September 22, 2005

The Lizard's Tongue Flicks Forth

Hatched by Dafydd

I promised for this week the first of several (I'm tentatively saying five) great secular arguments against same-sex marriage... and I deliver. Here is the innaugural entry of my column The Lizard's Tongue, which wil be available weekly (or biweekly, depending on the press of other engagements) from the Articles page.

You can get there by clicking Articles in the navigation bar above, so you can see the cool drop-down menu for the Lizard's Tongue column; it's in the sidebar on the right. Or if you're impatient, you can just click here to go to the column directly. Please let me know in the comments if this intricate apparatus fails in some spectacular way; if your car explodes, don't blame the Lizard's Tongue!

This first column is titled The Great Civilizer, and it argues that in general, women civilize men, while men encourage women to be more assertive and competitive. Both need the other... and it is in society's extreme interest to promote the union of male and female to create a family that is greater than either sex by itself.

This is also the spot to comment on the article itself, in the comments to this post.

Brad Linaweaver is working on his own columns, which will be monthly; they will likely relate to politics, to movies, and to science fiction... and they, too, will be linkable from the Articles page. I will also announce them as they materialize, and link to them from here.

Ain't technology great? Soon you'll be able to eat, sleep, and breathe Big Lizards twenty-five hours a day!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 22, 2005, at the time of 5:58 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/44

Comments

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

eckshually, i come here everyday hoping for Sachi-land.
Japanese horror movies are one of my absolute, very, very, very favorite things. ;-)

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 8:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: HelenW

That was disappointing, Ddd.

I had hoped that you would be willing to host a high-level discussion about same-gender marriage. I tried to warn you that a pedestrian effort wouldn't fly. You could have saved a lot of time by simply stating the real reasons why you don't like Gays.

Instead, you present this embarrassment--a scattered collection of transparent opinion folded into a circus of fallacies. It's not my place to direct punitive comments at my host, but I was really looking for more.

Seeing the ridiculous things Leftists do and say, we are often forced to look at the ugliness of Bush Hate Dementia as their motivation. This first installment of your series is no less ridiculous. It invites speculation as to why anyone would indulge in such absurdity. But I'm going to work hard to avoid that. So let's get right to cataloguing your errors.

1. Myopic focus. Your analysis of the a single Sacramento Bee editorial would be irrelevant, even if it were a valid analysis. In logical terms, a bad argument does not prove a fallacy. I proves nothing. Similarly, deconstructing your arguments for Marriage Apartheid does not prove it is bad. You made a bad argument, but someone else may do better.

2. Tolerance. While the Bee may have done a poor job demonstrating that America has become more tolerant, I can do better. Much of what my family knows about our first ancestor in America comes from the records of his religious oaths and tests he passed to become a community leader in the 1600's. Now, only Democrats insist on religious tests for public servants.

That is only one example of more tolerance in our society. If you can't see others, you are blind. If you state that we are not becoming more tolerant, you are dishonest.

3. Aging. You are correct when you say that attitudes often change as we get older. People become wiser with experience and generally more conservative. Even so, you cannot name a single instance where a proponent of same-gender marriage has evolved into a proponent of Marriage Apartheid. So who are we supposed to believe--your twisted logic, or our own lying eyes?

4. Marriage, the Great Civilizer. Here you present a grain of truth, but fail to build a pearl of wisdom around it. If marriage is good, then more marriage is better. If marriage helps to civilize some people, why would any rational society chose to deny that benefit to other people? You can not key enough words into your computer to refute the blazing truth of that argument. In fact, many of the valid complaints we hear about Gays would certainly be mitigated if they were allowed to marry. Everyone in America would benefit from the abolition of Marriage Apartheid.

5. Viva la difference! There isn't even enough substance here to call it a straw man. Your gender stereotyping is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cavemen don't drives cars. The traits natural to our gender are ever less relevant to our behavior, because we don't live natural lives in the 21st centurey. Female IT professionals now earn more than their male colleagues.

6.

