In general, in my posts about same-sex marriage, I try to link to and criticize the very best arguments of the anti-SSM crowd. There are a bunch of reasons to do this: it’s more honest, it forces my arguments to be stronger, and it’s just better debating form.
But just for giggles, let’s look at some of the really, really dumb anti-SSM arguments. I won’t bother responding to any of these, because I assume that all my readers – even my anti-SSM readers – will recognize how dumb these arguments are.
First off, let’s look at how Gary Bauer explains the horrors SSM would bring about:
- You have the guy down the street making $20 bills in his basement, and every one he makes cheapens mine.
- Christians who believe otherwise will have trouble with the I.R.S.
- The very words “mother” and “father” will disappear from the dictionary. Those words will fall out of use and the catch-all word “parent” will replace them.
I love the $20 bill analogy; apparently Bauer beleives that marriages are a medium of exchange for goods and services, and as such are subject to the laws of inflation.
Meanwhile, check out this fundraising appeal from the Christian Family Coalition, courtesy of Boo blog. Here’s two of their predictions of what will happen if they don’t “WIN THE BATTLE TO PROTECT MARRIAGE!”:
- Young boys and girls will be taught how to perform “safe sodomy” on each other in sex education classes.
- YOUR CHURCH will have to abandon Scripture and “marry” homosexuals or lose their tax exempt status or worse yet – BE SHUT DOWN if they refuse to marry two men or two women!
Gosh, remember elementary school, when we took classes like math, history, social studies, and safe sodomy?
(If you enjoy fiskings, by the way, check out Dispatches from the Culture Wars’ take on the CFC letter).
Gary Bauer and the CFC are major players (compared to someone like, say, me). To find some even stupider anti-SSM arguments, I have to turn to someone as unknown as I am, a Ms. Tamara Wilhite, in an editorial on BushCountry.org. Ms. Wilhite explains the connection between same-sex marriage and… wait for it, wait for it… terrorism.
Now, you would think that this would be a pro-SSM argument – “if gays aren’t allowed to marry, then the terrorists have won!” But no. She’s arguing that we should pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to forstall a terrorist attack. In her opinion, it would seem, the last thing we should do is irritate the terrorists.
Oy.
I read Ms. Wilhite’s piece via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, which points out this even stupider SSM-and-terrorism article. I don’t even have to quote from the article; the title alone is enough.
Senators Defy Marriage Amendment: America’s Taliban Tyranny
Oh, heck, let me quote a paragraph anyway:
“Caliban,” by the way, is the author’s coined word for “California Taliban.”
Oy, oy, oy..
At least she had enough dim awareness to put “freedom” in quotes.
I like the mental image of a seedy guy in a green eyeshade cranking out marriage licenses in his basement.
YOUR CHURCH will have to abandon Scripture and “marry” homosexuals or lose their tax exempt status or worse yet – BE SHUT DOWN if they refuse to marry two men or two women!
Aha! So that’s where my father came up with that bit of nonsense. Figures.
Ask him when the Orthodox Union is going to be shut down because its rabbis refuse to marry a Jew and a non-Jew. I mean, the government will let Jews and Gentiles marry, so clearly the OU is in for a whuppin’ at the hands of the homosexual lobby and its tools in Washington. Right?
Ok, this is gloriously silly. But the “father” and “mother” thing is interesting.
While it is hard to imagine the words “father” and “mother” entirely falling out of usage in favor of “parent,” they already have in the school notices I get from my daughters. We can’t deny that many male-specified terms have fallen into disfavor: businessman, chairman, policeman/fireman, serviceman, seaman, longshoreman, anchorman, draftsman, ombudsman, tribesman, remainderman, venireman, warehouseman, materialman, workman, foreman, landman, bondsman, juryman, and “the reasonable man standard.” Some Christian churches even seek to avoid gendered references to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Moreover, female-specified terms have basically vanished: aviatrix and aviatress, conciliatrix and conciliatress, dictatrix and dictatress, prosecutrix, testatrix, tutrix, relatrix, heritrix or heritress, inheritrix and inheritress, victrix and victress. But a few holdouts remain. I occasionally hear reference to a landlady. And, although many female performers refer to themselves as actors, the Academy Awards still gives a prize for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. Finally, the word dominatrix remains in circulation.
I chuckle at the idea of someone thinking that linguistic concerns should influence the SSM debate. But it’s eye-opening, too. I heard that Bush eliminates the word “parents” from his speeches, replacing that word with “moms and dads.” This sounds folksier, but it also emphasizes the idea that male and female parents differ. I surmise that some part of his audience takes comfort in that distinction.
I’m afraid I can’t comprehend this one: “Christians who believe otherwise will have trouble with the I.R.S.”
And as for safe sodomy classes… hey, that sounds like a pretty good idea to me!
Caliban? Gosh.. I thought she just screwed up the word “Cabal”.
If she really wants us to appease the terrorists, we’re gonna have to all convert to fundamentalist Islam.
I mean, if she’s serious, that’s what it’s gonna take.
…doesn’t that little word game thing sound a bit stupid even to them?
I mean, how do they define “father?”
since biology isn’t nessicary (adoptive and step fathers are fathers, nonetheless) the only workable definition is “a male parent”
so dispite anyone’s best effort, “Moms and Dads” is a phrase that includes gay and lesbian parents just as well. it isn’t “set {mom and dad} for multiple persons” it’s “the set {mom} AOR {dad}”
man, these are very silly people.
are we entirely sure that Caliban thing isn’t just some very, very subtle social satire?
since, isn’t caving and changing our values in ANY WAY to forestall attacks “letting the terrorists win?”
and I don’t like that sex ed thing. it seems like a bad idea. just a way to get Religion into public schools through the back door (no pun intended). I’m sure they’d start distributing Chick Tracts where Jesus explains to the reader how, why, and the methods of anal sex.
You’re right about the “moms and dads” thing. It’s a loaded phrase, in a context where equality is assumed, that phrase would be heard very differently. Essentially, the audience would hear the equivalent of “parents”.
The whole “kids are better when raised by biological father and mother” argument is bound to anger adoptees. The “Christian” right wing is anti-adopted-children, as being “brand X”. The same people are also promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion – you might think they would try to say a few nice things about adoptees and their adoptive parents.
I have always fancied being ruled over by a wild man wearing a grass skirt and speaking iambic pentameter. I vote for Caliban.
Really, it is very difficult to come up with a single winner in the “dumbass reason against SSM” contest – there are so many fine entries.
A more accurate term would be “Aliban” – Alabama Taliban like Former Judge Roy Moore.
Caliban? I wonder what Shakespeare would have to say about this insult.
I couldn’t get past Ms. Wilhite and “Not only do we allow our women to go unveiled.” Our women should be veiled? Makes my lil head spin. Ms. Wilhite seems to be promoting the idea that we oughta placate the terrorist, give in to their ideas of a way of life, in order to get along with them.
Don’t think Dubya would agree with that idea. Or maybe I really am confused.
Pingback: Creative Destruction » Opposing Equal Rights To Send A Message To The Middle East
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Opposing Equal Rights To Send A Message To The Middle East
I don’t know; I think my favorite is still, “But if gays get married, then they’ll start having… relations!“
Feh. I know any argument at all against gay marriage is totally evil, but read this anyway.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?page=1