Sherif Girgis and Alex Worsnip are having an online debate about same-sex marriage, beginning here with Worsnip’s less-than-glowing review of Girgis’ book What Is Marriage?
Girgis responded here, and Worsnip has responded in turn, and at length, here.
In my view this same-sex marriage debate – concentrated as it is on rather rarefied philosophical concepts like if there could be said to be an invariable “essence” to marriage – is both fascinating and besides the point. Fascinating because both Girgis and Worsnip are smart people who have been trained to argue well (although I think Worsnip has the better argument), and irrelevant because the crucial arguments about same-sex marriage, for the overwhelming majority of voters, are “God is against gay marriage” versus “lesbian and gay couples should have equal rights.”
I’m reminded of the photos of the Northwestern College students opposing SSM.
Out of 8 photos, we’ve got 4 clearly opposed for religious reasons, one opposed for a nonreligious reason (specifically, something like “I’m opposed to Same Sex marriage because I have a girlfriend”), and three that may or may not be religious ( “Taking a stand for what is right,” “Our future depends on it,” and “We are a tiger and a giraffe who are inexplicably friends, and we don’t have to explain a fucking thing to you.”)
It seems to pretty much represent the split I’ve encountered in real-world discussions of SSM:
!) About half of those opposed are opposed for religious reasons.
2) More are opposed for religious reasons but try to hide it behind weird, euphemistic language about our future and what is ‘right.’
3) Some (like the kid with the girlfriend) are just jerks.
4) There are a few who, like the giraffe and tiger, seem to think they’ve got some kind of argument from necessary difference, but it’s generally too complicated and implausible to convince anyone not already on their side.
Oppose Same Sex Marriage!
Because Giraffes and Tigers are Friends!
—Myca
Oh my god, the religious reasons for opposing same sex marriage actually comes out as more rational than the non-religious ones. I guess that in itself is an argument for SSM; there are no non-religious reasons more rational than the religious ones.
Some (like the kid with the girlfriend) are just jerks.
Well Duh. He’s male! Of course, if the genders were reversed, Myca would see #3 as “I will vote yes because my jerk of a boyfriend pressured me into it”
Oh my god, the religious reasons for opposing same sex marriage actually comes out as more rational than the non-religious ones.
No they do not. They come across as just as irrational, just less well supported. Of course, how much support is offered by a quote from a book depends how much you believe in that book.
“Oppose Same Sex Marriage!
Because Giraffes and Tigers are Friends!”
Well, I had become a supporter of SSM. But the compelling internal logic of this argument is causing me to waver. Damn!
Robert, you just do not get it, do you? Damn, am I the only person here who can accurately read the minds of people in photographs?
The argument goes: “SSM is exactly like marriage between a tiger and a giraffe – nothing good will come out of it” It continues the great tradition of luminaries like Santorum. (The politician, not the frothy mixture)
http://youtu.be/rlPAwHE8_rs
Don’t be an asshole.
—Myca
Don’t be an asshole.
1. I stand by my assertion that “She wants me to vote yes” is a more reasonable reading of the picture.
2. I honestly believe that Myca would not have written “I vote yes because I have a boyfriend and this makes me a jerk” conclusion if the genders were reversed.
3. I advance 2. as proof that Myca is sexist.
4. I would like to hear why he thinks that it is OK to call me an asshole. Because “Don’t be an asshole” is “You are an asshole, and I want you to change”.
I read the photograph as meaning “I am against SSM because I am going to marry this woman, and thus we want marriage to retain its current meaning, which SSM would undermine.”
Sebastian, that you “honestly believe” that Myca would have said X in a hypothetical circumstance is not “proof” of anything. If Robert honestly believes that you kick puppies all day every day, he’s still not entitled to conclude that you’re a puppy-kicker. And if he aired his opinion that he “honestly believes” that you’re a puppy-kicker, then he’d be acting like an asshole.
And you are acting like an asshole. But I have faith that you’re not an asshole in any essential, deep-down way, and thus can make the choice to stop acting like an asshole.
By the way, there is no rule against dirty words on this blog. And Myca has the right to comment on your behavior and ask you to alter it because he’s a moderator here.
Damn. Guilty as charged.
I hate it when too many edits leave my post completely full of holes.
Wait, so is this Sebastian the Asshole or Sebastian the Puppy Kicker. I get you guys mixed up.
The Asshole. I don’t get any kick out of kicking puppies.
But an asshole would kick the puppies anyway, just for the distress it would inflict on bystanders.
I read the arrow on the photo as indicating that since his girlfriend was good enough for him / everything he could possibly want in a partner, where do all us queer folk get off for thinking that a different way of doing things is just as good, deserving of state recognition, etc.
So, ultimately, I think he’s a jerk for having such an ambiguous sign : )
Also: honestly, I find the Giraffes and Tigers Are Friends picture quite persuasive with respect to a pro-SSM and anti-any-other-kind-of-marriage stance (obviously not one I actually hold). Because I feel like there probably would be irreconcilable differences between the giraffe and the tiger, and oh, won’t someone think of the children, and their potentially strained relationships with the various inlaws?
“We are a tiger and a giraffe who are inexplicably friends, and we don’t have to explain a fucking thing to you” is now my default argument for everything.
Sebastian:
Ampersand:
dragon_snap:
I read it as “I really enjoy heterosexuality, and therefore homosexuality is bad,” which is a jerk thing to say, and not equivalent to “I vote yes because I have a girlfriend and this makes me a jerk.”
—Myca
I can’t even begin to tell you how happy that makes me.
—Myca
God hates giraffes and tigers. Just sayin’.
Going just by the description, I imagined the giraffe & the tiger were making a pro marriage equality statement. Once I actually saw the photo I came to believe that they were either furries or on their way from or to a costume event or both when they came across the anti marriage equality happening. I prefer the first since anti marriage equality furries amuses me more.
Either way, it led to Ben’s formulation which I will now steal and unashamedly imply was my own invention whenever I’m around folks who don’t know Ben.
Some people try to “non-religiously” argue that SSM will jeopardize the human race, as same-sex couples (in their mind) never have any part in creating another human life. I think the idea that sex is solely for procreation is ultimately rooted in religion, but I’ve heard people try to posit this as their “rational” opposition to SSM. It’s an odd argument, as they like to make it an issue of the very survival of a humanity that certainly doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon (at least in terms of sheer numbers). Seems as long as there are eggs and sperm around, there will be babies.
I remember a woman telling me years ago that her mother believed that if we became accepting of homosexuality, every man would be gay. I do not know anything about this woman’s mother, so I’m not sure how she formed that idea. I sometimes wonder if she just heard/experienced so much misogyny that she thought all men hated women, and in her mind, that hatred is what made someone gay. It’s the only time I’ve ever heard that theory, although I am sure others subscribe to it as well.
I love the fact that one of the reasons given for imposing state-powered religion on everyone is ‘religious liberty.” I guess she wants to take quite a few liberties for her religion….