Subtext behind many anti-SSM arguments

The BBQ Pit
1

I’ve had many, many conversations with anti-ssm-marriage people lately, and like most of you have said, the ‘reasons’ offered for their views seem pathetically weak. So weak, you wonder they can even bring themselves not to apologize for offering them.

However there seems to be two related subtexts, things the speaker feels but can’t/won’t come out and talk about openly, that get hinted at frequently. They go approximately like this:
Homosexuality is enormously attractive. If we started giving gays all the same rights as straights, and there wasn’t this enormous weight of social disapproval, some huge fraction of currently straight-acting guys would no longer be able to resist their attraction to gay guys. All these guys would dump their wives and children and hook up (probably with each other) in gay marriages. And THAT is the source of the ‘danger’ gay marriages present to straight marriage.

AND

If children didn’t see that gays got beat up and mocked and denied rights, many more boys would ‘choose’ to be gay. We don’t want to have gay sons, so to ‘protect’ our sons from abandonning the closet we must continue to oppress gays.

Is this just my warped mind, or do you also find this to be the unspoken argument behind many anti-ssm speeches?
And, btw, I phrased it that way deliberately – the perceived threat always seems to be that guys will turn gay, no one seems to worry about girls.

Strange?

2

How’s about this from an otherwise charming woman I met the other day - we were in a restaurant that had a high proportion of single-sex tables, some clearly dining romantically. “They’re only doing it because it’s trendy,” she said.

:confused:

3

Unspoken? Who, pray tell, is unspeaking this?

I’ve heard these arguments trotted out shamelessly and unapologetically.

4

Unfortunately I just had this conversation with someone the other day:

Her: “Those gays have an agenda.”
Me: “Yeah, they want the same rights as every other American.”
Her: “Well, once they get this, what’s next?”
Me: “What do you mean?”
Her: “I mean, next you’ll have cousins trying to marry each other, or a dad trying to marry his daughter, or someone wanting to marry their dog.”
Me: “You can’t honestly say you equate being gay to being into incest and beastiality?”
Her: “You never know.”

:frowning:
I don’t know how to argue with that kind of thinking. People have their minds made up, and it really is sad.

5

A specious argument at best, and a typical knee-jerk reaction to an admittedly poorly-phrased objection.

What’s wrong Indygrrl, you got something against people who are zoophiles and family-member-philes (sorry, don’t know the correct word)? Why, you closed minded bigot! How dare you! Your use of the word “into” implies a choice, and we all know homosexuals, heterosexuals, zoophiles, and family-member-philes are what they are not by choice buy because God made them that way, and they don’t have the choice of being anything else (however much you dislike or disagree with their sexual orientation).

I know the pro-SSM camp would just love it if the anti-SSM camp equated SSM with beastiality. Why? Because it’s a ridiculous comparison, easily shot down, and certainly would make someone who held that opinion look like a complete idiot. (Not to mention it’s wrong, an invalid comparison.) However, the pro-SSM crowd won’t objectively discuss whether or not someone who wants to marry their significant other (dog) is the equivalent of someone who wants to marry their significant other (human). No… that’s an argument they might lose, so they shy away from it.

The argument, however poorly stated, is not “homosexuality = beastiality”. The argument is “if you’re asking me to accept as a ‘marriage’ something I absolutely disagree constitutes a ‘marriage’, I’m afraid you’re also going to ask me to accept other things as ‘marriages’ which I absolutely disagree are ‘marriages’.”

For the record, I am not anti-SSM. What I am is anti-“allowing anybody to define anything they want to as a marriage”.

What, exactly, is a marriage? Does a particular behavior or set of behaviors constitute a marriage? If so, what, exactly, are those behaviors? What’s the definition of marriage? If you define something as a marriage which I do not agree is a marriage, does that make me a discriminatory bigot? What if someone else defines something as a marriage which you do not agree is a marriage, does that make you a discriminatory bigot?

Since the OP has chosen to ‘decipher’ the subtext behind anti-SSM arguments, I’ll take this opportunity to decipher the subtext behind pro-SSM arguments. In fact, they mostly boil down to this:

“I/We believe that what I/we am/are doing constitutes a marriage. The fact that you don’t agree makes no difference whatsoever. Since I/we believe what we’re doing constitutes a marriage, then I/we am/are entitled to the privileges of marriage. For you to deny me/us is discriminatory.”

