 at 1:06 pm
I should add that there are numerous other recognised churches. We have freedom of religion. They’re just not state-supported (apart from the rather tangible support of being, in actual fact, tax exempt).
I don’t know if any of them marry homosexual couples, though. But I doubt it.
g 01.16.06 at 2:11 pm
Jim_L, thanks for the clarification, and I’m sorry to hear about your colleague’s sister. But I still don’t understand: what is the “current line” that people are supposedly defending by not mentioning such things, and what’s the relevance here? (Yes, I do understand that in many places, including Iran, gay people are treated appallingly badly.)
MJ Memphis 01.16.06 at 2:14 pm
“I don’t know if any of them marry homosexual couples, though. But I doubt it.”
That’s pretty surprising- I thought Europeans in general are more progressive on gay issues than Americans. Is Denmark an exception to the rule? I know I live in a mid-sized Bible belt city, and I know I could find a church here that would do same-sex ceremonies (being hetero myself, I haven’t actively checked around on the matter). My gay uncle managed to find a minister to consecrate his same-sex union in Texas, of all places. Of course, neither place would be able to provide any legal marriage benefits…
Of course, if a gay couple really wanted a church wedding, they could always hop a flight to France or Britain. The Metropolitan Community Church would be more than happy to oblige.
stostosto 01.16.06 at 2:24 pm
I thought so too.
No, we have a reputation of being more progressive than anyone on this issue, mostly based on the fact that we were the first country to introduce registered partnership (1989).
But you have to distinguish between state matters and church matters. You can definitely find individual Danish priests/vicars who would be ready to marry homosexuals. But they’re not allowed to do it inside the state church (actually it’s called “the people’s church”), and as I said, this has a de facto monopoly here in a highly anemic and stale religious atmosphere.
I might add that the lack of religious vigour is one of the things I personally value about this country.
jagdish 01.16.06 at 3:06 pm
In case your ignorance isn’t feigned, G, what Jim’s ‘current line’ is referring to is what he spelled out in #15, the insistence that any discussion of the world’s ills make “homiletic reference to the perfidy of America, the West or Israel”. And be limited to that. It is especially galling to leftwing gay rights activists (like myself) to be told to shut up about boys being hanged in Iran because (in the exact words–to me–of one antiwar organizer) “it subverts our cause”.
abb1 01.16.06 at 3:27 pm
Jagdish, your activism in your own society may actually advance your cause. Your ravings about Iran do nothing for your cause. You’re demonizing the official enemy and helping warmongerers. Is this really so complicated?
abb1 01.16.06 at 3:35 pm
Why are so indifferent to the fate of homosexuals in Uzbekistan, Jagdish? Fight for the cause.
Jim_L 01.16.06 at 4:02 pm
G,
Courtesy of Abb1, here’s the “current line” (on why we shouldn’t mention Iran’s murder of gay boys): You’re… helping warmongerers.
abb1 01.16.06 at 4:17 pm
Warmongers, that is.
Brendan 01.16.06 at 4:50 pm
Well whether you are helping warmongers or not, may I just point out that there is a comment thread about Iran on this very page and the reality based community are still baffled as to why you became so self-consciously angry about the topic on this one, and not, you know, on the thread that was….you know…actually about Iran.
May I also point out that it’s a free country (unlike Iran, or Iraq) and that if you don’t like the topics covered in Crooked Timber….don’t read it.
I don’t like the topics covered in Little Green Footballs, but I realised long ago that I was much happier (and I’m sure Charles Johnson is too) if I didn’t bother posting, or indeed reading it, but instead ignored it and pretended it wasn’t happening.
BGN 01.16.06 at 4:54 pm
Let me get this straight (as it were). Because gay men are being hanged in Iran, one must not make fun of the ravings of New Oxford Review about same-sex marriage in Italy. Indeed, one must treat the New Oxford Review with the utmost respect in such matters, because no matter how poorly-argued, historically ill-informed, and bigoted its contents are, at least it is Not Politically Correct and that’s all that matters since 9-11, far more than whehter a single same-sex marriage is performed in Italy, Or not.
g 01.16.06 at 6:22 pm
Jagdish, I understood that Jim_L was claiming that everything said here (or in some other more or less fuzzily defined domain; it was hard to tell) has to be accompanied by sermonizing about the evils of the US, Israel or “the West”. The trouble is, that’s obviously false, so I was trying to understand what real point (if any) was hiding under the hyperbole. I’m still having trouble working that out.
