The US Supreme Court considered the gay marriage debate last week. I suppose it'd be more precise to say they heard separate cases involving the constitutionality of California's Prop 8 and the Federal Government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and since this blog is thought of as one of the more cerebral in all the internets (Srsly!) I should probably take this time to examine the merits of each case as it relates to the US Constitution, but the justices don't really give a shit, so neither do I. If they did give a shit they'd give both sides of an argument equal consideration before following the more compelling of them toward a legal decision that might contrast with their political and personal beliefs. But since they're all partisan hacks only willing to affirm the decisions they've already made beforehand, they waste everyone's time during oral arguments either nodding in vociferous agreement when their side has the floor and making jerk-off hand motions when they don't. How else to explain the liberal justices' particular and coincidental fascination with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the conservative justices' particular and coincidental fascination with being assholes?
There are actually two very distinct aspects to the debate over gay marriage: the one the Supreme Court is presently occupied with, supposedly, has to do with ethereal ideas about the process of law within a constitutional framework; while the part the rest of us are concerned with has to do with calling each other stupid motherfkkkkkkkkkrs. To help you decide which side of the debate is more stupid, which side is more mother, and which side is all fkkkkkkkkkr, I've put together this handy guide to assist you in coming to your own objective opinion about what's what.
First, an examination of arguments put forth by advocates of traditional marriage. If you're not sure what an "advocate of traditional marriage" is you can just use "bigot" instead.
If the gays get to marry then the pedos, animal humpers, Mormons, and everyone else will demand their own marriage rights. The best part about the slippery slope argument is context:
If you've never masturbated, pierced anything, drank a
beer, skipped Sunday service, had the hiccups, wore shorts, or played a
musical instrument, then by all means cast the first stone. Otherwise,
this argument is stupid for a million other reasons. I suppose it makes
sense if you equate the gayness with animal sodomy, but two ladies
consenting to play out their biological urges with each other is
slightly different than stalking a deer for six miles while holding on
to your phallic...oh wait, that's hunting. Similar but not quite the
same.
But it's perfectly valid to consider the
deleterious effects a policy could possibly have on society if enacted.
So let's consider what happens if 2-3% of the population gets to marry
each other instead of remaining boyfriend and boyfriend:
And then what happens if we bring back polygamy:
Not to mention polygamy promotes classism and sexism,
which is entirely different than what we already have, so why not? As
for the others: bestiality isn't going to work because society needs to protect itself from even crazier cat ladies then it already has; and incest results in the
sort of intellectual champions who think the gays shouldn't be allowed
to marry. There's also that part about nice, supportive households
becoming MMA octagons as brothers-turned-rivals fight each other and
their dad for sisty's affections. We can ski this slope even further
down
ad absurdum by mentioning the inevitable argument about
marrying a robot, but by the time that conversation gets anywhere it
will be moot because the robots will be our overlords and are going to
be discussing amongst themselves the moral permissiveness of marrying
your human, so let them figure it out since they have algorithms and
whatnot.
What will I tell my kids? Marrying your gerbil is going down
the north face of Mt. Slippery. Wondering what you'll tell your children
is running a black diamond down its south face. Man, I don't know what
you should tell your kids. Probably the same thing you told them when
they first noticed not everyone's eyes were as cockeyed as mom and
dad's. Or just tell them the gays and all their hetero enablers are
going to burn in hell before watching
Left Behind
together for smug reassurances that you're right and everyone else is
wrong. My final suggestion is to watch Louis C.K. at the Fun Factory.