And women with women amplify all their worst tendencies. This is why lesbian households are so often so poor

This isn't just a misinformed statement. I suggest you meditate on why you chose to write it. My grandmother and her sister lived together for 30 years. Everyone has seen examples of this behavior and finds it commendable. Yet you see cohabiting women amplifying "all their worst tendencies." I see single mothers buying houses together, in order to escape violent marriages and give their children some peace.

How can we take you seriously about this or anything else?

7.

when we were all hunter-gatherers: if a young man didn’t hook up with a local woman, there were always other tribes

You see this as a valid historical fact? Or even a relevant fact? The fact is, you have not presented any knowledge about ancient civilization, or the development of agriculture, or historical mating patterns. And you don't even bother to connect this nothing to the topic at hand.

8.

I don’t believe we have the right to forbid gay relationships

I'm astounded that anyone living outside a theocratic society could not state that with certainty. We know that every society on Earth has a minor homosexual component in their population. Only bigots exploit the fact that homosexuality is not normal, overreaching to say that it is not natural. To deny homosexuals their natural human rights, which surely includes marriage, is nothing less than an abomination.

9.

we have no obligation whatsoever to pretend they are as important to society as traditional marriage

Here is where your Old World Classism starts to show. It's true that the rights of the majority are always most important. Europeans, Africans, and Asians are obliged to live by that truth. However, if you count yourself as an American, you must find an "obligation" to ensure that our people are treated equally under the law. Thank goodness our country has the strength to allow us to uphold the rights of the few. Americans are justly proud of this and collectively repulsed by statements like yours.

You go on to validate my critique with:

10.

For its entire existence, the core of Western civilization ...

How convenient for you to forget one of it's most envied states, Sparta. Which you may not realize was propelled by slavery and indulged in ubiquitous homosexuality. Yup, everyone was a Gay slave-owner.

And how convenient to forget all other elements in the core of Western Civilization--Aristotle's flat Earth as the center of the Universe, Malthusian Economics, Theocracy, Feudalism, perpetual war. For cripe's sake, even the symbolic imagery on our dollar bill mocks your argument. Look at the eye--what it sees in the past and the future. The American Experiment rejects the core of Western Civilization with all it's stupidity and inhumanity, your argument included. Yet you adopt this as the foundation for Marriage Apartheid in America.

11.

society defines “marriage” in the way that is most valuable to society

I'll agree to that, when you agree that society defined certain Americans as 3/5 of a person. We got over slavery, and we will get over Marriage Apartheid. With or without you.

Here you appeal to the myth of instant and unwavering societal wisdom. Unfortunately for you, wisdom is a process, not a place. Americans are wise enough to become more conservative over time. That didn't stop us from reelecting Bill Clinton.

12.

it’s not unreasonable to insist that the “norm” actually be what is normal and traditional.

What a thoughtless statement. In the past, it was normal for cities subjected to natural disasters to be abandoned. In the past, it was normal for the military to conscript citizens. Drumhead trials were normal. In the past, it was normal to communicate by licking a stamp and sending a letter. Will you now use your "reason" to outlaw email?!?

Chesterton more eloquently destroys the rationality of tradition, and your entire entire essay, with these few words:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.

13.

don’t get stuck on ‘stupid!

Yes, that's the best way to conclude a justification of Marriage Apartheid based on tradition.

With regrets, H

The above hissed in response by: HelenW [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 9:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: paul

Your thinking follows mine quite closely. For exactly the same reasons I predicted to my wife, when our inestimable judges gave us gay marriage here in Massachusetts, that the lesbians would get married and the gay guys wouldn't. That's the way it's working out, mostly the women far fewer men.

Marriage Apartheid! woo, that's a mean phrase. Please explain what the vast injustice is. Pardon me for being cynical but it seems to me that it's all about money and nothing else. For a long time there was the campaign to get family health insurance coverage for same sex couples, ie, money. Now we have this campaign for same sex marriage, which carries certain tax and financial advantages, money. Not much to do with love or sex.

