Gay marriage is homophobic, claims man who wrote that homosexuality is a perversion

Discuss

78 Responses to “Gay marriage is homophobic, claims man who wrote that homosexuality is a perversion”

  1. Roger Scruton is an acknowledged expert on beauty and this is his Paris Hilton angle.

  2. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    *blink blink blink*
    This made my head hurt.  Does this person have a history of taking hits to the head?  That could explain the ramblings…

  3. PhosPhorious says:

    Yes, yes. . .  and affirmative action is  racist, and feminists are the real misogynists. 

    Only  a racist, misogynist homophobe would believe any of that.

  4. Glen Able says:

    I think he has a point.  Well, he might have, but he forgot to incorporate it into the article.

  5. Deidzoeb says:

    Good thing there’s a conservative heterosexual thinking about these things and explaining them, because activists spending their time and money on gay marriage probably haven’t put much thought into it.

  6. thatbob says:

    I suppose that if the end stage of all hetero relationships and all homo relationships was marriage, then he’d be correct in pointing out that marriage equality was wiping out relationship diversity.  But, oh yeah, marriage is NOT the end stage of every hetero or homo relationship, so: diversity preserved!

    What I find especially galling is when opponents say, “This is clearly not about the equal rights of the gays – they just want social acceptance.”  Um, no, as anyone with any skin in the game, or any familiarity with the history of the cause can tell you, this is manifestly about achieving equal legal rights, by any means necessary, even if it means achieving social acceptance as a byproduct.  Only from the pinnacle of institutionalized privilege can one so blithely speak down to the revolting masses about their concrens – and be so wrong!  “Let them marry cake!”

    • ldobe says:

      I’m in favor of gay marriage, and voted for it in Washington state in November.  But I haven’t really thought of a good rebuttal to the everything but marriage argument.

      We had a state domestic partnership law that granted all the rights of marriage in WA, but didn’t use the term marriage.  This seemed like a decent compromise in regard to legal rights, and thinking the perfect is the enemy of the good, I can’t really argue that marriage is superior to domestic partnership when the only real distinction is the word used.

      My dad (a devout fundie and homophobe) had an interesting idea himself:  Convert ALL marriages to domestic partnerships, and let the church decide who it wants to call married or sinners.  In his words, the idea of legal marriage in state law is already a violation of the separation of church and state.

      I think his idea would actually be the fairest compromise overall.  Do away with legal marriage, and have a single class of domestic partnership.  There are many religious fundamentalists like him who only care that people are married “in the eyes of the lord.” legal marriage has no power relative to the bible and their god.

      • waetherman says:

        It seems very rational to say let the churches decide what to call marriage and let the State recognize civil unions. The problem with this (and the rebuttal to the Everything But Marriage concept) is that we exist in a common law system which is built on hundreds of years of jurisprudence, all of which refers to marriage. The law cannot simply be altered with a find/replace, or at least not easily. It is far simpler to use the word marriage when it comes to same-sex relationships and thereby ensure that the rights are exactly equal, whether that’s in the context of being able to visit a spouse in the hospital or some obscure right of interjurisdictional inheritance.

        • ldobe says:

          Ah, I see.
          I hadn’t been thinking about interjuristictional issues (eg interstate cases).  But I guess now come to think of it, if states that are anti gay marriage and wanted to be capricious, can’t they just say Washington State marriage licenses are invalid under their jurisdiction anyway?

          • waetherman says:

            Theoretically they can – many did so with anti-miscegenation laws before the 1970′s, not recognizing inter-racial marriages from other states. The counter argument to this is the “full-faith and credit clause” which has generally required states to recognize the laws of other states, though as far as I know anti-miscegenation laws were never overturned on that basis, at least not at the Supreme Court level. But I think you see the problem; if one state calls same-sex unions “domestic partnerships” and another calls them “civil unions” with full marriage equality, and another state calls them “civil unions” but doesn’t give full equality, does any other state need to recognize the same-sex commitments of any other state? What laws would apply? How does Federal law apply when it comes (as it does in one of the current challenges) to inheritance tax, for instance? Does it apply only to laws that specifially refer to civil unions? What about marriage caselaw from England in 1562 – can that be used?

            It gets really confusing, and out of that confusion can only come inequality. That’s why marriage is the only solution.

          • mccrum says:

            ^ Ding!

            I have friends in Ohio who had to get married in New York.  Ohio explicitly does not recognize marriage if it is not between a man and a woman even if it is a legal marriage from another state.

            I used to want to get churches out of the marriage business as well until places like Ohio started passing their laws.  The only way to progress forward is on a Federal level.