Then add a healthy dose of hysteria like “You can’t <gasp> possibly equate SSM with beastiality, can you?” and “Well, have you ever met any gay people?” and “I Pit Anti-SSM Rhetoric!” However, strip away the hysteria and the arguments still boil down to “I say that what I am doing constitutes a marriage, and the fact that you don’t doesn’t matter.”

I have read the other threads on this board re: SSM. The pro-SSM arguments typically list a set of behaviors (committed relationship, life-long, mutual emotional fulfillment, mutual emotional/physical/financial support, etc.) and then declare that those behaviors constitute a marriage. Again: “I say that what I am doing constitutes a marriage, and the fact that you don’t doesn’t matter.”

Before you read any further in my post stop and think. Really, don’t spoil it for yourself. Stop and consider whether or not your own personal argument is really anything substantially different than that. “It’s a marriage because I say it is” (or “It’s a marriage because they say it is”). Take a deep breath, clear your mind, and give it a good ponder. Do you honestly have a pro-SSM argument that does not boil down to “It’s a marriage just because the participants say it is” or “it’s a marriage just because I say it is”? No fair reading further and then going back to think up a better argument later. Think, commit to your position now, and then read on.

(I’ll share with you my answer: the only reason I believe I am in a marriage is because “it’s a marriage just because I say it is.”)

….

(ho, hum….)

<twiddles thumbs>

OK, with us again? Good.

“It’s a marriage because the participants say it is” also works for polygamy, incest, and yes <gasp> even beastiality.

Why shouldn’t a brother and sister (or brother and brother for that matter) be allowed to marry? Because it’s icky? Yes, some people think it is. Some people think homosexuality is icky too, you know (those closed-minded bastards). Genetic problems if they bear children? Who said marriage is about having children? Anyone who thinks that is a closed-minded bastard. They’re in a lifelong, committed, mutually exclusive, mutually emotionally beneficial, economically supportive, physically attracted to each other relationship – why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? Wait… are we talking about the brother & sister or a homosexual relationship? Hard to tell, isn’t it? That’s because the argument works equally well for both.

Why shouldn’t we allow polygamy? They’re in a lifelong, committed, mutually exclusive, mutually emotionally beneficial, economically supportive, physically attracted to each other relationship, correct? Anyone who wants to deny people in a in a lifelong, committed, mutually exclusive, mutually emotionally beneficial, economically supportive, physically attracted to each other relationship the privileges of marriage is a closed minded bastard. Oh, wait… are we talking about polygamists or homosexuals? Kinda hard to tell, since the argument is equally valid for each.

I have heard an argument against polygamy that goes something like ”People choose to practice polygamy and can likewise choose not to. Not so for homosexuals, who they are physically and emotionally attracted to is neither their fault nor their choice.” Agreed, and that argument is also valid for incestuous relationships – it’s neither their fault nor their choice to be attracted to who they are, even though it may be a family member. (Oddly enough, that argument even works for zoophiles.)

Why shouldn’t we allow __________? Thought I was going to say “beastiality”, didn’t you? No, I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction. But what about the little old lady who’s husband and children have predeceased her, lives by herself, in relative isolation, except for her dog. LOVES that dog to no end. That little dog is EVERYTHING to her. No, you sick bastard, there’s no sex involved, just a lifelong, committed, mutually exclusive, mutually emotionally beneficial, economically supportive (in this case the dog has had a career in show business and still gets royalties and residuals) relationship. Sounds like a marriage to me.
Whatever we define marriage to be, there will be someone who falls outside that definition and cries “Discrimination!” One man/one woman? Gays (rightfully) cry “Discrimination!” OK, one person/one person? Polygamists (rightfully) cry “Discrimination!” OK, whoever and in whatever numbers they feel like? The kissing cousins and loving siblings (rightfully) cry “Discrimination!” OK, OK, everyone and everything but the dog-fuckers, and the dog-fuckers (rightfully) cry “Discrimination!”

Yes, I’m using the slippery slope argument. I have yet to hear an argument that is in favor of SSM without also being in favor of everything else.

Let’s see…. hmmm…. why shouldn’t we allow incest? BECAUSE IT’S SICK AND DISGUSTING AND AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATURE! Oh, no, wait, the anti-SSM crowd already tried that one and the pro-SSM crowd shot them down. But then, why shouldn’t we allow beastiality? BECAUSE IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE NOT TO! But… even though the Bible is also clearly against homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), the pro-SSM’ers have discounted that as a valid argument against denying anyone the privileges of marriage. What other arguments are there? BUT MARRIAGE IS ABOUT MAKING BABIES! Thank God for the siblings that the pro-SSM gang has proven that wrong.

