I swear, there’s some sort of contest going on among bigots to see who can come up with the most absurdly hyperbolic argument for the overwhelming destruction that marriage equality will bring to us all. It will not only destroy the institution of marriage, it will destroy civilization itself! And now, according to Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Famly, the entire human race with it:
First, same-sex “marriage” not only redefines marriage wholesale for everyone, but it actually deconstructs humanity itself. That’s a very strong and consequential assertion, but that is exactly what it does. Same-sex “marriage” essentially creates genderless marriage by saying 1), the fundamental male and female nature of humanity doesn’t matter in any way, and 2), the different parties to a marriage are wholly interchangeable. Male and female as the basic foundation of family — as well as society — simply become preferential, like your taste for Rocky Road or Butter Pecan ice cream. Solely a matter of personal taste.
But the way this really deconstructs humanity is that it says that you as a husband or father, or you as a wife or mother, have no real meaning or significance in your fundamental humanity — a humanity which always reveals itself as either male or female.
Yum, a word salad! But he still dodges the essential question to which he claims to be responding: How does it affect your marriage? Or any marriage? The overwhelming majority of people will continue to do exactly as the overwhelming majority of people have always done. People aren’t going to stop getting married or stop forming male/female relationships. But the small percentage of people who don’t fit that simple blueprint will now not be punished legally for not fitting it. And that’s a good thing.
Next time he should just go all the way and claim that same-sex marriage will destroy the universe. That’s where such nonsensical arguments are inevitably leading.
42 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
anandine
April 4, 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, he convinced me. If I married a man, it would ruin my marriage of 20-some years to a woman. My wife just wouldn’t understand (especially since I’m straight).
DaveL
April 4, 2012 at 11:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He’s simply noting that marriage equality affirms that underneath gender labels, we are each fundamentally human.
And he finds that offensive. Make of that what you will.
rowanvt
April 4, 2012 at 11:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“a humanity which always reveals itself as either male or female.”
Do you think he’d have an apoplexy if he was told about intersexed individuals, or those who are xxy?
Skip White
April 4, 2012 at 11:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“But the way this really deconstructs humanity is that it says that you as a husband or father, or you as a wife or mother, have no real meaning or significance in your fundamental humanity — a humanity which always reveals itself as either male or female.”
So, single people who don’t have children have no meaning or significance and aren’t human? I’m so confused. I thought these folks insist that a fertilized embryo is a human being. Oh wait, they’re all just talking out of their asses.
chrisj
April 4, 2012 at 11:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m with DaveL. Stanton is saying that he finds the idea of men and women being fundamentally similar on some level because we’re all, you know, human offensive. Since I imagine he thinks women belong in the
cupboardhome, having babies and obeying their husbands unquestioningly, it doesn’t entirely surprise me. He’s offended by the idea that anyone could think a woman was equivalent to a man. (I’m offended by people as bigoted and ignorant as Stanton, but I don’t expect people to legislate on the basis of my prejudice.)eric
April 4, 2012 at 11:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What he’s really implying is that large-scale acceptance of same-sex marriage in the U.S. will deconstruct all of humanity. Acceptance of same-sex marriage in other countries obviously doesn’t count for him, since its already going on.
And we wonder why the rest of the world calls us arrogant.
roggg
April 4, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have to admit, he has me more than a little intrigued. What is it about gay marriages that is so appealing that the only way to save heterosexual marriage is to ban homosexual marriage entirely? Maybe I should try teh gay.
I have a solution for all this post-modern alarmist linguistic bullshit: Gays get to have “marriage”, and heterosexuals get to have “straight marriage”. That way they dont have to worry about the fabric of the universe unraveling just because we use one broad label to refer to two nearly identical concepts.
brucecoppola
April 4, 2012 at 11:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@rowanut: “Do you think he’d have an apoplexy if he was told about intersexed individuals, or those who are xxy?:
This. Let’s find out! Paging Natalie Reed…
rowanvt
April 4, 2012 at 11:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@8, let me get some popcorn!
I partly brought that up because I have two semi-distant cousins who were ambiguous at birth. Both were assigned as female, but last I heard (well over a decade ago) behaviour-wise it appeared that was the wrong choice for the younger of the cousins.
matty1
April 4, 2012 at 11:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think his idea of marriage is already dead.
You can read about it here.
interrobang
April 4, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He’s basically saying that same-sex marriage undermines authoritarian binary gender roles, which it does. The difference between his and my thinking is that I think that’s a good thing.
