June 23, 2009
Reclaiming Faggot
I was forced by the state to take a course in "multiculturalism" in order to receive my undergraduate degree and I opted for a course in women's studies on the recommendation of a friend at the time. I learned in that class that various minorities have "reclaimed" some of the hurtful words that have been directed at them and by using them willingly toward one another they become less hurtful when used by others.
While this notion has been far less successful with the term "nigger," which everyone in America knows is still considered extremely offensive when used by white people, other terms like "gal," "queer," and "bitch" have been more or less "reclaimed."
I find the whole notion of "reclaiming" terms to be a little bit specious. Yes, the meaning and especially the connotations of words shift over time, but actively using an offensive word in an effort to dis-empower unfair prejudices while some how promoting acceptance strikes me as absurd. Therefore, as a general rule, I take offensive language to be offensive.
The reason I chose to name the category of posts on this blog regarding the topic of homosexuality "On Faggotism" is because the term "faggot" is offensive and I appreciate the absurd reversal of application since nearly everything I write on the topic is pro-sodomy. But absurdity one aspect of effective humor and here the joke hinges on the fact that the term is offensive.
I dislike the term "faggot." It makes my skin crawl. I could count the number of times I've actually uttered the term on one hand. It offends me. I don't even like the term "fag," although it's marginally less obnoxious to me.
And I find it notable that I have heard it from the lips of homosexuals at least as frequently as I've heard it uttered by heterosexuals and they have generally used it to express at least as much disdain for a fellow gay as a homophobe would. Therefore, I think it is arguable to say that the homosexual who uses the term is expressing that disdain not merely for the individual toward whom the aspersion is cast but for the homosexual population at large. At the risk of sounding a little too "multicultural" I would be inclined to call that phenomenon "internalized homophobia."
This brings me to Mario Lavendeira AKA Perez Hilton. Mr. Lavendeira was recently involved in a violent altercation with bodyguards and members of the band Black Eyed Peas. During this altercation, Mr. Lavendeira apparently provoked someone to violence by calling William Adams AKA Will.I.Am a faggot.
Before I continue, I should point out that I have no respect for Mr. Lavendeira. Prior to final editing, this post included several colorful references to Mr. Lavendeira and his character both of which I consider to be vulgar and low in nearly every conceivable aspect. I used terms like "asshat," "twit," fuckwit," and a metaphor involving both the word "pustule" and "syphilitic testical" along with a reference to a farm animal that I find to be amusing. As you can see, however, I have taken the higher road here because this post isn't about my evaulation of Mr. Lavendeira's person or character.
The Gay, Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has spoken out on this issue, asking Mr. Lavendeira to apologize for his use of the word. And Mr. Lavendeira has responded by whining some more, "I am saddened GLAAD chose to victimize me further by criticizing me for how I non-violently dealt with a very scary situation that, unfortunately, turned violent." And then he goes on to suggest that GLAAD ought to apologize to him.
I don't think arguments should be settled with violence, but I can see how lesser men might decide that a smart alec deserves a punch in the nose for mouthing off as I believe Mr. Lavendeira did. So, the question of whether or not it was right or wrong for someone to allegedly hit Mr. Lavendeira. That was certainly a rightfully criminal act.
But having been wronged does not mitigate or diminish the fact that Mr. Lavendeira was also wrong even if not criminally so. (It might be argued that some of his editing of celebrity photos to imply that they are drug addicts is libelous, but that does not immediately seem to apply here.) And his use of the term "faggot" is also not made less offensive for it, either.
Mr. Lavendeira admits that he chose to call Mr. Adams a faggot because it was the worst possible thing he could think of. He knows the term is offensive. As a gay man, he also knows the term applies to him and not Mr. Adams who is heterosexual. He is implicitly accepting the idea that, if nothing else, Mr. Adams thinks that being gay is a VERY bad thing. The worst thing he could think of for Mr. Adams to be, actually.
He attempts to dodge the accusation of using an offensive anti-gay epithet by suggesting that he was merely being manipulative, but fails because his manipulation requires acknowledging and applying the hatefulness he wishes to exploit. So, aside from being hurtful and slanderous, Mr. Lavendeira tacitly accepts the accusation of homosexuality as an insult.
I'm glad that GLAAD called Mr. Lavendeira out on this crap, although I can't say I'm really all that surprised that he used the word. If there is any gay man who would spitefully call another man a faggot in an attempt to insult and provoke, it's him. That's exactly what kind of person he is and why I don't like him.
Update: Lavendiera apologizes and claims not to be homophobic. I remain unconvinced. I think he still subconsciously regards gay sex as shameful and immoral.
While this notion has been far less successful with the term "nigger," which everyone in America knows is still considered extremely offensive when used by white people, other terms like "gal," "queer," and "bitch" have been more or less "reclaimed."
I find the whole notion of "reclaiming" terms to be a little bit specious. Yes, the meaning and especially the connotations of words shift over time, but actively using an offensive word in an effort to dis-empower unfair prejudices while some how promoting acceptance strikes me as absurd. Therefore, as a general rule, I take offensive language to be offensive.
The reason I chose to name the category of posts on this blog regarding the topic of homosexuality "On Faggotism" is because the term "faggot" is offensive and I appreciate the absurd reversal of application since nearly everything I write on the topic is pro-sodomy. But absurdity one aspect of effective humor and here the joke hinges on the fact that the term is offensive.
I dislike the term "faggot." It makes my skin crawl. I could count the number of times I've actually uttered the term on one hand. It offends me. I don't even like the term "fag," although it's marginally less obnoxious to me.
And I find it notable that I have heard it from the lips of homosexuals at least as frequently as I've heard it uttered by heterosexuals and they have generally used it to express at least as much disdain for a fellow gay as a homophobe would. Therefore, I think it is arguable to say that the homosexual who uses the term is expressing that disdain not merely for the individual toward whom the aspersion is cast but for the homosexual population at large. At the risk of sounding a little too "multicultural" I would be inclined to call that phenomenon "internalized homophobia."
This brings me to Mario Lavendeira AKA Perez Hilton. Mr. Lavendeira was recently involved in a violent altercation with bodyguards and members of the band Black Eyed Peas. During this altercation, Mr. Lavendeira apparently provoked someone to violence by calling William Adams AKA Will.I.Am a faggot.
Before I continue, I should point out that I have no respect for Mr. Lavendeira. Prior to final editing, this post included several colorful references to Mr. Lavendeira and his character both of which I consider to be vulgar and low in nearly every conceivable aspect. I used terms like "asshat," "twit," fuckwit," and a metaphor involving both the word "pustule" and "syphilitic testical" along with a reference to a farm animal that I find to be amusing. As you can see, however, I have taken the higher road here because this post isn't about my evaulation of Mr. Lavendeira's person or character.
The Gay, Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has spoken out on this issue, asking Mr. Lavendeira to apologize for his use of the word. And Mr. Lavendeira has responded by whining some more, "I am saddened GLAAD chose to victimize me further by criticizing me for how I non-violently dealt with a very scary situation that, unfortunately, turned violent." And then he goes on to suggest that GLAAD ought to apologize to him.