The above hissed in response by: paul [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 12:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

The US Constitution (and all 50 State Constitutions, as far as I know) are absolutely SILENT on the subject of homosexual rights--any homosexual rights. In States where there are “homosexual rights,” they’re by statute, and the legislature can take them away. And with respect to marriage, we have to refer specifically to the homosexual "right" to marry, because homosexuals already have the same "right" that everyone else has to marry someone of the opposite sex. So, since there’s no constitutionally-protected right for gays to marry people of the same sex, they have to get that right from their legislature--from statute, or from constitutional amendment. Outside of California, good luck. You’ll need it. All the studies about new family structures, and comparative/changing religious doctrine don't even enter in. Not relevant at all. If the State legislatures (responding to the public) decide they want homosexual marriage, then we'll have it, and not before. That’s assuming the State Supreme Courts don’t weigh in by writing extra-constitutional laws from the bench. That can happen tomorrow, I guess, but not in any honest aboveboard way.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 1:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

RBMN:

Outside of California....

RBMN, please don't sell Californians short; actual voters voted against same-sex marriage by approving Proposition 22 61.4% to 38.6%, which is better than 3 to 2. Only counties in or adjacent to the Bay Area voted against Prop 22.

You have to understand that the legislature here is completely disconnected from reality because of the gerrymander: they cannot be voted out, no matter what they do (I discussed that here).

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 3:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

HelenW:

Ordinarily I don't duke it out in the comments page; but in this case, I did promise a discussion (back on Patterico's), so I'll make somewhat of an exception. But I'm certainly not going to play internet deconstructionism; so don't expect a specific rebuttal to each and every numbered point.

Your central mistake (apart from the tactical mistake of feeling it necessary to resort to invective) is that you think the definition of marriage is a liberty issue.

Liberty can be reduced, in essence, to the freedom to be let alone. For example, your civil-liberty right not to have the cops kick down your door and rummage around looking for something to arrest you for is, of course, "the freedom to be let alone" in your home.

Conservatives disagree with me about whether there is such a thing as the freedom to be let alone in your choice of which adult to sleep with; I support Lawrence v. Texas, while typically constitutional originalists, textualists, and conservatives oppose it.

But marriage has nothing to do with liberty, because nobody "gets" married.

We wrongly think of it that way only because it is so bureaucratized that it seems like registering to vote (which certainly is a right for adult citizens of good standing -- because it was explicitly created so). But the reality is that you do not "get" married; you apply for permission to marry. More exactly, you make a request of the state to give its blessings (there is no better word), in the form of a license, to your relationship.

It is not a right; it's a favor.

It is more akin to an immigrant applying for citizenship than a citizen registering to vote: the immigrant can be denied for any of a large number of reasons, such as refusal to renounce previous citizenship... just as a person can be denied a marriage license for all sorts of reasons -- include the refusal to renounce a previous marriage (by getting a divorce). You can also compare it to getting a license to operate a hair salon: you have to meet certain requirements, decided by the people via their elected representatives, or you will be denied, and that's that.

It's a favor; and it's also a privilege (literally, "private law"), because you get all sorts of legal goodies: the monetary advantages, as Paul notes, but also the right to prevent your spouse from being called as a witness against you in a criminal trial, special privileges with the INS, and so forth. But what it is not and never has been is a civil liberty.

It's instructive on this point to consider Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision striking down laws against miscegenation. The Court decided this case in 1967, not only long after the 13th - 15th Amendments but also three years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. By the time they decided the case, the law was absolutely clear: we as a society, both through the courts and also through Congress (by its Amendment power and its power to enact legislation), had unambiguously rejected discrimination on the basis of race as invidious and unAmerican. (Even the military had integrated the ranks.)

Thus, anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, not because everyone has a right to marry, but because the particular form of discrimination they advanced was racial, which we have thoroughly rejected as a basis for legislation.

Marriage, however, has always been considered an act of social approval; which is why it is restricted in many ways -- the most obvious (besides gender) being number: you cannot be married to more than one person at the same time. We also do not sanction consanguinous marriages or child-brides/grooms (in most states).

Thus, before you can argue that Loving is a precedent for striking down laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, you first have to demonstrate that society has rejected discrimination on the basis of sex with the same breadth and depth, and by enacting laws and amendments, as we had rejected racial discrimination by 1967.