          • Actually waetherman, it is not theorhetical at all. It is in fact the exact purpose of section 2 of the DOMA law. That section expressly authorizes that states do not have to recognize the legal same sex marriges from other states or countrys – like Canada for example. “Section 2. Powers reserved to the states:

            No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

          • waetherman says:

            Yes, I misspoke. I guess what’s theoretical is whether they can get away with it, constitutionally.

        • Greg Miller says:

          But I would think there would be instant pressure to fix such things if everyone had the same problem. Also, wouldn’t it be possible to insert some language into the law along the lines of “Where Marriage is referred to in the law, a Civil Union shall be interchangeable”?

        • Brainspore says:

          It seems very rational to say let the churches decide what to call marriage and let the State recognize civil unions.

          I wasn’t married in a church. Why aren’t more people trying to convince me that the relationship I have with my legal spouse isn’t really a “marriage?”

          • waetherman says:

            Probably because you have a marriage certificate.

            My point was that if we had, from the start (like 800 years ago) used the word marriage only in reference to what happened in churches and issued only “civil recognition of union” certificates for whatever union people enterred in to, and used “union” instead of “marriage” in all of our case law and legislation  we’d be able to make the transition a lot more easily and much of the debate over whether to call same-sex unions “marriage” would be moot. Of course, the whole debate over the word marriage is just a farce and distraction anyway. Nobody actually thinks it undermines heterosexual marriage to have same-sex marriage, they just use that as an excuse for bigotry. But I digress…

        • marilove says:

          I am an atheist and can get married. In a court of law. And it would have zero to do with religion.

          Anyone who harps on how we should “just call it a civil union!” fails to see that … that is already what marriage IS. Marriage is civil union is marriage.

      • Greg Miller says:

        I (a liberal leaning person) came to the same conclusion as your dad – Give everyone civil unions from the government, and let the churches sort out marriage. It’d be amusing to see the response from the illogical religious homophobic voting bloc (your dad would appear to be a member of the logical variant) to this, as they sputtered and tried to present some sort of argument that came across as anything but homophobic.

        • ldobe says:

          When people get uppity about how “the gays are ruining the sanctity of marriage” my dad usually counters saying “well why aren’t you protesting in Las Vegas?” Arguably straight people have done more to socially devalue marriage than all the same-sex married people in New York, Massachusetts and Washington combined.

          • Greg Miller says:

            Agreed.

          • Christopher says:

            I can’t remember his exact lines, so I’m paraphrasing, but when Nevada passed a law banning same-sex marriage Lewis Black came to the same conclusion as you and your father. He said, “So you can drop ten grand at the craps table then marry a hooker you’ve known for fifteen minutes at a drive-thru wedding chapel, but allowing same-sex couples to marry would make Nevada seem sleazy.”

        • C W says:

          ” as they sputtered and tried to present some sort of argument that came across as anything but homophobic.”

          So essentially nothing will change.

      • Brainspore says:

        But I haven’t really thought of a good rebuttal to the everything but marriage argument.

        How about this one: because it works equally well for interracial unions. “I’m not racist, I just don’t think the legal union between people of different racial backgrounds should be called a ‘marriage.’”

      • Inis Magrath says:

         Easy rebuttal to the everything-but marriage argument:

        Picture the old days of segregation. There were water fountains for whites only and for “Negroes” only.

        Imaging seeing those two water fountains side by side. Each are identical. Delivering clean fresh water from the same reservoir source.

        The only thing that made the Blacks-only fountain different is this:

        It was “Everything-but-Whites.”

        Just like “Everything-but-marriage.”

        Separate is not equal.

      • chenille says:

        Marriage has been something recognized by political states for millennia. Why we would suddenly surrender it to churches now, just so they can keep it discriminatory, is beyond me.

      • C W says:

        “My dad (a devout fundie and homophobe) had an interesting idea himself:  Convert ALL marriages to domestic partnerships, and let the church decide who it wants to call married or sinners”

        Church groups would protest this more than anyone else.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        But I haven’t really thought of a good rebuttal to the everything but marriage argument.

        Not sure why “equality under the law” isn’t a good enough rebuttal.

  7. Hannukah Dreidl says:

    Oooh, straight mansplaining to all those girlymen (and… women with women who just don’t understand?).

  8. timquinn says:

    I get it! Separate, but equal! . . . oh wait . . . 

  9. Derek Northcote says:

    Mr Scrotum really does talk a lot of bollocks

  10. CH says:

    Oh… crap! I tried to follow the argument, and instead of finding some logic I got totally lost. Can somebody point me the way back to sanity?

    • nixiebunny says:

      Sanity is found in the song “Love and Marriage”.

      Love and marriage, love and marriage
      Go together like a horse and carriage.
      Dad was told by mother
      You can’t have one without the other.