I don't think arguments should be settled with violence, but I can see how lesser men might decide that a smart alec deserves a punch in the nose for mouthing off as I believe Mr. Lavendeira did. So, the question of whether or not it was right or wrong for someone to allegedly hit Mr. Lavendeira. That was certainly a rightfully criminal act.
But having been wronged does not mitigate or diminish the fact that Mr. Lavendeira was also wrong even if not criminally so. (It might be argued that some of his editing of celebrity photos to imply that they are drug addicts is libelous, but that does not immediately seem to apply here.) And his use of the term "faggot" is also not made less offensive for it, either.
Mr. Lavendeira admits that he chose to call Mr. Adams a faggot because it was the worst possible thing he could think of. He knows the term is offensive. As a gay man, he also knows the term applies to him and not Mr. Adams who is heterosexual. He is implicitly accepting the idea that, if nothing else, Mr. Adams thinks that being gay is a VERY bad thing. The worst thing he could think of for Mr. Adams to be, actually.
He attempts to dodge the accusation of using an offensive anti-gay epithet by suggesting that he was merely being manipulative, but fails because his manipulation requires acknowledging and applying the hatefulness he wishes to exploit. So, aside from being hurtful and slanderous, Mr. Lavendeira tacitly accepts the accusation of homosexuality as an insult.
I'm glad that GLAAD called Mr. Lavendeira out on this crap, although I can't say I'm really all that surprised that he used the word. If there is any gay man who would spitefully call another man a faggot in an attempt to insult and provoke, it's him. That's exactly what kind of person he is and why I don't like him.
Update: Lavendiera apologizes and claims not to be homophobic. I remain unconvinced. I think he still subconsciously regards gay sex as shameful and immoral.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
11:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 960 words, total size 6 kb.
May 17, 2009
"No Offense, but..."
I got an email from one of those fools on YouTube the other day. Check it out:
It's like those people who say something horrible, but say, "No offense!" As if that makes it OK.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hedonism.htmlWhat makes this communication so offensive to me is the closing which suggests that I grant this individual some sort of sanction because he's told me that he's being respectful even though everything in his note contains nothing but disrespect for me.
Ayn Rand said,
I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of RATIONAL VALUES. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the Science of Ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.
Playboys Interview with Ayn Rand, March 1964.
Why can't homosexuals just stand on the reality and merit of what homosexuality truely is ??? which in my opinnion based on objective self evident truth merely is a simple subjective choice. and why isnt that enough ??? why must homosexuals infiltrate Christianity, Buddism, Randism and find an indirect point and use it out of context only to gain a resemblence of conformity ???
Respectfull Inquiry ...
It's like those people who say something horrible, but say, "No offense!" As if that makes it OK.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
07:39 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.
May 10, 2009
AC/DC
Jason has written a post about bisexuality over at Erosophia. And interested parties may have noticed that I did not discuss this topic in my series on masculinity and femininity. The reason I didn't discuss it is mostly because I really don't think much of it. That said, I think Jason makes some interesting points.
First, he defines bisexuality in the broadest sense possible. If you have ever been attracted to a person of the sex you're not predominantly attracted to, then you're bisexual.
By this definition, then I'm bisexual and, like Jason, I suspect that the vast majority of people out in the world are bisexual.
I am not certain this definition is all that useful, though. If I were to go around telling people that I'm bisexual, it would be misleading because I have absolutely no intention of ever attempting a sexual coupling (forget about romantic pairing) with a woman. Similarly, I doubt any of my straight friends who've found themselves a little sexually curious about another men ever actually intend to do anything about it.
Jason's discussion of the ancient Greek ideas of sexual identity is interesting, but as he points out they are completely alien to our conception of sexuality.
Barring a qualifying definition such as the one Jason offers, when I hear the term "bisexual" I think of people who could literally go either way. These are Kinsey 3's or perhaps the 2's to the 4's. (I regard myself as a Kinsey 5.) In terms of frequency in the population, I think those have the lowest frequency of occurrence.
Jason is also correct in that bisexuality is demonized a bit. In my experience, among gays, bisexuals are regarded as being in denial (and frequently they do end up deciding to just be gay) or just looking for sex. Of course, if you're cruising for sex in the gay community, bisexuals and "straight" guys are often more highly valued because they're perceived to be more masculine.
I, personally, refuse to date someone (assuming I know relatively little about him prior to accepting a date) who identifies himself as a bisexual. I am not concerned about being with a man who is honest about his attraction to women, to whatever extent it may be, but with so many men claiming to be bisexual who are actually evading the fact that they prefer men over women, I would be concerned about how honest he is in the relationship.
I am also skeptical of the notion that people's sexuality shifts over time, although it seems theoretically possible because people's values can change over time. More often than not, people who experience a shift in sexuality were either not honest about their sexuality in the first place or they simply don't have a firm grasp on what they want in a sexual-romantic relationship in the first place.
Yes, there are people out there with loosey-goosey values to such a point where their identities slip and slide all over the place, but those people should not be regarded as normative models.
But overall, I do think people should be honest and open with their partners about their sexual desires.
First, he defines bisexuality in the broadest sense possible. If you have ever been attracted to a person of the sex you're not predominantly attracted to, then you're bisexual.
By this definition, then I'm bisexual and, like Jason, I suspect that the vast majority of people out in the world are bisexual.
I am not certain this definition is all that useful, though. If I were to go around telling people that I'm bisexual, it would be misleading because I have absolutely no intention of ever attempting a sexual coupling (forget about romantic pairing) with a woman. Similarly, I doubt any of my straight friends who've found themselves a little sexually curious about another men ever actually intend to do anything about it.
Jason's discussion of the ancient Greek ideas of sexual identity is interesting, but as he points out they are completely alien to our conception of sexuality.
Barring a qualifying definition such as the one Jason offers, when I hear the term "bisexual" I think of people who could literally go either way. These are Kinsey 3's or perhaps the 2's to the 4's. (I regard myself as a Kinsey 5.) In terms of frequency in the population, I think those have the lowest frequency of occurrence.
Jason is also correct in that bisexuality is demonized a bit. In my experience, among gays, bisexuals are regarded as being in denial (and frequently they do end up deciding to just be gay) or just looking for sex. Of course, if you're cruising for sex in the gay community, bisexuals and "straight" guys are often more highly valued because they're perceived to be more masculine.
I, personally, refuse to date someone (assuming I know relatively little about him prior to accepting a date) who identifies himself as a bisexual. I am not concerned about being with a man who is honest about his attraction to women, to whatever extent it may be, but with so many men claiming to be bisexual who are actually evading the fact that they prefer men over women, I would be concerned about how honest he is in the relationship.
I am also skeptical of the notion that people's sexuality shifts over time, although it seems theoretically possible because people's values can change over time. More often than not, people who experience a shift in sexuality were either not honest about their sexuality in the first place or they simply don't have a firm grasp on what they want in a sexual-romantic relationship in the first place.