This is just “but which one of you is the woman?”* asked of a male gay couple, extended to marriage. Wingnuts are basically literally incapable of imagining a partnership of equals, rather than the “man in charge, everyone else takes orders” model.
Right-wing authoritarian Christians in particular have problems with marriages of equals (no matter which way they happen) because in their worldview, everyone is subservient to someone. It breaks down sort of like this:
God
The State (takes orders from God)
Men (take orders from God and the State)
Women (take orders from God, the State, and Men)
Children (take orders from God, the State, Men, and Women)
and God help you if you try to break out of that hierarchy somehow.
____________
* Where “woman” is a metonymy for “the submissive, order-taking party”.
janiceintoronto
April 4, 2012 at 12:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh. So Canada’s humanity has been deconstructed?
I guess I missed that.
Exactly what should I be looking for?
Taz
April 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My god! That person’s in danger! I have to help them!
Wait a minute. First I have to decide how my gender is significant to this situation.
Stevarious
April 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, you know. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…
The usual, in other words. Let us know how that works out.
Leo
April 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Eh, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard such an argument. I wouldn’t necessarily call it “word salad,” though. It does make some bit of “sense;” the problem is more that it is a giant non sequitur. Heck, he doesn’t even really present any premises; he just jumps straight (pun not intended) to his conclusions.
The Lorax
April 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If every human became homosexual, the human race would endure, because humans still want kids and we have the technology to procure them without sex.
Sorry wingnuts, science defeats even your most appalling “humanity is doooooooooooooooooooooooomed!” argument.
Pierce R. Butler
April 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
… this really deconstructs humanity …
Since the primary definition of “deconstruct”, and the one most widely used these days, is to analyze, to expose hidden assumptions and reveal intrinsic contradictions, Stanton has a pretty good case here.
Clearly his concept of “humanity” seems in dire need of careful disassembly, a good cleaning, and functional reassembly. However, I doubt that merely changing marriage laws across the United States would suffice, in the case of FooF, for more than just working another few screws loose…
Zinc Avenger
April 4, 2012 at 12:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t you get it?
Marriage equality will destroy the very fabric of reality.
Stevarious
April 4, 2012 at 1:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s right! Every gay wedding vow is a run in the nylon stockings of the universe!!
michaelgaribaldi
April 4, 2012 at 1:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s well known that men in general prefer, hunger for it in fact, a good pounding in the ass from another man to going anywhere near a vaginia. So you see, friends, that’s the whole reason we stand so vehemently opposed to marriage ‘equality’, because men will naturally flock to a lifestyle that affords them the opportunity for a good pounding in the ass at every opportunity to one that forces you to sleep next to something with a vaginia every night, which we dignify with the designation ‘wife’. You see this is simply God’s way of testing our moral fiber! And this is why we must never open the flood gates to this other lifestyle, as it will obviously almost immediately cause the collapse of the whole heterosexual basis of civilization. I’m sure everyone shares my views on this subject, and understands the issue in the same terms that I do. God bless you all!
Chiroptera
April 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Holy crap! Is he really saying that the fundamental thing that defines who people are is sex? What is he, fifteen years old? Most of us actually developed a wider variety of interests when we grew up.
fastlane
April 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hey, they already changed the definition of marriage when they said I couldn’t trade my daughter for a donkey and three goats. It was all downhill from there…..
Taz
April 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There’s got to be a black hole joke there somewhere.
Modusoperandi
April 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Doesn’t he understand that by banning same sex marriage and being so vociferously against it he’s just making it hip and cool and rebellious to the youth? Banning it is the same as putting an “explicit lyrics warning” label on a record at a store that sells music on such a format. To youth, what they see is “This will bother your parents!”
No wonder it’s so popular with the kids these days!
Conservatives, don’t make the same mistake with gay marriage that you made with the rapping music!
Eamon Knight
April 4, 2012 at 2:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
fundamental humanity — a humanity which always reveals itself as either male or female.
Back when I was an evangelical, and engaged to be married, I bought into this cheap-Platonism-for-the-masses bullshit; ie. there is Male and Female (one or the other of which we are all instances) and Marriage, which brings them together in a complementary relation.
We are now both atheists and our marriage will have, as of about three weeks hence, lasted 32 years, mostly by ignoring all that crap in favour of what was really driving it all along: two people who really, really, really enjoy each other’s company. Nothing else matters.
jws1
April 4, 2012 at 4:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Consent seems to be the centerpiece of all transactions and all relationships in modern democratic society. That being said, how does one prove that the several women in a polygamist marriage are not giving consent? It sure seems to me like they are being coerced rather than giving consent as the alternatives (shunning, losing one’s family and friends) are really harsh. But what is the argument that gives the lie to the “consent” of a polygamist arrangement?
