gay marriage revisited (англ.)
Nov. 27th, 2003 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avvaВот (англ.) наиболее рассудительная и убедительная из статей против гомосексуального брака, из тех, что я видел в последнее время.
Далеко не со всем так согласен, итп. — но почитать стоит. Хороша, кроме прочего, тем, что в ней честно и подробно описываются другие точки зрения и (некоторые) аргументы противной стороны.
Далеко не со всем так согласен, итп. — но почитать стоит. Хороша, кроме прочего, тем, что в ней честно и подробно описываются другие точки зрения и (некоторые) аргументы противной стороны.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 05:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 06:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 06:49 am (UTC)The argument is utter bullshit, but there are several varieties of bullshit. There is ignorant bullshit: "In a gay marriage, one of two men must play the woman, or one of two women must play the man." This tells me that the author knows no gay couples, or sees whatever couples he meets through the prism of his own prejudice. This is exactly on the level of "Asian women are different down there..." There are as many varieties of gay relationships as there are of any other kind of relationships; if they were allowed to get married, a gay couple would have the same kind as before, except that they would have various legal rights and that indefinable sense of commitment that marriage confers.
There is malicious bullshit: "Those analysts who have focused on how children will suffer from the legalization of gay marriage are undoubtedly correct." All this innuendo about "the children"... the modern, polite homophobic conservative no longer comes out screeching that gays automatically molest children or turn them gay, but that's what's behind this. Again, the author clearly knows no one brought up by gay parents or chooses to ignore them; there is plenty of testimony from such people that they suffered no harm from it (and statistics show that such kids are no more likely to "turn gay" than the population at large).
And there's bullshit by innuendo: "...in choosing to conduct your life as you have every right to do..." presupposes that gay people choose to be gay. Yes, throughout history people have looked around them and said "Hmm... to be surrounded by prejudice at best and murderous hatred at worst sounds like a good idea to me!" Of course, even if they don't choose to be gay, I guess they could choose to be celibate. That's the "compassionate" Catholic view, for instance. Think about what it would mean in your own life to choose celibacy (assuming you're not a monk or something) and try not to feel like a hypocrite urging it on others.
And of course there's the basic bullshit underlying it all: "Marriage can only concern my connection to a woman (and not to a man) because, as my reference to concubinage suggests, marriage is an institution that is built around female sexuality and female procreativity." Supposedly it's all about Having Kids. Now, I've never understood how gay people getting married would stop straight people from having kids or somehow devalue straight marriage, but let's ignore that for the moment. The logical consequence of the argument (making the overgenerous assumption that it's *not* simply a cover for homophobia) is that people should not be allowed to get married if they can't have kids, gay or straight. As it happens, my wife can't have kids. According to this view, then, we should not have been allowed to get married. To anyone telling me that, I would say "fuck you" (at a minimum). But no one tells me that, because of course the argument *is* simply a cover for homophobia.
Finally, there's the preemptive admission of bullshit: "Admittedly, it is very difficult to defend that which is both ancient and “unwritten”—the arguments do not resolve themselves into a neat parade of documentary evidence, research results, or citations from the legal literature." In other words, "none of this can be proved, it doesn't make sense from any rational standpoint, but I *know* it's true!" It's just like the old justifications for slavery and racist laws. People are amazingly good at rationalizing their primitive impulses and prejudices.
I'm sorry to go on so long, but this is important stuff, and some of the people I love best in the world suffer from views like this. It doesn't matter how politely it's expressed (those gay people can be so *cute* when they try to justify their immoral lifestyle!) -- it's nasty stuff, and I hate to see people I respect give it credence.
Steve
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 07:05 am (UTC)Will reply at length later, but first, a request: can you answer
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 07:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 07:39 am (UTC)So, in a way, the polygamous marriages in Utah are not truly marriages by that definition (because there one man is married to a number of women, but those women are not married to each other. When the man dies, all of them are considered widows, as opposed to still being married to each other. I wonder if they would enter into that marriage realizing that, upon divorce (all right, say the man dies and they want to get divorced), there is a chance that they won't get custody of their own children, etc..).