Yes, there are people out there with loosey-goosey values to such a point where their identities slip and slide all over the place, but those people should not be regarded as normative models.
But overall, I do think people should be honest and open with their partners about their sexual desires.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:45 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.
May 07, 2009
Persecution in the US
In the US, the freedom of speech is sacrosanct. We defend it unlike any other country in the world and we know that the freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. The point of this freedom is not to protect people with popular points of view, but to protect those with unpopular ones.
Miss California has a rather unpopular view of gay marriage; she's against it.
When she expressed this view, she lost the Miss USA contest. Now, people all over the internets are digging into her records and finding as much dirt as they can, specifically semi-nude photos.
Elizabeth Hasslebeck, whose connection to Miss Prejean is not at all clear to me, accuses those who are digging for these photos of bullying and provides the world with even more evidence that she's an idiot.
The freedom of speech does not protect unpopular views from being shouted down by the rest of the world. And the freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your unpopular views; it only protects your expression of those views.
So, if you're a hypocritical congressman who practices sodomy in public restrooms while opposing it on the Senate floor, you're free to do that. And everyone else is free to call attention to those relevant facts. And if you're a beauty princess who inarticulately expresses a view that is flat wrong and has allegedly lied when you signed a contract with beauty pageant, everyone else is free to call attention to those facts.
I feel like there has to be a catchy saying somewhere about righteous people not fearing the truth. If there isn't, there should be.
If you've lived your life morally, then what have you to be ashamed of? What is there -- including your mistakes -- that you cannot address with your head held high?
I think Hasslebeck and Prejean both know that they're wrong and they're protesting merely to deflect attention from that fact.
Miss California has a rather unpopular view of gay marriage; she's against it.
When she expressed this view, she lost the Miss USA contest. Now, people all over the internets are digging into her records and finding as much dirt as they can, specifically semi-nude photos.
Elizabeth Hasslebeck, whose connection to Miss Prejean is not at all clear to me, accuses those who are digging for these photos of bullying and provides the world with even more evidence that she's an idiot.
The freedom of speech does not protect unpopular views from being shouted down by the rest of the world. And the freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of your unpopular views; it only protects your expression of those views.
So, if you're a hypocritical congressman who practices sodomy in public restrooms while opposing it on the Senate floor, you're free to do that. And everyone else is free to call attention to those relevant facts. And if you're a beauty princess who inarticulately expresses a view that is flat wrong and has allegedly lied when you signed a contract with beauty pageant, everyone else is free to call attention to those facts.
I feel like there has to be a catchy saying somewhere about righteous people not fearing the truth. If there isn't, there should be.
If you've lived your life morally, then what have you to be ashamed of? What is there -- including your mistakes -- that you cannot address with your head held high?
I think Hasslebeck and Prejean both know that they're wrong and they're protesting merely to deflect attention from that fact.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:33 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
May 06, 2009
And the Horse You Rode In On.
Found this over at Joe.My.God. and thought it bore repeating. Careful, though, it contains some impolite language and should, therefore, probably not be viewed at work unless you have headphones.
That's Lily Allen's "Fuck You."
That's Lily Allen's "Fuck You."
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:03 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
April 27, 2009
Why Won't this Miss California Thing Die?
Headline News is reporting this morning that Miss California says pageant officials said she should apologize for her remarks against gay marriage and not mention her faith.
I don't think she needs to apologize for being wrong and she doesn't think so either. She believes she represents the majority opinion both in California and in the United States.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what anyone believes on this issue. We would not vote on whether or not we should allow slavery and we should not leave any of our other freedoms up to a vote, including marriage.
Chris Muir voiced his support for Miss California in yesterday's Day by Day cartoon strip and reminds me of the sort of blatant stupidity there is on the right toward homosexuality and homosexual men in particular.
The strip shows one of the main characters in the role of Miss Florida countering Perez Hilton's question by removing her clothes and asking why a gay man is judging a women's beauty contest.
I suppose Muir has no problem with the fact that six of the other judges were women. I haven't bothered to research the sexuality of any of the judges, but we can safely assume that the regular inclusion of women among the judges panel indicates that this beauty contest is not merely about physical beauty. Of course, only a complete idiot would assume that a beauty contest that includes a question and answer section about topics like current events and topics is exclusively about physical beauty and that idiotic answers regarding those events and issues would be discounted.
Muir attributes the inclusion of this issue as a sign of pervasive "political correctness" and I am sure that some people support gay marriage out of "social awareness" or some other collectivist blarney, but this strip does not reflect the third, proper position: that one should support gay marriage in defense of individual rights. Instead, the strip asks us to accept the argument from "social awareness" and look to untold "billions" who are against gay marriage for guidance.
I know what I'm getting into reading Day by Day. The author is always to the right on issues, but he's generally displayed more enlightenment and respect for individuals than he did in this strip.
I don't think she needs to apologize for being wrong and she doesn't think so either. She believes she represents the majority opinion both in California and in the United States.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what anyone believes on this issue. We would not vote on whether or not we should allow slavery and we should not leave any of our other freedoms up to a vote, including marriage.
Chris Muir voiced his support for Miss California in yesterday's Day by Day cartoon strip and reminds me of the sort of blatant stupidity there is on the right toward homosexuality and homosexual men in particular.
The strip shows one of the main characters in the role of Miss Florida countering Perez Hilton's question by removing her clothes and asking why a gay man is judging a women's beauty contest.
I suppose Muir has no problem with the fact that six of the other judges were women. I haven't bothered to research the sexuality of any of the judges, but we can safely assume that the regular inclusion of women among the judges panel indicates that this beauty contest is not merely about physical beauty. Of course, only a complete idiot would assume that a beauty contest that includes a question and answer section about topics like current events and topics is exclusively about physical beauty and that idiotic answers regarding those events and issues would be discounted.
Muir attributes the inclusion of this issue as a sign of pervasive "political correctness" and I am sure that some people support gay marriage out of "social awareness" or some other collectivist blarney, but this strip does not reflect the third, proper position: that one should support gay marriage in defense of individual rights. Instead, the strip asks us to accept the argument from "social awareness" and look to untold "billions" who are against gay marriage for guidance.
I know what I'm getting into reading Day by Day. The author is always to the right on issues, but he's generally displayed more enlightenment and respect for individuals than he did in this strip.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:52 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.
April 22, 2009
Now I'm Getting Carried Away
Joe. My. God is discussing the argument that Miss California might be able to sue for religious discrimination.
Bull crap.
What if she'd gotten up there and someone asked her views on cosmology and she replied, "Well, I believe that our world came into being when a giant space hamster consumed a magic kernel of space corn and it will come to an end when the resources of our planet have been absorbed out into the intestinal cosmos of the space hamster and we are evacuated from his holy bowels. And also we symbolically consume the flesh and blood of babies and puppies in our religious ceremonies?"
Well, she'd deserve to lose for that kind of asinine answer, too. I think the other guy's response to this question:
Bull crap.
