The issue of gay marriage really isn't my "thing", as far as this blog goes. I believe gays should have the right to get married, but I don't preach about it here. After all, this blog has been a mechanism for insulating me from retaliatory bullcrap from the kinds of people who can't tolerate dissent or uncomfortable ideas. I don't think I'm sexist; I'd rather not have someone going around saying how sexist I am behind my back (on the internet, where you never know whether something is going to fall into the lap of, say, your employer). However, if someone were to spread the word that I supported gay marriage, well, I'm fortunate enough to be in a position where that would have little impact should it come out. So I normally don't have to exercise caution over that issue, and don't shunt it to this blog when I wish to speak about it.
But as will become obvious as I write this, I've had a thought where discretion is probably a good idea, so ta-dah, here it is.
Mad Thinker Scott's been discussing the antics of Mike Huckabee lately, and for the most part, he's been doing a good enough job picking the guy apart that I couldn't add anything meaningful. But watching the clip of Huckabee on the Daily Show reminded me of the continual refrain from many conservative opponents to gay marriage: "Well, if we legalize gay marriage then we'd have to allow all the other wierdos who want to get married! What about polygamists or incest or what if a guy wants to marry a dog???"
This is designed to appeal to the "ick factor" built into most humans, the line that, when crossed, makes one go "eew". It's evident that for those who oppose gay marriage, the idea of a gay relationship itself crosses that line; recognizing that others don't share that view, the tactic is to equate gay marriage with other things that make people go "eew".
This places someone trying to argue for gay marriage in an awkward position of having to scramble to distance gay marriage from all these other nasty things or simply call it a "slippery slope" argument and dismiss it without actually discussing it. That or avoid taking the bait entirely and changing subjects, because who would dare defend all that other nasty stuff?
Well, me. (Albeit anonymously.)
Here's my thesis: who actually gives a fuck into what relationships consenting adults arrange themselves? Polygamy? Well, there's good reasons not to do it, just for the legal and emotional headaches, but as long as everyone in the arrangement is truly willing, why not, and why would anyone care?
Incest? Well, inbreeding isn't smart, but as long as everyone's an adult and there's genuine affection, why should it matter, otherwise?
Okay, I'm not going to defend bestiality. Issues of consent and all that. But any other thing that involves humans of legal age (in other words, things that are not already inherently illegal), I would think there'd really be no reason to forbid marriages among just about any combination you can think of.
Except that "ick factor".
And that's what a lot of things come down to, isn't it? Someone gets a squirmy feeling in their belly just thinkin' about all them queers havin' queer fornications, and praise jaysus we has ta stop this gay marryn' thing raiht naow! It all comes down to people being so repulsed by things that shouldn't actually be any of their damn business that they want to deny those who practice said icky stuff the right to practice that icky stuff, regardless of whether it actually affects anyone else at all. I've said it before: I do not believe that one's personal distaste should become legally binding policy.
Meanwhile, someone sees a superheroine get mistreated in a comic and is disturbed by the position of the character's body on the floor.
Meanwhile, someone reads a comic and sees a picture of a fully-clothed girl sitting on her bed and says, "ew, gross."
Meanwhile, someone else in Iowa opens a box of manga imported from Japan, and gets the same feeling looking at all the cartoon pictures of gay sex and young girls.
Meanwhile, Valerie D'Orazio reads the story of the guy convicted of having Simpsons-based cartoon porn and thinks, "Good, serves him right."
And meanwhile.
And meanwhile.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your on a roll.... but you want to ban puppy love?
I remember getting a call a few years ago from a friend who had been taking his kids home from school or something and passed some protesters in front of a hospital who had big signs of chopped up dead babes. His kids took it real well truth be told but he was pissed so he called me and we went to the police station to ask if they could show pics of that nature. That cops said yes they could.
Seeing as my friend is kind of a ass he asks the cops if he could go down with a big sign of two girls kissing to promote lesbianism as a alternative. Turns out THAT would have got us picked up for what I think they said was obscenity.
defeated we spent the next few hours fighting them in our own way. My friend went to talk God and plead for them to stop with the signs of dead babies.
My self being more interested in how they justified showing pics like that pretended to be one of them and talked to them about better sex education in schools to keep the dead baby count down.
Turns out not one of them thought that was a good idea and would only lead to more dead babies.
I think I was going to make a point with this but the NyQuil has made me kinda loopy.
Excellent post, although I am going to disagree with one portion of it, and only in a specific circumstance; incest.
What two consenting adults do is their business, absolutely. However, I don't think (and this is hard for me to even write, because of where I can see it being unintentionally applied) that people engaging in incest should have children born of it.
That's it, that's the only problem I have -- and yes, I recognize that it could be applied to anyone who is genetically predisposed to pass on one or more negative genetic issues.
I've read your site since near the beginning -- it's almost without exception enjoyable to read. Thank you for the thoughtful posts. I should probably have posted before now :)
Yeah, Val's out there on this one. I honestly don't think she's making the leap from "real person, this is bad" to "drawing, this is not real, no one was actually harmed."
I'd been debating posting there, but I know it would degrade into heated words -- and other people have been posting so sensibly and politely despite her barbs and willful misrepresentations.
I wouldn't post it there, but what the heck, maybe it will get back to her from here;
If creating illustrated child porn should be illegal, what about illustrated rape, murder, and assault? All three were in the infamous "Identity Crisis" which came from DC during Val's tenure there ...
Perhaps a good prescription of "Physician, heal thyself" is due?
I'm sorry, that's a little more negative than I mean, but I can't understand the disconnect between "illustrated child porn should be banned" and not seeing where that could lead. Would a picture of Stargirl from JSA bound and gagged be considered child porn? COULD it, if people like Val had their way, even though I'm almost positive they wouldn't intend for the Stargirl example to be included?
Thanks for listening (and yes, the posting name is stupid, but like you, I prefer being employed and unharrassed).
Take care,
this is what actual child molesters look like. Val can go tell his daughter that she thinks what happened to her is just as bad as someone drawing Simpsons porn.
Because this stupid argument isn't making th drawn kiddie porn look worse; it's ridiculing the victims of actual child rapists by equating it with the "harm" of being exposed to a naughty drawing.
Post a Comment