When I marshal all my arguments,
It’s purely a pretense;
There’s no legal obligation
That my arguments make sense;
When I say that it’s unnatural
To speak of same-sex love,
I can also speak of nature as
A thing to rise above—
I can point to evolution,
Saying “Gays can’t reproduce!”
(I’ll admit, as a creationist,
That’s Darwin’s only use)
I can rant and rave that gayness
Is not natural, but choice
While selecting one’s religion
Is protected free-speech voice
If it furthers my agenda
It is right, and good, and strong;
If it means that gays can marry,
It’s immoral, evil, wrong.
It’s a logical dilemma,
And I worry for my fate—
If I cannot ask the government
To reinforce my hate.
If I cannot have the force of law
Behind me as I rant,
I’m forced to use my logic, and…
As you can see… I can’t.
rant, after yon jump:
The good news from California and Washington has brought out the legions of brain-dead anti-gay troglodytes in comment threads across the interwebs (no, I will not link them here. I do not approve of them. They are found easily enough.). Every possible argument against same-sex marriage has been trotted out, and (because none of them hold water) found lacking. Internal consistency is irrelevant–if an act being called “unnatural” scores points, then the notion that “love is what separates humans from other animals” is set aside. Set aside only, though–not abandoned! It’s set aside for when we need it! If someone shows the copious evidence that heterosexual coupling is just one part of a spectrum of behavior, suddenly that sort of behavior is merely animalistic sex, which is far removed from human love, which has nothing to do with nature but is idealistic–a marriage of minds, if you will. Minds that, naturally, must be of male and female form if it is to really actually truly be love. Because….
Because.
Really, “because” is what it comes down to, once you simplify the equation. Both are natural, or unnatural, depending on which definition you care to use. Both are a choice, or not, depending on which definition, again.
Bottom line (for me) is: my neighbors are every bit as much deserving of anything–rights, freedoms, privileges, whatever–as I am. Whether my neighbors are gay or straight, male or female, black, white, brown, red, yellow… It irritates me to treat a spectrum as a dichotomy or any limited selection, frankly. My neighbors, given where we live, are Americans. They have the rights that I have. Period. Gay and straight is an artificial dichotomy imposed on a spectrum. So is male and female, though some members of my department might have problems with that. Skin color is several spectrums superimposed on one another. Call it epigenetics, or culture, or life. Don’t call it black and white, where one is acceptable and the other evil. Artificially dichotomizing any spectrum is an insult to aesthetics.
The world is more beautiful with more variety. I want a beautiful world. Let my neighbors marry.
It’s that simple.
“It irritates me to treat a spectrum as a dichotomy”
– My new favorite quote. And thank you for this whole post.
I live in Massachusetts and even though we have gay marriage in this state we haven’t suffered any biblical plagues.
Well, maybe the Super Bowl counts.
Maybe.
Can someone explain how marriage equality threatens “religious freedom”? I keep hearing this argument more and more. Not just with marriage but with contraceptives and anything else the bozos don’t like.
I had a “debate” with a friend of mine about homosexual marriage a few days ago. He trotted out all the arguments, but his main one was that it was bad for the children of those families. After being smacked with half a dozen research articles, he backpedaled and claimed that the data was flawed and biased. I was pissed, so I called his bluff. And he folded. He pointedly admitted that he has no rational standing whatsoever: his only reason for his beliefs was because his god said so.
Fucking incredible.
California? Washington? You guys are in the spotlight now. Kick some ass, make it good.
Been there, Lorax–I’ve never once seen a same-sex marriage objection that did not boil down to “god said so.”
The good news is, because we’ve seen the same old arguments again and again, and seen them refuted again and again, I’m beginning to see the refutations coming more quickly, vigorously, and numerously than in the past. The arguments are out in the public sphere, so it’s no longer just a few people who (for instance) know about the research articles. It’s like a sort of critical mass has been reached.