What if she'd gotten up there and someone asked her views on cosmology and she replied, "Well, I believe that our world came into being when a giant space hamster consumed a magic kernel of space corn and it will come to an end when the resources of our planet have been absorbed out into the intestinal cosmos of the space hamster and we are evacuated from his holy bowels. And also we symbolically consume the flesh and blood of babies and puppies in our religious ceremonies?"
Well, she'd deserve to lose for that kind of asinine answer, too. I think the other guy's response to this question:
The First Amendment insulates interference with religion from the government — it does not insulate religious interference with anyone else," said Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior legal analyst for FOX News. "I don't think the litigation would get to first base."Exactly. Don't be a dumbass so that everyone else doesn't have to treat you that way.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:17 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
My Thoughts on Miss California Losing That Beauty Pageant
This is for Myrhaf.
Recently, Miss California lost a beauty pageant. I think it might have been Miss America, but I care so little about her and pageants that I don't remember.
Celebrity gossip blogger, raging homosexual, and generally obnoxious individual, Perez Hilton, was one of the judges and he asked her if she supported gay marriage.
She gave this rambly, stupid answer that amounted to, "SODOMITE, NO! I AM A GOD WARRIOR!"
And so now she attributes her losing to that answer, but stands by it because she feels that she actually won because she stood up for baby Jesus against those who would rape and eat him. (Gays rape and eat babies.) (Allegedly.)
This story has made the rounds on all the gay blogs and I gotta say: I don't care.
An idiot for a beauty queen just isn't a headline to me.
I think it's arrogant of her to say that her weak-minded response to a single question is what cost her the crown but 1) an arrogant beauty queen just isn't a headline to anyone any more and 2) given that the chick who won looks like her clone, perhaps there's something to that.
What IS interesting in that it's so stupid and uninteresting is the fact that this ditz, Miss California, is getting more press than the winner of this thing.
(I googled to write this and found out that it was the Miss USA contest and Miss North Carolina won.)
I have no doubt that there is some right-winger or two out there complaining that the gays have infiltrated the morally-upright, totally heterosexual world of beauty pageants with their gay agenda, but I think we can all agree that THOSE are people in need of a newsflash.
Another thing contributing to my near-complete apathy on this story is the fact that I am partial to brunettes.
Recently, Miss California lost a beauty pageant. I think it might have been Miss America, but I care so little about her and pageants that I don't remember.
Celebrity gossip blogger, raging homosexual, and generally obnoxious individual, Perez Hilton, was one of the judges and he asked her if she supported gay marriage.
She gave this rambly, stupid answer that amounted to, "SODOMITE, NO! I AM A GOD WARRIOR!"
And so now she attributes her losing to that answer, but stands by it because she feels that she actually won because she stood up for baby Jesus against those who would rape and eat him. (Gays rape and eat babies.) (Allegedly.)
This story has made the rounds on all the gay blogs and I gotta say: I don't care.
An idiot for a beauty queen just isn't a headline to me.
I think it's arrogant of her to say that her weak-minded response to a single question is what cost her the crown but 1) an arrogant beauty queen just isn't a headline to anyone any more and 2) given that the chick who won looks like her clone, perhaps there's something to that.
What IS interesting in that it's so stupid and uninteresting is the fact that this ditz, Miss California, is getting more press than the winner of this thing.
(I googled to write this and found out that it was the Miss USA contest and Miss North Carolina won.)
I have no doubt that there is some right-winger or two out there complaining that the gays have infiltrated the morally-upright, totally heterosexual world of beauty pageants with their gay agenda, but I think we can all agree that THOSE are people in need of a newsflash.
Another thing contributing to my near-complete apathy on this story is the fact that I am partial to brunettes.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:58 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.
April 20, 2009
Look What God Hath Wrought
Many people on the right and the left like to romanticize the Iraqi people. The left probably talks about their "rich, vibrant culture" and the folks on the right talk about their longing for freedom.
That longing for freedom is, as we all know now, what drove the population of Iraq to rise up and overthrow their evil dictator, Saddam Hussein, and since that time they've spent their time in an active, vibrant discussion of how to best protect individual rights in their country.
What's that, you say? They didn't do that? They aren't doing that?
hmmm... But what about that rich, vibrant culture where freedom is a keystone value?
Well, I'm sure they're just about to get around to doing that.
Right after they get done rounding up all the homos in their country, gluing their anuses shut, and killing them by inducing diarrhea.
Think that over when you start imagining this "rich and vibrant culture" of "freedom lovers." From Towleroad:
I was very happy to know that Saddam Hussein was executed. He was a vile human being and deserved it. But the notion that the Iraqi people were clamoring for freedom is almost purely fiction.
Every single human being -- gay and straight alike -- should be horrified and enraged by this to the point where they demand that their nascent government bring the executioners to justice. I would not propose giving them the same treatment, but a swift, inexpensive execution might be in order.
So, where is that protest? Where is the outrage? Where are the masses of people crying out for freedom from these low-level tyrants?
People get the government they deserve, I suppose.
That longing for freedom is, as we all know now, what drove the population of Iraq to rise up and overthrow their evil dictator, Saddam Hussein, and since that time they've spent their time in an active, vibrant discussion of how to best protect individual rights in their country.
What's that, you say? They didn't do that? They aren't doing that?
hmmm... But what about that rich, vibrant culture where freedom is a keystone value?
Well, I'm sure they're just about to get around to doing that.
Right after they get done rounding up all the homos in their country, gluing their anuses shut, and killing them by inducing diarrhea.
Think that over when you start imagining this "rich and vibrant culture" of "freedom lovers." From Towleroad:
"According to [Yina Mohammad], ... After they glue the anuses of homosexuals, they give them a drink that causes diarrhea. Since the anus is closed, the diarrhea causes death. Videos of this form of torture are being distributed on mobile cellphones in Iraq.' According to this human rights activist, for the past 3 weeks a crackdown on homosexuals has been going on based on a religious decree that demands their death; dozens have been targeted. She says that the persecution of homosexuals is not confined to the Shiite clerics. Some Sunni leaders have also declared the death penalty for sodomy on satellite channels.Religion of peace. Rich, vibrant culture. Longing for freedom. Indeed.
I was very happy to know that Saddam Hussein was executed. He was a vile human being and deserved it. But the notion that the Iraqi people were clamoring for freedom is almost purely fiction.
Every single human being -- gay and straight alike -- should be horrified and enraged by this to the point where they demand that their nascent government bring the executioners to justice. I would not propose giving them the same treatment, but a swift, inexpensive execution might be in order.
So, where is that protest? Where is the outrage? Where are the masses of people crying out for freedom from these low-level tyrants?
People get the government they deserve, I suppose.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:20 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.
April 17, 2009
In Rest Stops and Airport Bathrooms...
There have been a lot of really lame parodies of that awful NOM "Coming Storm" commercial, but this one is actually pretty clever.
Joe.My.God.
There have been a lot of really lame parodies of that awful NOM "Coming Storm" commercial, but this one is actually pretty clever.
Joe.My.God.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
07:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
Pat Buchanan Shows his Ass... Again
Pat Buchanan is such an idiot. Every single argument he offers here is plainly specious and it troubles me that any adult would actually offer up an argument from "natural law" (here meaning something biological) while also conceding that the circumstance (homosexuality) at hand may be genetic. And don't get me started on arguments from "god's law."
Found: Towleroad
Pat Buchanan is such an idiot. Every single argument he offers here is plainly specious and it troubles me that any adult would actually offer up an argument from "natural law" (here meaning something biological) while also conceding that the circumstance (homosexuality) at hand may be genetic. And don't get me started on arguments from "god's law."
Found: Towleroad
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
07:05 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
April 16, 2009
Washington State Attempts Separate but Equal Again
The Seattle Times: Washington Legislature expands gay partnerships
Because I'm not trying to get sued by the AP or pay them any money, I'm not quoting the story, but basically Washington State expanded their domestic partnerships law so that they are purportedly exactly the same as marriage in every way except for name.
Different name, same rights and protections.
Next up: separate toilets, water fountains, public pools, schools, AND we get the ever-coveted back-of-the-bus seating.
I want to point out, again, that this is a matter of blatant sexism by our government. Women enjoy the freedom to marry a man, while men do not. Similarly, men can marry a woman, but women cannot. Why do we tolerate injustice like this simply because it applies directly to every one?
Because I'm not trying to get sued by the AP or pay them any money, I'm not quoting the story, but basically Washington State expanded their domestic partnerships law so that they are purportedly exactly the same as marriage in every way except for name.
Different name, same rights and protections.
Next up: separate toilets, water fountains, public pools, schools, AND we get the ever-coveted back-of-the-bus seating.
I want to point out, again, that this is a matter of blatant sexism by our government. Women enjoy the freedom to marry a man, while men do not. Similarly, men can marry a woman, but women cannot. Why do we tolerate injustice like this simply because it applies directly to every one?
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:46 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
April 09, 2009
The Package Deal in Action
Check out this discussion between a representative from that group that made the commercial from yesterday and a gay.
Notice how ineffective Salmonese's arguments are against the lady's protestations that gay marriage will herald the end of the world. Her arguments are completely bogus and it's obvious to me because those issues are not directly related to gay marriage -- except for the way even gay advocates put them together. Salmonese's unwillingness to even complain about moving the goalposts is telling.
Found on Joe.My.God.
Notice how ineffective Salmonese's arguments are against the lady's protestations that gay marriage will herald the end of the world. Her arguments are completely bogus and it's obvious to me because those issues are not directly related to gay marriage -- except for the way even gay advocates put them together. Salmonese's unwillingness to even complain about moving the goalposts is telling.
Found on Joe.My.God.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:02 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
April 08, 2009
The Title of this Post Contains the Words "Package" "Gays" and "Bondage"
Actually, I just wanted to come up with a title for this post that describes how many liberals really are making a package deal out of gay marriage, which gives a whiff of legitimacy to Christian groups who protest that their freedom is being restricted by gay marriage.
Here's what Christians are saying:
Unfortunately, this commercial is more rhetoric than substance, so I would have to do my own digging to find situations where some group or individual that hates gays is being "punished" for hating gays. It would not be hard to find such cases:
The real problem here isn't so much that Christians and all the various species of gay-haters out there are lumping these things together is the fact that gay activists themselves often lump these things together.
Although they may address the issues separately, they do call marriage, discrimination in business, and hate crimes all species of the same genus of gay rights.
If gay marriage is a question of civil rights as is the question of whether someone may be put out of a place of business just because the owner doesn't like the KIND of person you are or if the question of whether you are find a particular crime particularly frightening because you share some characteristic with the victim is similar in kind to gay marriage based on the notion that the minority status of homosexuality warrants some unquantifiable* consideration, then the legitimacy of one of these things casts doubt on the legitimacy of gay marriage, too. Put more simply, if all of these things are alike in some way, then the injustice behind some of them calls into question the justness of all of them.
* I say "unquantifiable" because gay rights advocates are quick to say that they aren't asking for "special" or "additional" rights and consideration but the very nature of hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws is such that there is some consideration given to those traits.
This is why I am often quick to say that I am not for "gay rights" apart from being philosophically opposed to the very expression "gay rights." Because I do not want any gay rights.
I want regular rights and that includes the right to unite my property and personal rights with anyone of my choice in the eyes of the state in something we generally call "marriage."
Here's what Christians are saying:
Unfortunately, this commercial is more rhetoric than substance, so I would have to do my own digging to find situations where some group or individual that hates gays is being "punished" for hating gays. It would not be hard to find such cases:
- People convicted under hate crime legislation
- Groups losing tax exempt status for hating gays
- Businesses being punished or forced to change business practices for excluding gay a la eHarmony
- Hate crime legislation is nothing more than thought policing and treating the majority of crimes as less reprehensible than a small minority of crimes.
- Tax exemption, particularly for religious groups, is problematic on a number of levels. First of all, our tax system is just wrong. Second of all, restraining the power to tax from being applied to religious institutions is arguably an endorsement of religion by the state.
- State intervention in trade is also wholly inappropriate whether it is to stipulate the prices or interest rates one is allowed to charge or to tell who they may or may not do business with.
The real problem here isn't so much that Christians and all the various species of gay-haters out there are lumping these things together is the fact that gay activists themselves often lump these things together.
Although they may address the issues separately, they do call marriage, discrimination in business, and hate crimes all species of the same genus of gay rights.
If gay marriage is a question of civil rights as is the question of whether someone may be put out of a place of business just because the owner doesn't like the KIND of person you are or if the question of whether you are find a particular crime particularly frightening because you share some characteristic with the victim is similar in kind to gay marriage based on the notion that the minority status of homosexuality warrants some unquantifiable* consideration, then the legitimacy of one of these things casts doubt on the legitimacy of gay marriage, too. Put more simply, if all of these things are alike in some way, then the injustice behind some of them calls into question the justness of all of them.
* I say "unquantifiable" because gay rights advocates are quick to say that they aren't asking for "special" or "additional" rights and consideration but the very nature of hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws is such that there is some consideration given to those traits.
This is why I am often quick to say that I am not for "gay rights" apart from being philosophically opposed to the very expression "gay rights." Because I do not want any gay rights.
I want regular rights and that includes the right to unite my property and personal rights with anyone of my choice in the eyes of the state in something we generally call "marriage."
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:25 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.
April 03, 2009
Juvenile? Yes. Homophobic? I don't see it.
Some gays are in a fit about Glenn Beck's (very inaccurate) imitation of Barney Frank. Joe.My. God says, "Is mocking Barney Frank's speech impediment any worse than ridiculing
Ahnold's accent? I'd say, yes - when it's also meant to belittle his
gayness."
Here's the clip:
I think Beck sounds more like Daffy Duck than Barney Frank, but I can't see where Beck is mocking Frank's sexuality there. The only thing that I can see that even comes close to implying that the character he's imitating is gay is that he uses the word "fabulous," but the last I heard anyone is allowed to say that regardless of their views of sodomy.
So, I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm a homo with thicker skin than those who are so deeply offended by Beck's blathering.
Here's the clip:
I think Beck sounds more like Daffy Duck than Barney Frank, but I can't see where Beck is mocking Frank's sexuality there. The only thing that I can see that even comes close to implying that the character he's imitating is gay is that he uses the word "fabulous," but the last I heard anyone is allowed to say that regardless of their views of sodomy.
So, I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm a homo with thicker skin than those who are so deeply offended by Beck's blathering.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:05 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.
February 25, 2009
Silly Religionist State Senator Drags up a Canard and Earns a Fisking
Ari Armstrong just posted a good item regarding Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe's recent comments in which he compared homosexuality to murder and adultery.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
12:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
January 28, 2009
For All the Wrong Reasons
Found over at Joe.My.God, who regards this ruling as disappointing. I agree with him but for different reasons.
Fresno Bee: Court: Christian school can expel lesbian students
I am not familiar with California law nor the contorted thinking that relegates some organizations apparently characterized by self-proclaimed irrationality that provide services in return for pay into some group of non-business entities.
What concerns me here isn't that there are some yahoos out there who are willing to expel tuition-paying students because they are gay, but that the court upholds their right to do so for reasons that are a violation of those same rights. It cannot be claimed that this decision is a victory for individual rights because individual rights have not been affirmed in any way. The only thing that has been affirmed is the state's power to force people to do things with their property that run contrary to their own judgment and opinion.
Fresno Bee: Court: Christian school can expel lesbian students
Two girls sued claiming they were discriminated against after they were expelled from the Wildomar school in 2005. A lower court said the school isn't bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as a business establishment.So, if the school were a business, then it would not be permitted to exercise its right to choose the people with whom it trades. Since it's California and it's 2009, I'm also going to wager that if it were a state institution then they would also not be permitted to kick out lesbians.
I am not familiar with California law nor the contorted thinking that relegates some organizations apparently characterized by self-proclaimed irrationality that provide services in return for pay into some group of non-business entities.
What concerns me here isn't that there are some yahoos out there who are willing to expel tuition-paying students because they are gay, but that the court upholds their right to do so for reasons that are a violation of those same rights. It cannot be claimed that this decision is a victory for individual rights because individual rights have not been affirmed in any way. The only thing that has been affirmed is the state's power to force people to do things with their property that run contrary to their own judgment and opinion.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
January 22, 2009
Married Gays Get Benefits in NY
Newsday.com: Midlevel NY Court Upholds Gay Marriage Benefits
There are two things that are interesting to me about this whole thing.
First of all, this ruling means that the courts of New York are declining to opt into the protections offered by DOMA, a federal law, which says in part that states aren't obliged to recognize same-sex marriages (ONLY) performed out of state. I know other states have had similar rulings, but I don't live there.
Readers more familiar with law stuff might be less perplexed by this, but as I understand it Federal Law supercedes State Law. So, at the Federal level, the law says, "You don't have to recognize this." And at the State level, the court is saying, "Yes, we do." And then there's the Constitution, which is supposed to be the boss of all laws everywhere in these United States, saying, "All y'all need to recognize each other's laws and stuff."
It seems clear to me which party is wrong here, but what is strange to me is that a state is mandating a contradiction to Federal Law. I imagine this is not at all uncommon particularly with laws that say "you don't hafta whatever." I also imagine that the ruling in the Appellate court doesn't actually say what I said in my summary, but it still made me think. It just seems funny to think of a state "managing upwards" to the idiots criminals esteemed personages representing us in Congress.
The second thing that is interesting to me about this is that it came up not as a question of anyone's actual, legitimate rights. It came up because some busy-body witchdoctors objected to some state agency offering partner benefits to its employees. I guess would be difficult to find standing for a case otherwise, but this seems very silly to me.
And in case you're wondering, I don't have any particular objections to the state offering benefits to its employees. Under a government run by rational political philosophy, agents of the state would have to be paid for their service in some form or another, so I don't see this as a particular problem. And I suppose if anyone is to object to a particular form of payment, it would be some tax payer.
Some people just have too much time on their hands.
ALBANY, N.Y. - A midlevel appeals court Thursday upheld New York's policy granting health benefits to spouses of gay state workers legally married outside the state.Effectively, this means that marriages -- ALL marriages -- performed out of state are to be granted full benefits here in New York. The most notable impact is, of course, to gay marriages.
Five Appellate Division justices, in two concurring decisions, rejected claims that the state Department of Civil Service exceeded its statutory authority in granting health insurance benefits to same-sex partners legally married elsewhere.
The justices upheld a 2008 ruling from a lower court in Albany, rejecting a challenge on behalf of four upstate taxpayers brought by attorney Brian Raum, who is also counsel for the Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund.
There are two things that are interesting to me about this whole thing.
First of all, this ruling means that the courts of New York are declining to opt into the protections offered by DOMA, a federal law, which says in part that states aren't obliged to recognize same-sex marriages (ONLY) performed out of state. I know other states have had similar rulings, but I don't live there.
Readers more familiar with law stuff might be less perplexed by this, but as I understand it Federal Law supercedes State Law. So, at the Federal level, the law says, "You don't have to recognize this." And at the State level, the court is saying, "Yes, we do." And then there's the Constitution, which is supposed to be the boss of all laws everywhere in these United States, saying, "All y'all need to recognize each other's laws and stuff."
It seems clear to me which party is wrong here, but what is strange to me is that a state is mandating a contradiction to Federal Law. I imagine this is not at all uncommon particularly with laws that say "you don't hafta whatever." I also imagine that the ruling in the Appellate court doesn't actually say what I said in my summary, but it still made me think. It just seems funny to think of a state "managing upwards" to the idiots criminals esteemed personages representing us in Congress.
The second thing that is interesting to me about this is that it came up not as a question of anyone's actual, legitimate rights. It came up because some busy-body witchdoctors objected to some state agency offering partner benefits to its employees. I guess would be difficult to find standing for a case otherwise, but this seems very silly to me.
And in case you're wondering, I don't have any particular objections to the state offering benefits to its employees. Under a government run by rational political philosophy, agents of the state would have to be paid for their service in some form or another, so I don't see this as a particular problem. And I suppose if anyone is to object to a particular form of payment, it would be some tax payer.
Some people just have too much time on their hands.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
09:23 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 520 words, total size 4 kb.
Get Over Your Penis
Although it can be really funny, I am generally annoyed with men who are preoccupied with not appearing to be gay to the point of modifying their behavior from what makes sense. This includes:
And now I come across this cast-off remark over on Kottke about two men in a hotel room.
Is it actually all that unusual that two men might share a hotel room? Where I come from, it's not, but I'm also gay and have generally associated only with heterosexual men who aren't concerned about the appearance of homosexuality. And I AM gay, so my appearing to be gay is just reality and generally serves my purposes.
This is one of the reasons I don't hang out with straight men very much. They're often just too weird.
On the other side, I do appreciate the rise of terms like "man date" and "bromance" among young, straight men. Although they sound like they might involve gay stuff, they really don't. A man date is just two straight guys hanging out together. A bromance is just a strong, non-sexual relationship between two men. MTV even has a show about that.
So, maybe our cultural sensitivity about perceived homosexual behavior is shifting. I hope.
- Those guys who leave a buffer seat at the movies when going with another guy pal.
- The guys who flatly refuse to use a urinal that is immediately beside another occupied urinal.
- That stupid one-armed hug guys do from 3 feet away from one another to that no one even suspects that their pelvises may have grazed.
And now I come across this cast-off remark over on Kottke about two men in a hotel room.
9:07 pm Jack and Ben in a hotel room together? Is Lost doing its own slash fiction now?Really? REALLY?
Is it actually all that unusual that two men might share a hotel room? Where I come from, it's not, but I'm also gay and have generally associated only with heterosexual men who aren't concerned about the appearance of homosexuality. And I AM gay, so my appearing to be gay is just reality and generally serves my purposes.
This is one of the reasons I don't hang out with straight men very much. They're often just too weird.
On the other side, I do appreciate the rise of terms like "man date" and "bromance" among young, straight men. Although they sound like they might involve gay stuff, they really don't. A man date is just two straight guys hanging out together. A bromance is just a strong, non-sexual relationship between two men. MTV even has a show about that.
So, maybe our cultural sensitivity about perceived homosexual behavior is shifting. I hope.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:03 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.
December 16, 2008
Too Gay to Function
It's been, like, five whole seconds since I talked about something explicitly gay, so I know you're sitting there saying to yourself, "Why did I come to this blog again?" Fortunately, this post is about gay stuff so you can go back to saying calling the time when you asked that question a "senior moment."
Do you watch Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple in the World?
I hope not. Logo doesn't deserve that many viewers... that is, of course, you've been watching it to get the number for ordering a Snuggie and then it's fine.
Rick & Steve is about a gay couple who live in West Lahunga Beach where they've fathered a child with a lesbian couple. The show is pretty much a long string of puns about gay stuff and really disgusting references to sex and genitals and whatnot.
WELL! The episode from yesterday was really funny.
See, Rick & Steve and their friends all decided to go to San Francisco for Gay Pride. Unfortunately, when the iconoclastic, completely non-stereotypical, utterly diverse people of San Francisco find out that Rick & Steve are a monogamous couple fulfilling all sorts of stereotypes, they attack Rick & Steve and their friends for being too "gay."
The joke just goes on and on and on as San Francisco and the liberal-minded homos of San Fran have taken the them of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" to its logical extreme. One guy's head actually explodes when he overloads on recognition of all the contradictions he's tried to embody while never fulfilling ANY stereotypes about gender or sexuality. At least, I think it was a guy. Rick & Steve actually have to escape an angry mob of nonconformists who claim to be oppressed by Rick & Steve's stereotypes by following "Harry Tubman" into an underground bar where traditional people hang out and tolerate Stonewall-type raids from gay police who are checking to make sure no one is being to conventional.
The episode is overall very funny, but the theme attacking the nonconformists looses its bite with the introduction of a psychotic "traditional gay" who likes show tunes and has a lisp and plans to destroy the city so that the traditional gays can come back and take over. That character was brought in late in the episode to present a balanced view and introduce the lame theme of "be yourself." The whole show is spent showing how ridiculous the non-conformists are only to turn around and re-affirm the premise of "non-judgmentality" which is what lead to the existence non-conformists in the first place. Classic floating abstraction.
Anywhoodles, the majority of this episode was very funny thanks to all the mockery of the silly non-conformist gays. Too bad the makers of Logo weren't more insightful about the origins of those maniacs.
Do you watch Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple in the World?
I hope not. Logo doesn't deserve that many viewers... that is, of course, you've been watching it to get the number for ordering a Snuggie and then it's fine.
Rick & Steve is about a gay couple who live in West Lahunga Beach where they've fathered a child with a lesbian couple. The show is pretty much a long string of puns about gay stuff and really disgusting references to sex and genitals and whatnot.
WELL! The episode from yesterday was really funny.
See, Rick & Steve and their friends all decided to go to San Francisco for Gay Pride. Unfortunately, when the iconoclastic, completely non-stereotypical, utterly diverse people of San Francisco find out that Rick & Steve are a monogamous couple fulfilling all sorts of stereotypes, they attack Rick & Steve and their friends for being too "gay."
The joke just goes on and on and on as San Francisco and the liberal-minded homos of San Fran have taken the them of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" to its logical extreme. One guy's head actually explodes when he overloads on recognition of all the contradictions he's tried to embody while never fulfilling ANY stereotypes about gender or sexuality. At least, I think it was a guy. Rick & Steve actually have to escape an angry mob of nonconformists who claim to be oppressed by Rick & Steve's stereotypes by following "Harry Tubman" into an underground bar where traditional people hang out and tolerate Stonewall-type raids from gay police who are checking to make sure no one is being to conventional.
The episode is overall very funny, but the theme attacking the nonconformists looses its bite with the introduction of a psychotic "traditional gay" who likes show tunes and has a lisp and plans to destroy the city so that the traditional gays can come back and take over. That character was brought in late in the episode to present a balanced view and introduce the lame theme of "be yourself." The whole show is spent showing how ridiculous the non-conformists are only to turn around and re-affirm the premise of "non-judgmentality" which is what lead to the existence non-conformists in the first place. Classic floating abstraction.
Anywhoodles, the majority of this episode was very funny thanks to all the mockery of the silly non-conformist gays. Too bad the makers of Logo weren't more insightful about the origins of those maniacs.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
11:13 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.
December 03, 2008
Prop 8 - The Musical
Buddhista sent me a link to this funny video this morning.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
November 29, 2008
Spousal Evidentiary Privilege
In the first part of my series on various secular arguments against gay marriage, I described the most persuasive argument I've heard on the topic. The basic idea is that all of the legitimate political elements of marriage are items that can be covered in a contract. As such, the conclusion drawn is that the state should not recognize marriage at all.
I find this argument the strongest of the ones considered because it does assume only the proper functions of government and seeks to constrain the state to the protection of individual rights.
But I am not convinced by this argument because marriage implies a profound romantic relationship between two individuals and provides the state with clear, universal guidance for treatment of all the persons and property involved.
For most situations, you can contract for that treatment. You can sign contracts granting power of attorney and unifying your property. Yes, in order to cover every situation, you could be looking at quite a bit of paperwork, but you can get you and your partner covered.
There is one notable area where one cannot get protection by contracts: spousal privilege.
Evidentiary privileges are granted in a number of different relationships, e.g. doctor-patient, accountant-client, not just between spouses. As a rule of evidence, privileges are a bit different than other rules which tend to exclude evidence because it's not useful as evidence -- as in the case of heresay. Instead, privileged informatin is recognized as potentially useful to a case, but is excluded from being presented because of its nature as priviliged.
Defense of these privileges comes in a couple of forms.
One argument in support of evidentiary privilege asserts that the exchange of privileged information is essential to the relationship in question and the relationship in question is considered indispensible. For example, if you cannot speak freely with your doctor about your health issues, like if they need to treat you for a drug overdose, then they cannot function well as your doctor.
