Are you kidding!? Radical-right homos are all *tops*!

This is a tough one, but I'm going to have to go with the second option.

The first statement just displays garden-variety paranoia. The second one is not only asinine, but its innately oxymoronic nature gives it a certain tree-falling-in-the-woods quality. So it is vacuous not only by lacking intelligence, but also by its ability to act as a mind-clearing Dao riddle.

how the FUCK did i miss this particular discussion? i would have paid cover....

because you know he plays token fag for all of these clubs

I know you mean well...but, is that description necessary? How would you describe Armstrong Williams at a conservative event?

--scott

Then Matthew goes and uses the word. I think I understand why he uses it...and why you used it. You're speaking in their voice (the haters) for that line. Is that it? Please explain...

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.html#003151#003151

Thanks. --scott

Yes, Scott, you figured it out.

I think Andrew Sullivan's actually pretty good overall on gay marriage, as opposed to his other inane opinions. I can't imagine how you found him more objectionable than Norquist.

Agreed with Tom, the second one is dumber.

But Dimmy, if that's the case, you'd find writers going on about them "n-word" in a parody of right wingers...wouldn't you find that objectionable, even in that context, if you were black? Seems like a double standard...

Point one - I have yet to see anyone on the anti-gay marriage side come up with any argument that provides a reasonable causal connection between allowng gays to marry and a break down of marriage.

Frankly, for many, it is as simple as the same prejudiced reaction to miscegnation. An exaggerated threat to an ideal that of course never existed. I give you, as the example, the racist line of thought: the purity of white womanhood (the ideal) and the sexual depredations of the black man (the exaggerated threat).

The same twisted thinking applies here where marriage is the ideal and gays marrying is somehow going to threaten it.

One threat is that since they are gay they by their very nature are incapable of either a loving monogamous relationship or of raising children. They have no proof of this, it is just that gay people, as a group, are just more debased or evil than the rest of us. This, if it were true, will rub off and make the rest of us and marriage will suffer.

Alternatively, there is the slippery slope argument that if our society allows gays to marry that we will soon be marrying groups and animals. But again they never explain just what would trigger such a movement that large numbers of straight people or gays for that matter would want to try to live their lives in a sanctioned multiple marriage or group marriage.

Just from my own prespective, I can not see trying to have a relationship with more than one person at a time. Maybe it suits some people, but I doubt it would work for many people.

Here's a post where Matt makes a distinction:

Racial Slurs
Harry Brighouse brings to my attention that Julian Bond's recent foolishness was, in fact, brought about by a failure to appreciate the all-important (at least around here) use/mention distinction. If I were to write "nigger" I would be using a slur and people should take offense, but by writing "'nigger'" I merely mention the slur which is something that must be permissable in polite society unless we want it to be impossible to have any sort of discussion about racist language. In other racial slur philosophical news, it bears mentioning that such terms (along with the gendered insults "bitch" and "slut") pose an interesting challenge to the fact/value distinction. Discussions of thick moral concepts (like "brave") are fairly common, but the slurs raise some similar issues as well and I don't think they can be handled in quite the same way.

I disagree. And the frequency with which he uses the f-word over the n-word suggests that he finds using the f-word for humor, effect, whatever... less offensive than the n-word.

6 times in the last few months...? Being Cuban, and Jewish, I would think that he wouldn't want to be reading certain words every day from writers he respects, even if they're used to make a point. Well, the point was made along time ago. No need for him to paint that picture using that word. Just say "they hate homosexuals" instead of adopting the language and desensitizing his readers. Just a thought... --scott

Point two - To the best of my knowledge, the anti-gay marriage folks have not trotted out any studies, reports, stats etc. that show that the judiciary is more activist than before. Hell, they can not even define where judicial review ends and judicial activism begins as far as know.