I bring this up because the great majority of people I’ve heard voice support for the full legality of same-sex marriage are also quite opposed to polygamy. I want someone smarter than me to construct a rational basis for drawing the line at two consenting adults, rather than at three, four or whatever.
hunter
April 4, 2012 at 4:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Somehow, I never find an argument composed completely of bald assertions to be very convincing, particularly when the assertions have no discernible logical links.
scienceavenger
April 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
JWS1, nice try at confusing the issue, but the focus in the same-sex marriage movement is not to focus on consent, or number, but to remove the word “heterosexual” from current law. I would also challenge your premise that “the great majority of people I’ve heard voice support for the full legality of same-sex marriage are also quite opposed to polygamy”. Got a cite?
jws1
April 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wasn’t trying to confuse the issue. It’s pretty obvious that same-sex marriage ought to be legal, just as it’s obvious that this is because consent is the key. That is why this oft-made equation between gay sex and beastiality is way off base, downright disgusting.
I just wanna know the rational justification that polygamy also violates the importance of consent. I “feel” that polygamy is really fucked up, but “feelings” aren’t good enough. That’s all I was saying.
scienceavenger
April 4, 2012 at 4:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But it isn’t because consent is key. It’s because sexual orientation isn’t.
jws1
April 4, 2012 at 5:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think we agree: of course sexual orientation isn’t the key to marriage; because consent is the key.
Pro gay-marriage proponents need to stand for something, some new, revised definition of marriage that is clearly superior to the old one. This involves not only demolishing the old paradigm but erecting a new and better one. Defining marriage as “two consenting adults” seems such a no-brainer to me. I was just asking how such a definition could defend itself against attacks from polygamists, who swear up and down that their arrangements are indeed consensual, without coercion.
RickR
April 4, 2012 at 5:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jws1, maybe you need to work on your communication skills. I can only barely make out that you probably have some kind of point to your posts.
“Consent” is not key to the arguments made for same-sex marriage equality (except only tangentially) because it is a given that civil marriage is a contract between consenting partners of legal age and the state. Consent is right there in the definition. See how that works?
The only cases I know of where the notion of consent is relevant are in cults like the FLDS where the unions sometimes consist of one adult man and many (sometimes underage and therefore not legally able to consent) women.
And count me as someone who supports same-sex marriage equality who has no problem at all with the notion of plural marriage, though I recognize it will require a substantially different contract that will require quite a bit more work than adding an ‘s’ at the end of the word ‘spouse’.
jws1
April 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Okay. Thanks.
Eamon Knight
April 4, 2012 at 5:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
from polygamists, who swear up and down that their arrangements are indeed consensual, without coercion.
….and in the case of secular polyamorists, are generally telling the truth. I think exploitive polygyny of the Muslim and Mormon variety has to be attacked from other angles (though apparently, the Canadian courts disagree with me).
However, I think your point is well taken. In the last 10 or so years, we have partially broken the reigning paradigm (however ill-supported in real, as opposed to ideological, history) of marriage as one man + one woman, and it’s not illegitmate to ask which other parts of that paradigm are also disposable. Some of the suggestions (eg. bestiality or pedophilia) are clearly stupid and proposed mostly as bad faith objections — that’s where the non-arbitrary “consenting adult” part comes in. But I can imagine a poly triad asking for the same legal status w.r.t. mutual property rights etc. as is enjoyed by opposite- (and now, same-) sex couples. And I can’t think of a principled non-arbitrary reason to refuse them (though it would require a bunch of messy practical details to be worked out). Not that IANAL.
Eamon Knight
April 4, 2012 at 5:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Damn. s/Not/Note/^
Chiroptera
April 4, 2012 at 6:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jws1, #29: It’s pretty obvious that same-sex marriage ought to be legal, just as it’s obvious that this is because consent is the key.
I agree that it is “obvious” that same-sex marriage should be legal. What is not obvious is that it is a Constitutionally protected right.
The problem is that we already recognize that in a liberal democracy, not all rights can be explicitly enumerated in the Constitutionl. In fact, the writers of the US Constitution were quite clear about that: the 9th Amendment pretty clearly states that if you try to figure out what your rights are by reading the document, then you’re doing it wrong. The people retain all sorts of rights, and the Constitution cannot possibly do more than list a few of the more obvious and important ones.