  11. Christopher says:

    I give the author some credit for admitting that “Gay people have wholly legitimate demands and needs for not just acceptance but celebration and recognition and this needs to be recognised by all who oppose same sex marriage.”

    Clearly he’s evolved in his thinking. The problem is he couldn’t stop there but, apparently frightened by his own conclusions, felt compelled to shift into reverse.

  12. eldritch says:

    Christians actually used to allow gay marraige – back in the days of the early church, in the first few centuries after the death of Jesus.

    Back then, the vast majority of Christians were Greeks and Romans living outside of Judea. They were typically converts from the various cults and followings of the Roman pantheon of gods, and they had very different cultural norms than the Hebrews did. Many of the restrictions which Judaism imposed on the Hebrews were foreign to them, and many of their own customs and traditions were incompatible with a strict reading of Judaic law.

    So what did Christians as a whole do? For the most part they were pragmatic about it. If you were a Greek convert who was used to feasting and orgies and pederasty and animal sacrifice, the church was happy to have you, even if you didn’t keep to the rules and prohibitions of Judaic law. The Bible itself even talks about this it its earliest sections – it was happening in Jesus’ own time, or at least in the time of the authors who wrote the Gospels shortly after Jesus’ death.

    A curious religious syncretism appeared, combining aspects of both worlds and cultures, in the much the same way that Christianity would later combine with native religions elsewhere in the world. For a good example of what I’m talking about, take a look at Latin America, where distinctly Christian traditions have been fused and melded with distinctly Mesoamerican ones. These range from ostensibly Christian figures of worship styled after indigenous iconography, like The Virgin of Guadalupe and Santa Muerte, to distinctly separate and yet Christianity-influenced traditions such as Rastafarianism and Vodou.

    The same sort of back and forth influence that has existed in Latin America since the sixteenth century also went on during the early centuries of Christianity in the Mediterranean.

    • tl;dr: Organised religion is about building the biggest following possible – everything else is secondary.

    • Scurra says:

      Pretty much the whole of the New Testament is a depiction of the “war” between the conservatives and the liberals (broadly caricatured as the Jews and the Gentiles) – when you understand that, a lot of the bizarre contradictions and arguments make much more sense.  It’s just never stopped, that’s all.  (And usually it works out much like anything else: you’re a heretic > you’re merely a radical > you’re mainstream.)

  13. John Verne says:

    Up is down! Down is up! Good is bad! Bad is good!

  14. unit1421 says:

    There are some of us who feel that we don’t need the church or the state to “validate” our relationships. The gay rights and sexual revolutions were about building NEW institutions, not shoehorning our way into the ones that seek to put us to death. Sadly, the gay rights movement has been co-opted by apologists and appeasers who care more about tax deductions than getting the fuck away from those who think it’s “God Will” that we be murdered.

    • Brainspore says:

      I’m pretty sure the point is supposed to be to let people live their lives the way they want to. Not all gay people want relationships that resemble heteronormative marriages, but I’m sure as hell not going to get in the way of those who do.

    • mccrum says:

      Absolutely correct.  And then came the laws that said if you’re not married you don’t actually share property and when your partner dies you can’t be in the hospital room because you’re not family.

      For the friends who have gotten married it’s not about tax deductions or shoehorning or even getting away from organized religion but pretty much declaring their love and making a commitment to each other.  You know, like marriage is really about.

      • C W says:

        “And then came the laws that said if you’re not married you don’t actually share property and when your partner dies you can’t be in the hospital room because you’re not family.”

        These laws are not new, the problem is that these laws are very old and not likely to change radically.

    • C W says:

      “The gay rights and sexual revolutions were about building NEW institutions”

      And many were similar in form and function than the last, only with equality. Funny, that! Maybe they should skip equality and go straight to the new, as you’re suggesting.

      • unit1421 says:

         What makes you think we consider those bible thumping trailer monkeys to be our equals? Getting access to those 1138 special rights given as payoffs will be fine and dandy, but in time we’ll be reading about bi/homophobic white trash in the UFO and bigfoot section.

        • C W says:

          “What makes you think we consider those bible thumping trailer monkeys to be our equals?”

          We are all human, even if some choose not to grant those same human rights to others.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Married gay couples lose out on a couple thousand dollars per year because they can’t take those deductions.  Congratulations to you on being so rich that you can flush that money down the toilet.  Most people really need it.

    • marilove says:

      As a queer lady who really has no desire to ever get married, because, seriously, fuck that shit — but who also has spent years advocating for equal rights, which includes marriage for same-sex couples:

      That’s nice. Don’t get married.

  15. phuzz says:

    As with many things in life, I take the Bill Hicks approach:
    Anyone daft enough to want to get married, should be allowed to.