(Note that I say it's a question of gender, not sexual preference; that's because there are no laws against gays marrying, as RBMN noted. The laws you want to eliminate restrict marriage on the basis of gender: you cannot marry a woman, I cannot marry a man.)

You must first show that American society has decided to become gender-blind, believing there is no essential difference between men and women, to the same degree that we have chosen to be color-blind, believing there is no difference between black and white (or any other colors).

Even with race, we fumble about; "affirmative action" is actually racial preference. But even there, those who support racial preferences do not argue that there are inherent differences between black and white; they argue (wrongly, in my opinion) that racial preferences are needed to eliminate lingering racial discrimination.

But this simply isn't the case anent the sexes. There is no consensus. Vast swaths of the American polity, probably a majority, believe that there are essential differences between men and women. Therefore, each question of discrimination on the basis of gender must be dealt with individually, to decide whether it is or is not in the best interest of society.

So we pick and choose... and to date, no state has legally picked and chosen, as a matter of voting, to open up the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, or relationships of three or more people, or brother-sister relationships.

There is no liberty interest; it's a request for approval, not a demand to be allowed to "do" something. And therefore, you need a vote -- which has never forthcome and is unlikely to do so... so long as it's not crammed down the throats of unwilling voters by arrogant elites.

The reason I did not go into this in the column is that it is just that: a column, not a treatise. It has a strict word limit, and it comprises one and only one topic: the separate but equally important contributions of men and women to marriage, the bedrock of Western (and American) civilization. I may go into the above in a subsequent Lizard's Tongue column, but not right away; the column is not restricted to same-sex marriage issues.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 5:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

same-sex marriage

In Prison, they call it rape.

Anyway, when "same-sex marriage" becomes legal, then perhaps we can change the age for having sex with young girls (puberty-aged ones only). Then i may seek to marry some 40-plus Young Girls (puberty-aged ones only, of course). Some like their dogs, so i guess that marrying a dog would be OK also. What about marrying a puberty-aged "Fat Butt" boy? That should be OK also, huh. Personally, even after spending years in Prisons, i do not understand why a Man would be sexually attracted to another male?!? Heck, i never understood why males would have sex with each other in Prison, and will never understand why they would do it in the Free World when the *REAL* 'Thangs are available.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 5:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

HelenW,

Do you have a Daughter of puberty age? Why is it against the law to have sex with such?!? Why is it against the law to marry as many puberty-aged young girls as one Man wishes to marry?!?!?!

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 5:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: HelenW

Karmi writes: HelenW, why is it against the law to have sex with [children]?

You can call me Helen or Helly, at least until another Helen shows up.

Please understand that I have participated in discussions on this topic that exceed 10,000 posts. So I can be very frustrating to chat with. I've seen all these arguments (and better ones) for Marriage Apartheid 10 times over.

First let me say that deposing a debate opponent on the basis of their personal family is reprehensible. Don't do that, because it makes you look like a (fill in the blank). Now then ...

Children have restricted rights in our society, because we choose to protect them like other people of diminished capacity. Children, boys or girls, do not have the authority to permit anyone to use their body for sex, because we feel that they do not have minds capable of making those kinds of decisions in their best interest. The same applies to mentally damaged adults.

Adults may not have sex with children because they are not married to them. Your local law may vary, but at one time our society felt that sexual relations should be restricted to married couples. That condition is most favorable for avoiding abuse.

Prohibitions on polygamy are not universal. In our society, there are concerns about enslavement and the spread of disease. Monogamous marriage is by far the healthiest social condition for humans. So multiple marriage partners were discouraged by religion and then outlawed.

Let me take this point further. The only legitimate reasons for granting our government the right to regulate marriage is for the prevention of abuse and disease. Obviously this promotes a stronger society. Marriage Apartheid works in exactly the opposite way. It promotes the spread of disease.

For anyone who thinks that government should enforce their particular religious mythology, at the cost of increased disease and human suffering, I recommend that they move to a theocracy. It's not the American way.

I hope my response fully addressed your questions, but I don't see the connection to same-gender marriage, which is the topic at hand.