Jim, it’s simple–[some, but to be fair, not all] religious beliefs include the requirement of spreading the word, of converting the heathens, etc.–basically, of forcing *my* religious beliefs into every corner of culture. It’s not that my freedom to practice the part of my religion that has to do with marriage is threatened, its the part of my religion that asks me to rule over *your* life that is threatened. And under the first amendment, I have the right to practice my religion, including the part where I have dominion over what goes on in everybody else’s life. If I can’t control you, that’s discrimination against my religious beliefs!
See… simple!
Shorter answer to Jim:
Allowing gays to marry takes away my religious freedom to be a bigot to them.
Besides, it’s squicky.
The background thinking of all of the supposedly “rational” opponents to gay marriage can be seen on Westboro Baptist Church picket signs. The only difference is the WBC is honest about it.
To be fair, I have seen a few that boiled down to “It’s icky!” without resorting to god.
Of course, the extent to which these objections (“I sez it’s icky!” and “God sez it’s icky!”) can be untangled… that’s a different question.
True, Anri, but to those, when I say “so is pineapple on pizza, but I would never make it illegal for someone else to order it”, my personal experience is that they fall back on the “God says…” really quickly.
My favorite argument I’ve seen used by those opposing gay marriage is “We’ll end up just like Sweden.”
If this is true, I say bring it on.
Cuttlefish:
-out of sheer curiosity (me being gay and all means there’s some bias here), are there *any* arguments against same-sex marriage that aren’t religious? The main argument I’ve heard is the ‘destroying the sanctity of marriage’ argument, which anyone with more than a barrel of brain cells will realize is silly when Kim Kardashian can get married on national television and divorce her husband 72 days later. The only other argument I’ve heard is lamer still: the slippery slope. ‘If we allow gays to marry, what’s next? Multiple spouses? Marrying animals? Marrying rocks (for some religions that believe inanimate objects have souls, this probably isn’t far fetched)?; For the first argument, all I have to say is ‘what are the divorce statistics in the US’? For the second, ummm, *I* thought we were discussing consenting adults entering marriage in the United States; not minors, not cats, not pet boulders.
Anri:
-I remember when I came out to my parents, my father’s reaction was along the lines of ‘butt sex is icky’. I was only 20 at the time, so I didn’t have the experience or knowledge to respond to him appropriately. Looking back, I wish I’d have said something about how it’s unfair to define homosexual relationships by one particular sexual act while not doing the same for heterosexual ones and the very act of doing so demeans the desire to find love and build relationships that homosexuals share with heterosexuals. The funny thing is, I rather *get* it. Some people don’t want to engage in anal sex. Fine. Great. Don’t do it. I don’t want to engage in oral sex with women. I find the thought rather icky. But I don’t judge anyone by their sexual practices*, which are, y’know, their business, not mine.
*sometimes I wonder if it’s necessary to add disclaimers like “…sexual practices {within the context of consenting adult relationships}…” Knowing that FtB, for instance, is populated by many people that are smart enough to know that without it being spelled out makes me inclined to not add disclaimers. Sadly, on a not-so-infrequent basis many bloggers have those special individuals that need disclaimers. I’m still not certain the proper way to handle this but I lean towards ‘no disclaimer’ as the vast majority of people coming to FtB understand the context of the posts they’re responding to. As an example, this post is talking about gay marriage, which most rational adults–whether they like it or not–should realize involves individuals of the same sex who are of legal age and consent to a joint relationship. In making a response about sexual practices in this thread, am I wrong in assuming that people should know the topic involves consenting legal adults? If I am wrong, what would be the better approach?
Tony, I appreciate the asterisk, but typically assume, as you do, that it is not necessary. It is just plain sad that it sometimes is, but I try to default towards assuming the best in people rather than the worst. I’ll still follow the evidence, but essentially I’ll grant the burden of proof, and assume that people aren’t complete jerks until they demonstrate that they are beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most of the time, it works out. And most of the complete jerks identify themselves readily. And yeah, I could link to about a half dozen recent FtB posts to bolster that position, but I do not want to distract from your point. Which I thank you for, along with your concern.
Don’t worry–if you provide evidence that you need verbal abuse, you’ll likely get it. For now, though, you are an appreciated wavelength in a beautiful spectrum. Or whatever metaphor you prefer.