Exactly what the hell am I doing here? Sounds like a catharsis. I saw a new “Anyone anti-SSM is BAD!” thread and decided to weigh in, instead of joining a conversation (thread) that already had numerous participants screaming at each other but nobody actually listening.

And yes, I know full well (long time lurker here, I just don’t post much because I feel I usually don’t have much to add), full, full, full well that I’ll be jumped on, called all sorts of names, have vitriolic hate-filled vulgarity directed at me just because I present an opinion at odds with those who spew vitriolic hate-filled vulgarity.

For the record, I’ll repeat myself (because if you’ve made it reading this far you may have forgotten): I am not anti-SSM. What I am is anti-“allowing anybody to define anything they want to as a marriage”. Because I believe logic dictates that if we allow SSM we must allow everything ( and anything) else.

So if you want to, go ahead and call me a discriminatory bigot for this…. I am absolutely against the dog-fuckers getting the privileges of marriage. (Do you get it now, Indygrrl? When I railed against you in the second paragraph I was displaying irony. I don’t think you are a closed-minded bigot. But I do think withholding marriage privileges solely because you don’t like the behavior of the participants (incest and beastiality) is hypocrisy. I am in favor of withholding marriage privileges to dog-fuckers not because they fuck dogs, but because if we were to extend marriage privileges to the dog-fuckers then we would also have to extend them to every freaking combination under the sun. “I married my couch. Now I want six months of family leave from my job because we adopted an ottoman. Just because you don’t understand the beautiful nature of the relationship between us is no reason to deny us the privileges of marriage.” No, really, don’t laugh. “You can’t <gasp> honestly equate being gay with furniturephilia, can you?” No, of course not, but I am equating the ‘marriage’ part of the equation.)

6

Pursuant to this is the sometimes-held (and very often sincerely held) belief that all gay men are, by definition, both promiscuous and child rapists/pedophiles, or akin to such. Once upon a time I debated with a guy who had a degree in nuclear engineering (or something like that; it was a while ago) from Cornell who fervently believed that being gay MEANT you molested children. Evidently the notion that all gay men are automatically buggering anything they can find has pervaded some parts of society to the extent that it’s promulgating itself as fact. And of course the organizations furthering this promulgation for their own benefit (i.e. money, power, etc) don’t exactly help matters regarding truth.

Pointing these people to factual evidence to the contrary yields mixed results. I’ve had success at least once, but as the saying goes you cannot reason people out of a position they didn’t rationally arrive at themselves.

By the way, Jimmy Joe Meager:

Perhaps you have not talked to any anti-SSM folks. I have. I have heard and seen that argument more times than I wished to encounter it in my lifetime. At least once a week I open the newspaper and see that someone has advanced that very argument, or one just like it. Just a few days ago there was an article written in the newspaper comparing gay sex to child rape and bestiality, to name but two.

And I don’t love it. I think it’s fucking pathetic. I’d love it if people stopped trying to put Biblical footnotes in a secular legal document.

7

I don’t think “the ability to consent to a legal contract” is particularly a hard argument to make, and it rather neatly eliminates all the silly straw men about marrying goats and children.

8

BUGGER.

That would be me, not her. She evidently logged in without telling me. I only saw once I hit submit.

9

Blast, Lilairen snuck in there. The “her” is of course fizzestothetop, as anyone who’s seen her post like me knows tenfold by now:D

10

Your logic is spurious. Homosexuality is NOT equivelent to incest nor bestiality nor polygamy.

Homosexuals marrying does not structurally alter the institution. The sorts of issues that would arise with polygamy (how do you dissolve a union if only one person wants to leave, how do you divide property, who takes legal precedence for medical decisions, etc) do not arise in homosexual unions. It is a much less onerous change, therefore there is no slippery slope here.

Beastiality is a downright offensive parallel to draw, and that you would says a lot about your character. Needless to say, the difference here is “consent.” Animals cannot consent to anything, therefore they cannot marry, since marriage is a contract entered into by two legal adults. You’d first have to have animals raised to the level of having rights (not “animal rights,” but real ones), which I don’t see happening. No slippery slope here.

And as for incest, the issue there is the danger that siblings would reproduce, which is a public health hazard. Now, if one of the siblings is infertile, or you’re dealing with related persons whom it is not likely that there will be negative medical repercussions should they reproduce, then I don’t see why a marriage license would be denied. However, society is a long way from there. And this is not an issue that really connects to homosexuality, so there is no slippery slope.