So the question becomes one of what, exactly, our rights are in regard to Constitutional protection. How is it that same-sex marriage is a Constitutionally protected right?
One line of reasoning is presented by Judge Walker in his decision in Perry v Schwarzenegger. In it, he explains how marriage to the consenting person of your choice has long been a protected right under US law, where even convicted felons who will spend most of their lives in prison have the right to marry, where anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional, where it simply is not allowed to force your children to marry someone against their will, broadening that right to include marrying a person even if of the same sex as you fits right into the long legal tradition.
That is something that polygamy doesn’t have in US culture. It has been a very rare occurrence, and even the one territory that allowed was forced to change its laws in order to be admitted as a state. That doesn’t in itself mean that polygamy doesn’t or shouldn’t be a protected right, just that it doesn’t fit into the same traditional framework that same-sex marriage fits into.
Despite the hyperventilating of the Religious Right, it just is not a stretch to include same-sex marriage into the marriage rights. It is as stretch to say that polygamy is fits into the legal and social tradition in this country. Again, that isn’t an argument against polygamy, just pointing out that same-sex marriage does not automatically mean that polygamy must be accepted as a constitutional right. You need to provide a separate argument for polygamy that is distinct from that for same-sex marriage.
-
The other issue is that once we see that same-sex marriage can be ssen as one of the non-enumerated rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and seeing that we have a legal tradition that is supposed to (on paper at least) assume liberties are guaranteed as the default, the state needs to make an argument as to why the liberties must be restricted.
In Perry, Walker showed very decisively how the proponents for Prop. 8 utterly failed to present factual and cogent reasons why the state has an interest in curtailing the right of people to marry the person of their choice if that person happened to be of the same sex.
In the case of polygamy, the numerous contemporary examples that we have show a high incidence of domestic abuse and coersion as well as general social problems associated with it. In this case, it is possible that if a case were to come to court, the state might be able to show it has a compelling interest in restricting it in this case. It may turn out that the state’s reasoning isn’t sufficient to justify continued restriction, but it isn’t nearly the slam dunk that supporters of same sex marriage enjoyed.
Chiroptera
April 4, 2012 at 6:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
RickR, #32: …though I recognize it will require a substantially different contract that will require quite a bit more work than adding an ‘s’ at the end of the word ‘spouse’.
What is interesting is that in Perry, Walker specifically mentions that in the past, say 100 years ago, same sex marriage would have been very problematic. Family law was written to differentiate the rights and responsibilities of the partners based on their sex. It is only during the last few decades, as women have been achieving more equality with men, that the laws have been rewritten to remove most of the sex differences. So it is only relatively recently that it is possible to just legalize same-sex marriage “with the stroke of a pen.”
I don’t know whether Walker was thinking of polygamy when he wrote that passage, but I thought of it when I was reading it. As you point out, the way family law is set up right now, polygamy is somewhat problematic. Even if we were to accept it, it would take a bit of work to get the laws rewritten to protect the rights and set the proper obligations of all the partners as well as the children.
Rip Steakface
April 4, 2012 at 6:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Funny, that sounds a lot like the Confucian hierarchy… which is a 2,500 year old, plainly sexist and authoritarian system. That, in turn, sounds a bit like something else… starts with a B… what is it…
Dr X
April 4, 2012 at 7:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And despite the end of gender in Massachusetts 8 years ago, gay men in Boston still don’t want to have sex with women. Go figure.
Aliasalpha
April 4, 2012 at 10:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Can we place bets on the next bonkers statement? I’ll put down 5 bucks on the one that… *ahem* “reasons” that since marriage used to be one man one woman, an attempt to change that now is actually an attempt to retroactively divorce everyone who was ever married anywhere in any point in history. Great figures of the past are now single! Books will have to be rewritten! Newt Gingrich didn’t really cheat on any of his wives because now they were never actually married!
rowanvt
April 5, 2012 at 12:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“I want someone smarter than me to construct a rational basis for drawing the line at two consenting adults, rather than at three, four or whatever.”
From a legal standpoint, polygamy could be a nightmare with regards to benefits of marriages.
How does alimony work in case of one husband or wife divorcing? Do all the other spouses pay? How about child support, or visitation rights?
dingojack
April 5, 2012 at 2:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As usual wingnuts get it arse-backward:
Marriage Equality deconstructs Wingnut inhumanity.
Dingo