Recognizing same-sex marriage violates my religious liberty. This is the most effective of counter arguments since it asks us to
weigh the rights of one group against the rights of another. In this
case, we have a couple swinging Ds (by D I mean "discriminated against")
over here asking for full participation in civic life, while over there
some faux-Anabaptists are insisting on full license to impose their
theology on people who could give two shits what some Spaghetti Monster
has to say about boys and boys, girls and girls. Push, I say, so we
should look at it another way; namely, which group stands to lose rights
if the gays also get to pretend marriage is a lifetime commitment. The
homos won't lose any since they'll still be allowed to clap bums, go
to Broadway musicals, and walk their poodles together. The
Jeebus-fearing unhomos, on the other hand, will surrender their right to
enslave Africans, steal Native American land, burn heretics, and hold
inquisitions. It's patently unfair to modern Christians if their rights
become restricted to the open practice of their faith without fear of
legal repercussion since, I don't know, G-d's most famous short story,
the Constitution of the United States, has a character called the 1st
Amendment, which means Muslims are also free to feel Muslimy about gay
marriage, they just don't get to shit all over everyone else for not believing the same thing as they do.
Homosexuality is against natural law. Or as I like to call natural law: mistaking cultural assumptions for objective truth.
The gays are trying to change the definition of marriage. I am
very sympathetic to this argument because word choice and accuracy in
meaning is supposedly - I mean, especially - important to me since I
teach university-level English. Nearly all of us have gone through life
thinking of marriage as the formal union of two people sanctioned by a
church, the state, or both; but imagine waking one day to find out
marriage really means to sit astride an animal or vehicle as it travels
from one place to the next. Going to be awhile before I can say
stuff like "I'm riding my girlfriend tonight" or "dad rode mom 30 years
ago today" with a straight face.
I'm also not sure if expanding access to a
social institution constitutes redefinition. Unless, of course, you
think voting became something entirely different once we let our
womenfolk join in on all the fun of not actually going to the polling
station on election day.
Marriage has always been between one man and one, two, or even seven different women.
This objection to that argument is trotted out all the time, but it bears repeating
since a man today who wants to get married generally has to give one of
these to his special lady...
...because he no longer has to give her father 10 of these:
Also, I've personally never met anyone who had to kill someone in battle before he was eligible to marry, but perhaps you have.
Selective parsing of studies that weren't peer-reviewed only because libruls in academia have stifled free inquiry have proven every single child requires a mother and a father and nothing else. Biologically, yes; sociologically, probably not since this argument presumes only a man and a woman can form a perfectly complementary pair capable of raising a well-adjusted child, which in turn presumes things like stay-at-home dads don't exist because only a mother can fill the nurturing role nature intended for her. Why else you think Jesus invented dresses? This argument also presumes a couple heteros form even a mildly complementary pair just because they have one set of P&V between them. Take my homegirl and me, for example: were we perfectly complementary we could to go to Paris and she would speak French for both of us since I can't speak it at all. But unfortunately she doesn't, which means we shouldn't have a child together. But were I to go with my boyfriend he would speak French because all the gays have at least a passing familiarity with the
français, so after three crepes and two bottles of wine it would become a moral imperative for us to fly home and adopt 17 children, at the very least.
A mother and a father is also selective cultural preening, or at least that's what my Japanese grandma would tell me if I were Japanese. My Caribbean auntie would flat out slap for my insinuating it was just me, ma, and pa against the world. But fffff them because one man, one woman. Also, I'm not Caribbean.
Marriage is a private arrangement between two people and maybe even their G-d that the government has no right to regulate. Which is why all those traditional marriage advigots have willingly abnegated the
legal benefits afforded them through marriage. That and they never claim any tax deductions for their children.
The state only recognizes hetero marriage because it serves the interests of the state AKA produces small humans that will one day turn into soldiers and a viable workforce. That makes sense since the gays can't reproduce within the confines of a marriage aside from surrogates and petri dishes. Also, I think foster children should stay in foster care
forever.
Why do the gays care so much if they can just have civil unions instead? Marriage is just a word. Then why do
you care so much? Probably because it's not just a word; it's a cultural institution nearly all young people assume they'll participate and the culmination of all those feelings expressed in poetry, song, and cinema that, curiously, the gays also read, watch, and listen to. If you ever take a smoke break from being an ignorant bigot then you should use that time to question all those adolescent moments you spent daydreaming about your wedding dress and afterward try to wrap your head around some gay dude yearning for his own Prince Winsome. Then you can explain to the rest of us why you can't just have your own civil union and
Saint Fu about other people getting married, because it's just a word.