But then again maybe it is as simple as "I disagree with it so it must be judicial activism."

point two is stupider for the reason j swift mentions above: attaching "activist" is just a way of painting opinion you disagree with as disingenuous. well, that and the whole not understanding the constitution thing, too.

scott, i can't speak for yglesias, but in my case, a word's offensiveness relies entirely on intent. the words "nigger" or "fag" are not offensive to me in and of themselves. they are, however, so obviously and historically loaded that the situations in which one can use them and not offend are severely limited.

for instance, i would never use the word nigger in the presence of a black person, even if my intent were somehow completely harmless, because of the great chance that they could take offense or misunderstand me. but i don't have any problem with black people using it, nor do i see anything intrinsically wrong with repeating the word in, say, the context of referencing a joke from chapelle's show while sitting in my living room talking to one of my roommates (or in a discussion such as this one).

does that explain why i would have no problem with kriston using fag here, and even less of one with yglesias saying fuck several times?

language is obviously very powerful, but words themselves are very weak.

I'm calling point two. But not because it represents stupidity (although it does). It eviscerates separation of powers. You can't expect a separate judicial when the legislature tells them how to rule on ANY issue.

I agree that the second one is the better example of ludicrosity. As for the use of the word "fag", I (as a gay man) find it perfectly fine the way it was used both here and by MY. I can't speak for how people feel about "nigger", or about how other people (gay or straight) feel about the use of the word "fag". But lgbt communities have been much more proactive about reclaiming slurs as positive words, starting with "queer" and "dyke" and moving on now (to a much lesser extent) to "fag".

Or maybe it's just some sort of internalized desire to denigrate Andrew Sullivan for being the other side's token (like Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice, albeit more supportive of minority rights).

What is the logical argument that prevents a gay couple and the biological parent of their child from marrying but permits gay marriage?

Seems to me the first question makes a whole lot of sense.

But not if you just want to reject all questions about gay marriage as irrational, paranoia-laden, crazy thoughts.

What is the logical argument that prevents a gay couple and the biological parent of their child from marrying but permits gay marriage?

Two people can get married, three can't.

And while it's true that not all questions about gay marriage are irrational and paranoia-laden, thinking that gay men will, en masse, suddenly try to enter into permanent threesomes with surrogate mothers pretty neatly fits that description.

If you wouldn't say "n*****" in front of a black man, you probably shouldn't say it at all. Same with "f**". It's not just the use in and of itself, but after a while, the frequency with which you use it suggests that you enjoy slipping it in there any chance you get.

So since I say "fag" in front of my gay friends and all is well, it's okay, right?

In the blog world, it's hard to tell who you're speaking with, but in person, it's fairly obviously if this word is meant playfully or hatefully.

I think Kenny has it right - fag is being reclaimed the way queer was. I don't know what happened with reclaiming "cunt," but it seems to have stalled out somewhere around the Vagina Monologues.

Thanks for the mention, Kriston. I just want to clarify a bit. I wasn't trying to say that this would happen en masse, or that Crosby, Melissa Etheridge, et al would want to have a sexual relationship together. My thought is this:
Right now, two men can't marry each other, two heterosexuals can. That's not a good argument against gay marriage and it's not a good argument against changing the definition of marriage from involving two people. Why would you withhold marriage benefits from the man who gave the lesbian couple their child and is helping to raise him/her? I think there are lots of situations like this. Roommates might want marriage benefits, for example. These situations might not be widely pursued, but they could easily pop up. What is the argument against them? Are you going to go into people's bedrooms and find out if they're sleeping together? I'm just wondering what the legal distinctions would be once gay marriage exists. I don't think that's paranoid or irrational. Sorry.

Also, Kriston, just wondering here: "picture Anne Heche, Ellen Degeneres, and David Crosby curled up together—naked—" Are you suggesting David Crosby is the quintessential sperm donor for all famous lesbian couples? Makes him sound like an awful busy man.

Sue, et. al.,

I asked for an argument of LOGIC, not circular reasoning.

Why, pray tell, can 3 people not get married? What is the logical argument against this?

Why is it the government's business at all? Are you not pronouncing a sort of duonormativity? Are you not disenfranchising groups that have non-heteronormative relationships?

Again, what is the logical argument?

Please provide the pro-gay marriage reasoning for limiting marriage to two people, if you are able.

OK, Scott, I'll respond. I'm actually not claiming a "use/mention" distinction as you've suggested. I'd instead direct your attention to the word that precedes it, "token." For that idiom ("token (minority)") to work, it's best followed by a less-than-clinical referent. For example, for the purposes of the idiom, it's much more effective to say "token negro" than "token African-American." Hence, "token fag" and not "token homosexual man."