The above hissed in response by: HelenW [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 7:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Clint

Daffyd-

You've missed the entire point. (In fairness, so have quite a number of supporters of same-sex marriage.)

Of course marriage is a good thing for straight men and women to do -- it's an enormous improvement over having deadbeat dads leaving families in the lurch, for example. As a society, we have a strong incentive to encourage men and women (particularly parents, or soon-to-be parents) to make a lifetime commitment and stick to it.

But that has not a single thing to do with whether or not we as a society ought to legally recognize (in some way or another) same-sex relationships.

Some people are gay. That's just a fact.

Given that, what should we as a society ask, expect and encourage gay men to do? (equivalent questions could be asked for lesbian women)

(1) Marry a woman and pretend?
(2) Live monogamously with another man?
(3) Live promiscuously flitting from man to man?
(4) Live celibately?

The extreme left seems to want to answer (3) -- but this has obvious costs.

In recent history, our answer has been (1) -- but this only works by a collective pretense that gay people don't exist (which is no longer tenable). And even then, it has rather high costs, they are just hidden by the pretense that they don't exist.

I think any clear consideration of the alternatives has to lead us to one of two courses (a) establishing something like the Catholic priesthood and encourage gay men to join it and choose (4) -- this is certainly the traditional Western Civ. response during the middle ages or (b) establishing some sort of legal framework to encourage gay men to choose (2).

Call it marriage, call it civil unions, call it domestic partnership. We have a strong societal interest in persuading everyone to pair up and take responsibility for one another.

The above hissed in response by: Clint [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 7:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Lady Helen,

It seems that You wish to avoid my rather simple questions.

Please understand that I have participated in discussions on this topic that exceed 10,000 posts.

Nice...i guess (?!?).

Children have restricted rights in our society, because we choose to protect them like other people of diminished capacity.

Lady Helen...do you know what puberty is? i never mentioned sex or marriage to "Children".

Take Your time...find out what puberty is (this might help - http://www.m-w.com/ ), and then get back to humble me.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 7:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: Clint

Karmi-

You seem to have a great deal of rage on this topic.

Whatever happened to you in prison is not the same thing as being gay.

The above hissed in response by: Clint [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 7:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

KarmiCommunist:

Please cease the personal questions of Helen; they can easily be seen as intimidation and even a possible threat.

If you want to argue this issue, stick to impersonal scientific, philosophical, legal, moral, or religious arguments. Any further attempts to interrogate her on her family situation will be deleted.

Thanks,

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 7:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Clint:

You too, Clint; the implication of your post to KarmiCommunist is obvious. Knock it off.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 7:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Boring...

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 7:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: HelenW

Paul writes: Marriage Apartheid! woo, that's a mean phrase. Please explain what the vast injustice is.

Yes it is. The phrase carries the stench of bigotry that its proponents deserve.

No need to apologize for being cynical. I think it drives discussion. Yes, I feel that Marriage Apartheid is crime against God and man. Of course some people have the idea that God erred when he created homosexuals. For those of us w/o such a superiority complex, how can we construct any ethics that allows us to prevent people from marrying their chosen partner? It's absurd.

The vast injustice: Health. Monogamous marriage is good for everyone. Promiscuity is bad for everyone. Marriage Apartheid is unhealthy for the entire American population because it promotes promiscuity. It is vastly unjust to subject the entire population to increased risk of AIDS, etc. We simply do not need more morbidity and mortality just to appease the bigots.

About the money: When this objection to same-gender marriage comes up, I usually suppress it with 2 words--marriage penalty. For those looking for more punishment, I get mention that financially induced marriage fraud among heterosexuals eclipses the entire homosexual population. The money argument is transparently dishonest.

In fact, for every bogus claim of potential future abuse that Marriage Apartheid proponents put on Gays, there are orders of magnitude more abuse in *existing* heterosexual marriage.

There are two current fashions gay bashers find irresistiable. First they will tell you that the basis for their bashing is "secular." That is because religion is unpopular with their Leftist allies. The other thing you will see is how they reflexively dehumanize Gays. A Gay marriage is just for money or insurance, right? What's love, or security, or companionship, or commitment, or the sense of acceptance got to do with it? They're just animals, right?