Civil unions are fine but marriage has religious connotations. A slight variation of the previous argument but worthy of its own response since this guy exists:
Nice shoes, homeboy.
And you've never touched a woman? Sounds either gay or neurotic to me. Since I don't have issues with the gaydom but do have them with neuroticism, I think I'll seek religious opinions about marriage elsewhere, like a church where people practice religion:
Marriage predates government so government shouldn't get to decide what marriage is. Because communal authorities never regulated norms and customs before the modern nation-state came into being.
The
gays have the same marriage rights as straight people since they're
free to marry someone of the opposite sex like the rest of us. They can also ride the same buses as we do but they have to sit in the very back.
If you put 100 dudes on a desert island they can't reproduce. Whole lot of durrrrr with this one. It's especially compelling because extremely far-fetched scenarios should influence social policy. Not that I mind, since if you drop a bomb on a small Iraqi village of 100 people they won't be able to reproduce either, so obvs we should ban warfare. But whatever, since we're using make believe to advance our arguments, I instead propose we populate this desert island of ours with 99 dudes and 1 lady, in which case 1 guy wins the
I'ma hit that azzz lottery and the rest have to sit around waiting for the ensuing offspring to sexually mature. In the meantime they'll probably all get bored and start riding each other's butts around the island looking for coconut crabs.
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Can't argue against this one. G-d started the whole show with a man and a lady and clearly meant it as a model for the rest of us to follow. Then those two had kids and those kids started humping each other and then made kids of their own who started humping each other until voila, there finally came a time when we didn't have to hump our brother or sister anymore but we still did because G-d made Adam and Eve and incest, not Adam and Steve.
Gay marriage is a threat to civilization. Because we say so, basically.
____________________
Now we will explore arguments for gay-on-gay marriage.
Civil rights. You know, the right to fully engage in civic life with equal protection under the law. I know a lot of put out, middle class white folk will complain about "special rights" because laws had to be written to keep them from doodying all over people who think, act, and look differently than them, but really, the sum total of those special rights is to not get doodied on by white folk, so find something else to blame your sad life on.
And oh shit, I said civil rights, which means some black pastor from deep-as-balls Dixie is going to write a
Swiss cheese missive about the gay civil rights movement having absolutely zero equivalency to the black civil rights movement since one is a visible minority while the other has to live their lives among starched shirts, winter coats, and whatever else you keep in your closet. I actually find this perspective encouraging since it means blacks have achieved nearly full equality with whites now that they too are rationalizing institutional discrimination as a protection of their own rights and not as the form of dickery it really is.
Fffffff the federal government. Arguing against gay marriage is generally the domain of insane right-wing conservatives who also believe government is evil but curiously refuse to move to places no government exists. If you want to shrink government then you have to reduce tax revenue, and if you want to reduce tax revenue you have to let the gays get married so they can take advantage of all those tax exemptions for the marrieds.
Showering at the gym with the gays. I know it's a problem sharing a locker room with one of the gays because if he sees your junk he's going to throw a bar of Irish Spring at your feet, but if he's in a legally-recognized marriage he probably won't because divorces are just too messy.
The gays are going to swim in a lake of fire for much longer than it takes them to fully combust. So give them four fucking minutes of peace and tranquility.
G-d invented rainbows. Clearly homeboy is
an ally.
Basic human decency. Because srsly.
____________________
So those are all the arguments for and against marriage equality. I hope you take each of them into equal consideration when examining your conscience about which are more compelling. Obviously you will end up supporting gay marriage since I said conscience, and people with one of those tend not to be horse-faced bigots who care deeply about their own civil rights but will make sure you don't get to enjoy yours.