Thursday, February 24, 2011

Marriage heresy

I had a long rant rattling around my head all ready to jump out and savage the unwary reader, but I changed my mind.

Instead, in the tradition of Joe Huffman’s One Question I ask my own question:

Why do we allow sterile, divorced, atheistic serial adulterers who happen to be of opposite sex to enter into legally recognized marriage; but prevent people who truly love one another to do the same, if they happen to be of the same sex?

Your answer may not include any reference to religion of any kind – not in a country where the 1st amendment limits the federal government and the 14th binds the state governments to it.


  1. Because laws against gay marriage accomplish their goal of reaffirming whose subculture is in charge, and who gets to tell whom how to live.

    See how easy these questions are to answer when you're honest?

  2. No-one who will distinguish between the two categories will answer that honestly, though...

  3. Because "a marriage" has meant some-thing that has been very similar in all cultures worldwide for nearly all of recorded history and long before that. If you have "Traditional" marriage and something else, the something else isn't "Traditional" marriage no matter how-many times people jump up and down and say it is.

    Do you think it discriminatory that the law gives certain recognition and benefit to married couples that aren't open to gay couples? then change the law. If you don't understand why marriage is marriage and other states aren't, then you are the last person who should change the definition.

    "I don't understand why this software command is what it is, so I will change it to something I understand" Good move!

  4. Any anti-marriage equality advocate who tries to argue that he's defending a traditional, aeons-old form of marriage against an unprecedented change is essentially admitting that he has no grasp of the history of marriage, and very likely no desire to learn.

    I wouldn't say that "you're marrying this man because it's economically and socially beneficial to our families" and "I'm marrying this man because I love him" are "very similar" just because in both cases the spouses have the same damned plumbing.

    If you're going to argue that polygamy, concubinage, arranged marriages, political marriages, marriages to ensure orderly succession, and marriages for love (all of which can come with no divorce, easy divorce, or something in between; and with coverture or with all parties on equal footing) are all "very similar" just because of the fucking plumbing of the spouses, you've basically given up any pretext of having a point beyond "YOU WILL HONOR THE TABOOS OF MY MEDICINE MEN DAMMIT!"


Please keep it civil