And you responding “but there is too!” is not an effective retort.

What issues dealing with gay marriage in and of itself, can be raised to argue against it. Issues that would arrive immediately with the advent of gay unions, not in some farflug future of slippery slopes and worrisome “maybes.”

11

The argument against beastiality that I usually hear is that the animal cannot consent to the relationship, so it’s on the same level as pedophilia in that regard. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure the turkey sandwich I just ate didn’t consent to being killed and eaten, so I’m not sure that argument holds much water. Also, not sure what the point of marrying an animal would be, since the animal is already considered the property of the person marrying it, and thus already has all the legal rights of marriage and then some.

The point of the objection to comparisons between SSM and incestuous marriage is that it’s a strawman. If the incest lobby wants to argue for the right to marry, that’s their lookout. I’m not going to fight them, but I’m also not going to support them, because the whole idea creeps me the fuck out, and I’d rather not be associated with those, pardon the pun, motherfuckers.

And finally, polygamy/polyandry. Actually, I’ve got no moral or ethical objections to this, and would have no problems in allowing people to marry more than one person at a time. I’ve heard stories about what goes on in those splinter Mormon sects and similar cults that allow multiple wives, but I’m not convinced that those abuses are necessarily tied to polygamy, and not a result of the general fucked up psyche of people who join (and, especially, start) cults.* However, opening the definition of marriage wide enough to admit these relationships opens up an huge can of legal worms that would have to be dealt with, whereas legalizing gay marriage is pretty straight forward, and all of exsisting laws about marriage would be just as applicable to SSM as it is to straight marriage, with virtually no need to rewrite them at all, except to clear up the gender of a few pronouns.

In summary, Jimmy Joe, you’re half right. The philosophical basis for my support of gay marriage does not require me to support the recognition of any other non-traditional relationship, it just requires me to not oppose them. And, indeed, I do not, and never have. Sorry, but your big revelation is anything but. Contrary to your apparent expectations, I have thought out my stance on this issue to its logical conclusion, and am more than happy to accept the consequences of it.

*Note, please, that I do not in anyway consider mainstream Mormonism to be a cult of any kind, not do I consider members of the Church of Latter Day Saints to be fucked in the head to any greater or lesser degree than any other portion of American society.

12

I think Jimmy Joe Meager at least brought up a good point. To fight ignorance you have to look at both sides, and he did a good job of presenting one side.

*added by me for context.

I’m not trying to be confrontational, so don’t take this as anything but curiosity, but why do you believe it’s okay to say that about incest but not homosexuality?
BTW, I don’t condone that attitude toward gay people at all, and I feel the same way as you do about incest, but I’m just wondering why it’s acceptable to insult one and not the other.

13

I live in Oregon, and a county here recently legalized gay marriage. So there were lots of opinions about it in the paper today. I was genuinely shocked at how stupid some of the people who represent me are. These people would be laughed out of the SDMB, yet they’re my state’s representatives to the United States gov’t! Damn, it’s scary.

One shining example of what you’re talking about is Rep. Cliff Zauner, R-Woodburn. He commented, “It [marriage] is between a man and a woman. How else are we going to keep reproducing and keeping people on this earth?” Grammar aside, that’s a disturbing comment on many levels. It truly makes me wonder how happy this man can be with his children and his wife (presumably he has some, since reproducing is so vital to our survival.) It’s as if he sees marriage and children as some arduous, difficult, and unpleasant duty. Like if he was allowed to go marry some sweet young guy he would go for the hot gay lovin’ in a moment and damn his wife and kids! Also, it’s just stupid. How is allowing gay people to marry going to reduce the number of people who reproduce? Hello, idiot, they’re gay! They’re not going to be having children anyways! If anything, allowing gay men and women to marry will increase the number of kids, since stable relationships tend to contribute to people acquiring kids through one method or another.

I also have some choice words for our governor and a few other people of both parties, but they don’t pertain to this thread.

14

JJM raises a good point and one that is often glossed over. The real issue is re-definining marriage, not letting gays marry.

In a sense, marriage is a subsidy offered by society to encourage a certain kind of behavior. What’s conspiciously missing from the debate is any data that society should encourge that behavior with regard to same-sex couples.