  16. Slartibartfatsdomino says:

    The queer critics I read never argued that gay people should be barred from marriage. They merely argued that elevating it to the #1 issue of gay political life was a mistake. Some of the more radical ones also suggested that marriage was bad for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike and that everybody would be better off looking to some of the forms of social and family life that were pioneered by gays who weren’t allowed to marry (while still supporting gay marriage as a matter of civil equality before the law). 

    Michael Bronski’s essay linked here is a representative example: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2004/05/A-Gay-Mans-Case-Against-Gay-Marriage.aspx

    I don’t think that argument can fairly be called a “counterpart” to the separate but equal argument excerpted above.

  17. mccrum says:

    Attention __________, don’t you see, by not letting you ___________ like other people we’re actually saving you from yourselves!

  18. oasisob1 says:

    I’ve been wanting to ask a question along similar lines. Is it wrong for vegans to eat foods that simulate the exploitation of animals? Those “chik’n nuggets” and tofu burgers may not be made of meat, but you’re kind of pretending they are, and isn’t that bad? Shouldn’t vegans eschew such foods as they go against the morality of being vegan?

    • Jerril says:

       Call of Duty is pretend war. BDSM is pretend abuse.

      Pretending is fun.

    • C W says:

      I’m sure it took you a very long time to craft that zinger.

    • wysinwyg says:

      You should probably google “veganism” and see if some website focused on veganism has an FAQ or something.  This is kinda off-topic.

      The answer is “no”, btw.  You should probably look up what the “morality of being vegan” actually entails before spouting off about it.

  19. tré says:

    Wow. A radical breeder coming to radical queer thoughts… and pushing right on through them.

    Marriage is terrible for a lot of people of all sorts of orientations; I’m generally against it. The same is true of heroin. Both should be legal for everyone, with safety measures in place to prevent it from going terribly, horribly wrong and to help pick up the pieces when it inevitably does.

    • Brainspore says:

      The same is true of heroin. Both should be legal for everyone, with safety measures in place to prevent it from going terribly, horribly wrong and to help pick up the pieces when it inevitably does.

      Robert Palmer has been trying to spread the message about the terrible toll of addiction for over a quarter century now.

    • C W says:

      Radical queer thought: “with something unlike yourself”, herp derp.

      I’m glad you’re here to “protect” people from consensual decisions that may not hurt them at all! Good on you, teaming up with the hateful bigots and admiring their rationale in blocking gays from happy partnerships (for their safety, of course.)

      • wysinwyg says:

        should be legal for everyone

        Umm, did you read a different comment from me?

        Does my low opinion of the institution of marriage also make me an ally of the hateful bigots?

  20. Wreckrob8 says:

    And and and Jesus approves of fox hunting ‘cos it’s what the foxes really want.
    Wanker!

    • tré says:

      FOX hunting, you say?

      • Wreckrob8 says:

        He is the foxhunting philosopher. Foxhunting unites all classes and is not the preserve of the privileged and to attack it is to undermine the life of the countryside (and England itself). He writes on animal rights, too.

        • By which you mean he’s pushing “what’s good for hegemony is good for the workers, and they should shut up and like it” right? Same shit, different country.

          • Wreckrob8 says:

            I wouldn’t know. Philosophy is not for the masses. I have to be consoled with religion – or with the fact that if he is good at anything he is good at making himself irrelevant.

  21. It’s amazing sometimes that people are so completely blinded by their own privilege. But man, that’s one impressively bonkers structuralist argument.

  22. The gentleman must realize that we already have, and will continue under marriage equality to have, the “differences to be protected and articulated in groups and institutions that further the vision of each particular set of human beings”. Churches will still have the option to bestow the Sacrement of Marriage on those they find worthy, just as they have always done. And the State will still recognize the legal contract of marriage as it has always done. The Churches will still instill the precepts of their faith upon their members, and provide for the spiritual needs of the children. The State will still serve to enforce the contract and supervise the secular welfare of the children. The only difference is that the State will now represent all couples and all children. Nothing changes for the religious institutions at all – except of course that if they question the validity of or willfully slander same sex couples, the error of their teachings will be immediatly evident to all.

  23. ixcheldelgato says:

    The pressure for gay marriage is therefore in a certain measure self-defeating for in seeking equality with something unlike yourself the thing that you join to is no longer what you joined.

    Or, in other words, you shouldn’t want to join any club that would have you as a member?!?!?

  24. tw1515tw says:

    I remember there being a display at a Registry Office in Surrey that stated that officially recognised marriages in the 17th, 18th and 19th century were less common than we imagine. I think it said the majority of the working class were in “common law” marriages. 

    See http://www.marriedornot.org.uk/PDF/CommonLawMarriage.pdf

    In France, you get married at the Town Hall, and if you’re religious, you get married again at the church.

Leave a Reply