How will it work? it's a hard and confusing question, with many repercussions, but so is straight marriage.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 07:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 07:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 07:52 am (UTC)But maybe, really, that's my own close-mindedness, and even incest is ok between two consenting adults (or, maybe, I'm missing a better argument that will separate incest from gay marriages and polygamy). But, really, the way I see it, the arguments for drawing a line between straight and gay marriages are no better than my attempts at drawing a line between polygamy and incest.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 08:00 am (UTC)Well, you seem to agree with Steve when he dismisses as bullshit all arguments that have to do with children, but somehow children function prominently in your argument against incest. Will you allow incestual marriage between consenting adults who promise not to have children? if one of them is sterile?
But, really, the way I see it, the arguments for drawing a line between straight and gay marriages are no better than my attempts at drawing a line between polygamy and incest.
But if you see it that way, you ought to be against gay marriage; if indeed your attempts at drawing the line between polygamy and incest are convincing enough for you to advocate allowing the first, but restricting the individual liberties of consenting adults with respect to the second (think of the anguish of people in love! think of the discrimination they will suffer, being unable to enjoy the benefits bestowed upon married people by our society!), then the attempts to draw a line between straight and gay marriage don't have to be better than that for you to argue against gay marriage — just as convincing will do.
Да. И второй как раз гораздо весомей.
Date: 2003-11-27 08:35 am (UTC)no subject
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 09:33 am (UTC)Суть моего высказывания была в том, что пламенных призывов (или подробно проработанных предложений) к распространению нынешнего брачного законодательства на случай N лиц произвольного пола я что-то не слышу, так что можно этот вопрос пока не обсуждать. Когда же речь идет о том, чтобы государство регистрировало гомосексуальные браки, но полигамные (и инцестуальные) при этом не регистрировало, то я не вижу в таких предложениях логики, так что это можно тоже не обсуждать.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 10:07 am (UTC)Re: Да. И второй как раз гораздо весомей.
Date: 2003-11-27 11:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 11:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 11:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:07 pm (UTC)И вообще, если нет причин, чтобы в браке отказать - не надо и отказывать. ("Потому что" и всякие религиозные предрассудки, конечно, за причины не считаются ;])
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:10 pm (UTC)При чём тут вообще мормоны-полигамисты? Как-то Вы слишком немногословны.
И вообще, если нет причин, чтобы в браке отказать - не надо и отказывать.
Это бессмысленное (в своей тавтологичности) высказывание, т.к. не ограничен возможный класс "причин, чтобы отказать".
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:18 pm (UTC)При этом Вашем высказывании: "Почему-то не видно защитников этого вида брака." Что непонятного-то? ;]
> Это бессмысленное (в своей тавтологичности) высказывание, т.к. не ограничен возможный класс "причин, чтобы отказать".
Оно не бессмысленное по одной простой причине - в жизни все так и есть.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:21 pm (UTC)Не видно защитников этого брака среди активистов, защищающих гомосексуальный брак.
(кстати, официальная позиция мормонской церкви - против полигамии, на случай, если Вы не знаете).
Оно не бессмысленное по одной простой причине - в жизни все так и есть.
В жизни, конечно, много тавтологий; это не значит, что из них получаются хорошие аргументы в дискуссии.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:30 pm (UTC)А, в этом смысле. Ну, каждый о своем печется, оно ж понятно. Вы лучше возражающих найдите. А то у Вас так получается - если негры не выступают за гражданские права китайцев, то они как бы и о своих заикаться не должны.
>(кстати, официальная позиция мормонской церкви - против полигамии, на случай, если Вы не знаете).
Мормоны-полигамисты к LDS Church отношения не имеют, если Вы не знаете.
> В жизни, конечно, много тавтологий; это не значит, что из них получаются хорошие аргументы в дискуссии.
Да, но не значит, что и плохие ;]
no subject
Date: 2003-11-27 12:32 pm (UTC)