Of course you are right about women wanting to get married more than men, regardless of sexuality. No surprise to see this highlighted in Gay Marriage statistics.

Thanks for your interest, Paul.

The above hissed in response by: HelenW [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 8:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Clint

Daffyd-

His argument was that gay men are rapists, and that he knows this because he spent time in jail. Reread his post if you didn't get that.

I'm sorry to have lowered my level of discourse to his (obviously not the sort of discussion anyone would want in their comments section) -- I was offended by his remarks, and responded on that basis.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you have no objection at all to his comment, given your strong reaction to my response.

The above hissed in response by: Clint [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 10:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Clint:

Frankly, I'm surprised that you have no objection at all to his comment, given your strong reaction to my response.

I objected to yours because you directed it personally at him; just as I objected to his when he directed it personally at her.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 23, 2005 12:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: paul

"A Gay marriage is just for money or insurance, right?"
Yup, and some legal goodies.


"What's love, or security, or companionship, or commitment, or the sense of acceptance got to do with it?"
Please explain what any of these have to do with a piece of paper confered by the state.

"They're just animals, right?"

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=20367233&s=143441&i=20380360

The above hissed in response by: paul [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 23, 2005 6:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: HelenW

Paul writes:

Please explain what any of these have to do with a piece of paper confered by the state.

Your question is a non-sequitur. Why would you diminish a marriage to the level of a dog license?

If it's just a 'piece of paper,' then what's the fight about? Why will we see our host claim that broadening the scope of this 'piece of paper' to accommodate same-gender couples will utterly destroy the institution? How will this 'piece of paper' bring down our civilization?

By framing marriage as a mere government document, you are dehumanizing the institution. Let's see how your question looks when it is asked in human terms.

What does love, security, companionship, commitment, and the sense of acceptance got to do with marriage? It is obvious to me that these are fundamental elements of marriage. Do you disagree?

This is the place that proponents of Marriage Apartheid dare not go. They can never account for Gays as humans, with the same frailties, needs, and desires as everyone else.

The more important question that Ddd will never be able to discuss, is what drives him and the theocrats to promote this cruelty. I want to know what forces overwhelmed their charity, fraternity, humanity, and common sense.


The above hissed in response by: HelenW [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 23, 2005 9:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Helen:

I'm really curious: what makes you think I'm a "theocrat?" Or even religious?

Just because you cannot imagine any reason to oppose same-sex marriage apart from religious doctrine doesn't mean there are no such reasons. I am not responsible for lacunae in your imagination.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 23, 2005 11:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: Husker Mike

As a Christian, I am against same-sex marriage beccause God is against it. However, there are 3 secular reasons that I am also against same-sex marriage.

(1) It is discriminatory against me. As a single heterosexual person, I think those who say gay people should have more rights than me are very bigoted.

Married people have more rights than me: Example - my 3 brothers. I think it is fine that we, as a society, say that my 3 brothers should have more rights than me. They have chosen to form a family and have agreed to undertake society's most difficult and important task: Parenthood. They NEED those extra rights.

However, homosexuals now come along and say that they also deserve these same extra rights based soley on what sexual activities they engage in. However, they also say that since I refuse to engage those sexual acts, I deserve not to have these extra civil rights.

(2) If government has no right to disallow same-sex marriage, they have no right to disallow polygamy.

(3) We have become a society where the government has become intimately involved with our lives. When we allow same-sex marriage and polygamy, we are presented with other huge problems. Which spouses are covered by insurance? An opposite-sex spouse? A same-sex spouse? A man's 47 wives and 127 children? What about pensions? Divorce? Social Security? Auto insurance? The list is endless. (Notice how homosexuals say that have a right to marry anyone they want but that an employer doesn't have the right to insure anyone they want -they are hypocrites - like in Animal Farm, they believe some people are more equal than other people).

The above hissed in response by: Husker Mike [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 24, 2005 3:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Husker Mike

"Some people are gay. That's just a fact.",

Diabetes is a fact. I can tell you what chromosomes are involved and what proteins are involved.