There’s lots of data regarding how socially beneficial “normal” marriage is. Married people are healthier, richer, better educated, have clearer skin, better able to leap tall buildings, etc., etc. Let’s see some similar data with respect to same-sex marriage. Then the argument isn’t “We demand our rights and anyone who disagree with us is a dangerous, knuckle-dragging neanderthal!” Rather, the argument is, “Gay marriage benefits society because . . .” This will be a lot more effective, especially since polls indicate that almost 2/3 of the American populace falls into what strident gay marriage proponents like to call the “dangerous, knuckle-dragging neanderthal” demographic.

This also provides an answer to the points raised by JJM. These are good points because, as the pro-gay marriage argument is usually presented, he’s right, especially with respect to incest between adults. While it’s more of a stretch, I’ve seen threads on this very board arguing (hopefully) that gay marriage would open the way for group marriage.

But society doesn’t want to encourage that behavior among close kin, more than two people, animals, footware, etc., and for good reasons. If you had actual data showing the benefits of gay marriage, that would make it qualitatively different than these other, socially undersireable relationships.

15

Well gee Truth Seeker, just how are the proponents going to prove such a thing since it’s currently unallowed. Seems a little like proving a negative. Seems to me you should be saying the opposite, or proving that the same beneficial results of a traditional marriage wouldn’t occur in the case of SS couples.

16

Talon, good question. The way I see it, my statements about incest are every bit as acceptable as the most homophobic drivel ever spewed on these boards by Joe Cool or any number of other anti-gay bastards we’ve seen on these boards over the years. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone has a right to free speech (caveats about the first ammendment not applying to a privately owned message board taken for granted.) My opposition to incest is no more rationally based than any argument against homosexuality you’d care to mention. The difference between me and your average homophobe is, I don’t attempt to have my opinions turned into state, federal, or, worse, constitutional law. I don’t like incest because it makes me sick. But that’s not a good enough reason to prevent people from doing it. If someone wants to have sex with his sister, and she’s okay with that, and they’re both adults capable of giving consent, well… aside from grossing me out, it doesn’t really affect me in any way. To quote one of the founding fathers (Jefferson, IIRC), it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. So I’ve got no reason to forbid them from having sex with each other. Or marrying each other, if it comes to that. I maintain the right to dislike them, to state that I dislike them in a non-work enviroment, and to not associate with them on my own time. And that’s about it.

Which is exactly the point I try to make to people who want to prevent SSM. They don’t have to like it, but unless they can show how it causes them measurable harm in some way, they don’t have a right to oppose it. They can bitch about all they like, but as soon as they try to legislate against it, they’ve violated the principles upon which this country was founded.

Note that, in more than one thread on the boards, I have attacked people for having homophobic opinions. Freedom of opinion works for everybody. If someone is free to have the opinion that gays are immoral, I’m free to have the opinion that they’re ignorant shitheeled morons for holding that opinion. And we’re both free to scream at each other 'til we’re blue in the face. Similarly, anyone is free to think the same about me for being opposed to incest. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism.

17

And while we’re at it, let’s see some data with respect to the “If men can marry men, pretty soon people will want to marry goats” arguments and the “If men can marry men, then God will cast the lot of us into a pit of fire and brimstone like he did with Sodom and Gomorra” arguments and the “If men can marry men, pretty soon people will want to marry eight total strangers” arguments and the “If men can marry men, pretty soon no child will be safe from the evil clutches of homosexuality/pedophilia/bestiality” arguments.

Goes both ways.

18

I have to agree with those who say that the OP’s points, while absolutely true (in that these are indeed reasons), are less “subtextual” and more overt.

I see it all the time, as in this link from another thread. It’s the belief that homosexuality is a complete and utter choice, and thus recruitment is not only possible, but desirable to gays.

Kinda sad, really.

19

The whole idea that anyone would want to have sex with, much less marry, Roseanne Barr creeps me the fuck out, but I’m kind of hoping we don’t need a constitutional amendment for me to cope with that.

20

Actually, the health risks to the progeny of an incestuous union aren’t all that great - they’re certainly less than the 25% risk of producing an affected child that two CF or Tay-Schs carriers face with each pregnancy, or the 50% risk of producing an affected child that a person carrying the Huntington’s chorea gene (which is dominant) faces, and yet we allow those people to marry.

I think a better argument against allowing incestuous marriages is that we cannot really be sure just how consensual such a relationship is, since there’s an inherent power differential between a younger and older sibling or a parent and child which may carry over in a subtle form even when both parties are fully adult.