As far as I’m concerned (and of course I don’t speak for Crooked Timber, or The Left, or any other such abstraction, any more than Brendan and abb1 do) you’re welcome to protest about human rights outrages in Iran, or anywhere else. But I don’t see what’s gained by protesting about them *here*; do you really think any CT regulars are in favour of executing people for homosexuality? What is it that you hope to achieve?
Robin Green 01.16.06 at 7:32 pm
I think the fact that Iran is worse on gay rights than say the United States is so obvious we don’t need reminding. We are not eleven year olds, and we are not (for the most part) ignorant American hicks who don’t know elementary geographical facts such as “Wales is not part of the United States”.
So it’s not that surprising that we aren’t continuously reminded of such facts on CT. Crooked Timber is not an activism site, is not always serious, and it is emphatically not a site where posters are obliged to post about your particular pet issue – however serious that issue may in fact be.
james 01.16.06 at 8:13 pm
Gay marriage is about manditory acceptance. Those advocating for Gay marriage really want to advocate for the institutionalization of homosexuality in US culture as both correct and natural. Since this will not sell in US politics, marriage was chosen instead. Those advocating against Gay marriage really want to advocate against the legality homosexuality. Since this will not sell in US politics, they battle against the gay marriage.
bellatrys 01.16.06 at 11:25 pm
Legal rights allowed to people who are married, in the US at least – inheritance, guardianship, right to visit your spouse in the hospital and make decisions for them if they’re not competent, right to keep the kids if your husband/wife predeceases you – none of which are guaranteed to people who are just shacked up, plus the right to certain tax breaks which means you make more money than people who are just shacked up.
We are accustomed to pasting a big piece of wallpaper over all these little discrepancies, pretending to ourselves that marriage is nothing more than a fancy expensive ceremony and a different form of personal address for something which is in *all other ways* identical to a man and woman just living in the same house having sex together.
But it isn’t “live-in-lovers plus social titles” – and only the fact that we hets are so privileged that we can afford to be blind to it, would allow us to overlook all those real, *material* differences and advantages which the *legal*, *secular*, state of marriage conveys, that are simply *unavailable* to same-sex couples.
And anyone who doesn’t, after considering that list, think it matters – is a) not thinking very hard; b) so rich that they can honestly not worry about taxes or losing the house; c) an emotionless, loveless psycho who wouldn’t care if they were barred from their wife’s or husband’s deathbed; d) a thoroughgoing liar.
Jim_L 01.17.06 at 1:13 am
do you really think any CT regulars are in favour of executing people for homosexuality?
Jesus, what a supercilious twit you turned out to be…
stostosto 01.17.06 at 3:02 am
Oh yeah?
g 01.17.06 at 3:14 am
Thanks for the intelligent discussion, Jim_L.
abb1 01.17.06 at 3:47 am
Hey, Jim_L,
I googled the names from your “Teens Executed in Iran” link. Here’s what I found, from The Times:
AI:
You’re not a proponent of child rape, are you?
abb1 01.17.06 at 4:32 am
To follow up on my off-topic comment in this thread – the CNN apologized:
lemuel pitkin 01.17.06 at 3:07 pm
Jim-L’s point is pretty obvious: Iran is much worse in its treatment of gays than the US or Western Europe, so if you really care about gay rights you must support war with Iran. Since CTers in fact don’t support war with Iran, we must not genuinely care about gay rights — when we raise the subject, it’s just a bad-faith effort to discredit “the West,” etc. Perfectly logical, albeit wrong.
The funny thing is that Eschaton just predicted exactly this maneuver. Score one for Atrios!
Comments on this entry are closed.