Note all these "quotation marks" because right now I'm claiming a use/mention distinction, and rhetorically speaking, the "token (minority)" idiom itself works in the same way. Now that there's not an ounce of funny left in this thread, I hope that's at least clear.

Meghan: Until you mentioned it, I had no idea that David Crosby wasn't the go-to guy for the entire lesbian world. Apparently he's never sired a child for either Ellen Degeneres or Anne Heche, and Heche isn't even gay anymore. Mea culpa: My insight into the lesbian world doesn't go much further than The L-Word. I still think the Crosby illustration works, though, because David Crosby is sort of a straight ambassador to the lesbian world, like a Julie Andrews with all the genders and orientations involved switched, plus about a hundred and forty pounds.

To wit: Is David Crosby trying to triangulate with Melissa Etheridge and her partner, Julie Cypher? Is David Crosby trying to marry any other prominent lesbian couple? Is any gay threesome trying to marry—honestly?

No. But gay couples are, and judging from San Francisco, by the thousands. One might even speculate that gay couples in the past might've liked to marry, and in the future they will as well. I don't follow the logic that would hijack this right for the gay world through a hypothetical that applies equally to straight people as well. There have been polygamous marriages in the United States, and they've been straight, and whether or not those relationships wrecked the course of Western civilization, they don't have anything to do with gay marriage.

But I'm listening, so help me out here. Why can't three straight roommates pick up and ask to be married? Remember Three Men and a Baby? If the potentiality for polyamory is not pegged exclusively to homosexuality, why is the argument against gay marriage pegged exclusively to polyamory? My next question: Where is this threatening polyamory lobby?

...whew, that's a lot of me talkin.' Someone else take a whirl.

bunnie,

i'm afraid i don't follow your question or your response to sue.

if any two heterosexual people can get married, what reason does the government have for preventing any two gay people from marrying? equal protection before the law and all that. as it stands, no one, gay or straight, can enter into a marriage of three people.

so we can answer your question better, explain why granting a gay couple the same rights as a straight couple suddenly means marriage can be applied to groups of people.

and as for other concerns about people "faking" marriage, doesn't that already happen all the time among heterosexual couples? doesn't that old sitcom cliche about marrying the foreigner so s/he can stay in the country usually involve someone coming to check if the marriage is real? i agree that it's a situation that could come up, and one that would not be easy to solve, but i don't see how this difficulty justifies treating gay couples as less than equal citizens.

Matty,

If you look at the Lawrence decision which has sort of opened the doors for gay marriage, the equal protection argument was only used by one justice (O'Conner).

The argument used by the majority was some sort of "right to determine one's own happiness" argument.

Not the strongest case I've ever seen, but it is the law of the land, as it were.

So if my happiness is determined by joining with two folks, the Lawrence v. Texas decision could be used to support it.

But let's go ahead and use the equal protection clause. If one person can get married in the manner that best suits him, why can't another person get married in the manner that best suits him? And let's say the first person's choice is one other person and the secon person's choice is two people? Surely you wouldn't advocate a one-size-fits-all approach to marriage, would you?

You may use the equal protection clause to advocate for gay marriage, but that is not a good argument to use *against* polyamorous marriage.

Bunnie, sue, etc. haven't been arguing for or against gay marriage, group marriage or anything similar. What they've articulated has been the logic behind why the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place.

If marriage is a religious thing, then why is our government in the business of it (referrencing establishment)?

If marriage isn't, then where is it codified either way that it has to be two people? And more importantly, why? I can understand the argument about progeny, that marriage is a way to help create, but I'm not sure the government needs to be in the population business.

Maybe I'm missing something. Is there a reason, in the Constitution, that we should have marriage specifically and not just secular civil unions?

RE: justin g's quote: Are you kidding!? Radical-right homos are all *tops*!

That reminds me of Truman Capote's use of the terms "pitcher" and "catcher"... but don't be too sure about them being all "tops", or pitchers - Andrew Sullivan has been catching the Bush Administration's administrations for 3 years now :-)

Think simple. Learn different. Macinstruct.net

tPtpcu comment1 ,

tPtpcu comment1 ,