Have a sex drive is a fact. I can tell you what chromosomes are involved and what proteins are involved.

I know lots of facts about our body. In each case a chromosome and the protein it makes control that fact.

"Being gay" is NOT a fact. It is a personal preference like favorite color or favorite car. If it was an unchangeable fact, you could tell me what chromosome is involved and what proteins are involved. But, you cannot. Therefore, it is simply your belief - a religion. Government is forbidden from establishing a religion, so government is forbidden from forcing us to accept homosexuality.

If I am wrong and "Being Gay" is, indeed, a fact, please inform us which proteins are involved, their mode of action, and which chromosomes they are on.

Until then, while I don't mind you proselytising, I choose not to believe in this "Being Gay" faith of yours.

The above hissed in response by: Husker Mike [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 24, 2005 3:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: HelenW

Ddd writes:


I'm really curious
I am flattered.



what makes you think I'm a "theocrat?"
Well ... your non-denial denial supports that opinion. You quack like a duck.

But mostly it's the way you support Marriage Apartheid. You made a point of stating that your support was based on secular reasoning, but you have been unable to produce *any* secular reasoning. I was able to reduce your attempt to misstatements and fallacies. You did not defend your essay because it is indefensible.



Or even religious?
I have no information about that, and it really isn't my business. I'm trying to save your writing. It's up to you to save your soul.

In my experience, religious people prefer secular governance. They understand that once religious law is accepted, it can quickly be turned against them. So I don't see the connection you are trying to make between religious observance and bigotry. Even the Persians I've known were more tolerant.



Just because you cannot imagine any reason to oppose same-sex marriage apart from religious doctrine doesn't mean there are no such reasons.
Your statement is another non-sequitur. My imagination is vast.

Gay bashing has plenty of causes that are not imaginary. None of them are pretty. Again referring to my own experience, most advocates for Marriage Apartheid are theocrats. Some people are especially susceptible to peer pressure and flocking behavior. Others have been sexually abused. In some businesses, tolerance of minorities is an obstacle to success. There are parents who worry about homosexuality affecting their childrens' SAT scores. You can snuggle up with the White Supremacists, if that suits you.

I don't expect you to tell me why you hate homosexuals. As the cumulative weight of your illiberality is exposed, maybe it will reach the Action Level, and you will be able to acknowledge it to yourself.


Mike writes:


I know lots of facts about our body.
I appreciate your comments. You are everything we have come to expect from proponents of Marriage Apartheid.

The above hissed in response by: HelenW [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 24, 2005 5:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Clint

Husker-

"If I am wrong and "Being Gay" is, indeed, a fact, please inform us which proteins are involved, their mode of action, and which chromosomes they are on."

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. I didn't say being gay is purely genetic (your test). I said that it's a fact. If someone has lost his leg in a car accident, that's a fact that they (and we) need to accept before we can decide that it's immoral of him not to run laps every morning -- and it's still a fact if it turns out diabetes or frostbite or nerve damage, rather than a car accident, was the cause of his lost leg. Similarly, whether being gay is caused purely by genes, by hormonal imbalances in utero, by brain damage during puberty, or by something completely different -- we do not need to know what causes something to know that it is a fact.

This isn't something you need to be gay to understand. You don't decide who to be attracted to, just as you don't decide what foods to like. Of course, you can (and should) decide not to spend all day eating oreos and cake, however much you like them, and you can (and should) decide not to spend every weekend having sex with someone new.

Behavior is absolutely something we can control -- and something society should judge us on. But a gay man can't wake up one morning and decide to find a nice woman and fall in love with her any more than you could decide to go find a man and fall in love with him.

The evidence of this is the testimony of nearly every gay man alive -- who spent their teen years desperately trying to be straight. To suggest that they chose to be gay is to dismiss all of the available first-hand evidence in favor of mere supposition. To demand a complete theory explaining a fact before you'll accept it as a fact is to turn the entire process of science on its head.

The above hissed in response by: Clint [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 26, 2005 9:18 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved