May 272009

I am not a fundamentalist homobigot,’ says author, ‘but gay marriage will ruin society.’

As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone. The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children’s lovers–or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are “mature” or “ready”? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules–rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes? Mediocre lawyers can create a fiction called gay marriage, but their idealism can’t compel gay lovers to find it useful. But talented lawyers will be very efficient at challenging the complicated, incoherent, culturally relative survival from our most primitive social organization we call kinship. The whole set of fundamental, irrational assumptions that make marriage such a burden and such a civilizing force can easily be undone.

Sounds good to me. Bring on teh gays! So where’s the problem, then?

Oh. Right:

There is no doubt that women and children have suffered throughout human history from being over-protected and controlled. The consequences of under-protection and indifference will be immeasurably worse. In a world without kinship, women will lose their hard-earned status as sexual beings with personal autonomy and physical security. Children will lose their status as nonsexual beings.

Women are sexual beings first, personally autonomous second, and physically secure third. This is our hard-earned status, achieved for us by the institution of marriage. Tell me, Mr Reasonable Not-Bigot: where is the institution that places women as personally autonomous beings first and, I might add, only, leaving the sexual nature and physical safety up to the individual decisions of the woman herself? And your view of children is decidedly weird, too: far from being autonomous human individuals, they are mere ‘nonsexual beings’ only, tiny mobile It-objects running around, the protection of whose genitals is a matter for society to enforce through the rigid kinship system marriage imposes.

I particularly enjoy this facet of his disquisition:

But without social disapproval of unmarried sex–what kind of madman would seek marriage?…Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage–much less three, as I have done–were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

That’s right. After stating that ‘Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined,’ he then shows us that, actually, marriage is a nice check, too, on the out-of-control humping men would engage in if there were no sanctions for doing so.

The author’s view of humanity is loathsome. Women are not sex toys, children are not objects, and men are not mindless dick-pistons. Jesus.

This article is the best argument in favour of gay marriage I have ever encountered. I say again, bring on teh gays. They’re a hell of a lot pleasanter than this knob.

  12 Responses to “Idiot arguments: part 1,246,122,798,467”

  1. Most of teh gays I know are even more irrational and highly strung than girlies.

    But this guy sounds like a weapons-grade cock-end, too.

  2. Equal inheritance and property ownership rights for gays = the death of all kinship bonds, and rape frenzy in the streets.

    Where can I get some of what he’s on please?

    • You’re right – I too see that statement produced whenever homophobia rears its head, and yet I’ve never quite understood what the objection is. Viewing insecurity in one’s sexuality as a ‘bomb’ does rather suggest an a priori view that insecurity in one’s sexuality is a bad thing. Which means the ‘bomb’ may not be such an inaccurate strike after all.

      Better by far, perhaps, to say, ‘Yes, I am insecure in my sexuality, and that makes me wary of teh gays. So what?’ At least that way one is being honest. More than likely, it’s worse to come out with, ‘No, I’m perfectly secure in my sexuality; I’m just a small-minded bigot.’

      Not that I’m suggesting you are any such thing. But if there are other, better justifications for homophobia, I’d like to know them, just out of curiosity. And as you can see, I’m not letting the pre-emptive strike close the discussion. 😉

  3. No comments being taken on his article – maybe they are afraid of something.

    What a moron.

    Inside every homophobe is a person insecure in their own sexuality.

  4. “Inside every homophobe is a person insecure in their own sexuality.”

    Moron yourself.

    • No, I don’t think that’s narrow-minded at all. I just wondered if there were some reason for homophobia I hadn’t yet chanced upon.

  5. Bella

    My apologies. I agree with the thrust of your post and the author is indeed a knob. The point I was trying to make, albeit very poorly, was that this “statement” is produced without fail whenever there’s any discussion of homosexuality/homophobia. It is offered as a pre-emptive strike to close any discussion on homosexuality before it has begun.

    I have no idea where that statement came from or whether there’s any research to back it up, I’m just tired of tripping over it, it seems lazy just to drop that bomb and walk off. I’m beginning to think that it exists on the intertubes in a similar way to Godwin’s Law.

    That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. If that makes me a knob, then so be it. I’ll still be reading your blog though.

  6. Bella, by “bomb” in my previous comment I was referring to the use of the “inside every homophobe…” comment. There’s no argument against it and should one try – then that’s game over. You’re labelled then as a homophobe or narrow-minded bigot (or both) regardless of any argument you may offer.

    I don’t think I’m either, but then I’m rather biased about me I suppose.

    What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business, nor is it the business of government or law enforcement – The chap convicted of having sex with a bicycle springs to mind here (I wish it didn’t, but there you go). But in my view, what people do in public is another matter public indecency applies to everyone regardless of ones sexual preferences.

    If this is narrow-mindedness then I’ll consider myself as labelled.

  7. Is there any reason to a phobia, given that they’re usually regarded as irrational?

    Or might you mean “cause” in place of “reason”?

    I’ve done a little reading, via google, this morning and I’m still none the wiser.

  8. The fact that men (albeit gay – are they a separate species?) you know can be ‘even more irrational and highly strung than girlies’ kinda blows a big ol’ hole in that ‘women are more irrational and highly strung than men’ chestnut, what?

    And yes, I think he is a weapons-grade cock-end. I’m not sure quite what sort of publication the Weekly Standard is, but it sounds like something I’d wipe my ass with if it were sufficiently soft and absorbent.

  9. @ Chris – I believe it’s available in unrestricted quantities in the American hinterland, but the side effects are devastating and the withdrawal is a bugger. Better stick to the usual stuff.

  10. @ nbc – Go on, then. What is the motivation for homophobia?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.