Another argument that is sometimes used to support evidentiary privileges is the argument from privacy. People using this argument simply say that it's a violation of your privacy to allow the state to compell others to share your information and use it against you.
I question both of these arguments. The first case seems to imply a reliance upon the argument from state or social interest. The second case is overly broad simply because "privacy" isn't a right in itself. This leaves me to wonder if evidentiary privileges are legitimate protections under the proper role of government.
Nevertheless, the privileges themselves seem to echo certain constitutional benefits such as the right against self-incrimination provided for under the Fifth Amendment.
I think the right against self-incrimination is a legitimate protection under proper governance. I can't even think of what a trial would look like if it weren't in place.
Police: You have to confess to robbing the bank.
Suspect: Um. No?
There are, of course, other situations where Fifth Amendment protections apply. I'm just providing that example to show that I support those protections at least in some situations.
I am not convinced that all evidentiary privileges are proper, though. Consider priest-confessor privilege. Should the state show restraint in light of your delusions? I don't think so. You should make your crazy of some brand that doesn't require being a blabbermouth in order to get into heaven.
But spousal privilege does appear to be a proper extention of the protection against self-incrimination.
Romantic relationships are formed by mutual respect for the same ideas and values and sexual attraction. It sounds dry and simple put this way, but deep romances are formed on the basis of the most fundamental aspects of each individual's personal identity. It is as if the two people share the same spirit.
This is why love is such a profound feeling and why I see marriage as a special relationship worthy of special recognition by the state. It is also the nature of romantic love that makes me say that spousal privilege is a legitimate protection under proper governance.
I find this argument the strongest of the ones considered because it does assume only the proper functions of government and seeks to constrain the state to the protection of individual rights.
But I am not convinced by this argument because marriage implies a profound romantic relationship between two individuals and provides the state with clear, universal guidance for treatment of all the persons and property involved.
For most situations, you can contract for that treatment. You can sign contracts granting power of attorney and unifying your property. Yes, in order to cover every situation, you could be looking at quite a bit of paperwork, but you can get you and your partner covered.
There is one notable area where one cannot get protection by contracts: spousal privilege.
The marital confidences privilege is a form of privileged communication protecting the contents of confidential communications between husband and wife. This privilege applies in civil and criminal cases. When applied, a court may not permit one spouse to testify against the other concerning confidential communications made during marriage.The question is whether or not these evidentiary privileges are legitimate under the role of the state as protector of individual rights.
...
The spousal testimonial privilege (a.k.a. "spousal immunity") can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. Under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, this privilege attaches to the witness spouse; that is, the defendant's spouse can refuse to testify against the defendant, but the defendant may not prevent his spouse from testifying against him or her.
Evidentiary privileges are granted in a number of different relationships, e.g. doctor-patient, accountant-client, not just between spouses. As a rule of evidence, privileges are a bit different than other rules which tend to exclude evidence because it's not useful as evidence -- as in the case of heresay. Instead, privileged informatin is recognized as potentially useful to a case, but is excluded from being presented because of its nature as priviliged.
Defense of these privileges comes in a couple of forms.
One argument in support of evidentiary privilege asserts that the exchange of privileged information is essential to the relationship in question and the relationship in question is considered indispensible. For example, if you cannot speak freely with your doctor about your health issues, like if they need to treat you for a drug overdose, then they cannot function well as your doctor.
Another argument that is sometimes used to support evidentiary privileges is the argument from privacy. People using this argument simply say that it's a violation of your privacy to allow the state to compell others to share your information and use it against you.
I question both of these arguments. The first case seems to imply a reliance upon the argument from state or social interest. The second case is overly broad simply because "privacy" isn't a right in itself. This leaves me to wonder if evidentiary privileges are legitimate protections under the proper role of government.
Nevertheless, the privileges themselves seem to echo certain constitutional benefits such as the right against self-incrimination provided for under the Fifth Amendment.
I think the right against self-incrimination is a legitimate protection under proper governance. I can't even think of what a trial would look like if it weren't in place.
Police: You have to confess to robbing the bank.
Suspect: Um. No?
There are, of course, other situations where Fifth Amendment protections apply. I'm just providing that example to show that I support those protections at least in some situations.
I am not convinced that all evidentiary privileges are proper, though. Consider priest-confessor privilege. Should the state show restraint in light of your delusions? I don't think so. You should make your crazy of some brand that doesn't require being a blabbermouth in order to get into heaven.
But spousal privilege does appear to be a proper extention of the protection against self-incrimination.
Romantic relationships are formed by mutual respect for the same ideas and values and sexual attraction. It sounds dry and simple put this way, but deep romances are formed on the basis of the most fundamental aspects of each individual's personal identity. It is as if the two people share the same spirit.
This is why love is such a profound feeling and why I see marriage as a special relationship worthy of special recognition by the state. It is also the nature of romantic love that makes me say that spousal privilege is a legitimate protection under proper governance.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
06:42 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 827 words, total size 6 kb.
November 28, 2008
Secular Arguments against Gay Marriage (Part 4)
Google is coming up with 145,000 hits when I search for "secular arguments against same-sex marriage," but I think I've addressed the most common core themes in the secular arguments against gay marriage at this point.
Here's a summary of what I've seen (because I think it's safe to acknowledge that my last three posts have been anything but short and sweet) and what I say in response.
Gay Marriage shouldn't be legalized because it's not marriage!
If your opponent is claiming this because gay marriage isn't legal, they're just begging the question.
If your opponent is claiming this because of tradition, it should be noted that at various points in history, nearly every culture has allowed same-sex unions and there is even a Christian history of same-sex unions, however the argument from tradition fails any rational standard for logical argument.
Further, this is a political question, not a moral question. I am not interested in anyone's approval of my life. I am merely interested in being permitted to live my life as I see fit.
Society's interest in marriage is tied inextricably to the reproductive capacity of heterosexual couples.
First, "society" has no interest. Society is not a person. "Society" also does not have any legitimate authority over the person, property, or even conscience of the individual. The same facts are true of the state, the species, the church, the book club, the neighborhood -- or any other conglomeration of people. It is the right and privilege of the individual to his own conscience and person and the enjoyment of the fruits of his labor.
Second, speaking of the state, the function of the state is not to ensure the propagation of the species or even the citizenry. There is no legitimate concern under the purview of protecting individual rights that calls for the restriction of political protection of unions between consenting adults.
Arguments from state interest should concern any rational-minded lover of freedom because it leaves anyone and everyone at the mercy of whoever happens to be in power.
Homosexuality is harmful because it turns people into disease-riddled, drug-addled, sex-crazed maniacs!
Few opponents of gay marriage are as colorful in presenting this argument as I have here, but we see it come in the form of arguments that homosexuals cannot maintain monogamous relationship or that our households are plagued by substance abuse (FitzGibbon's essay cites some information on this) or that homosexuals are inherently less healthy than heterosexuals.
The primary response I have to this is: mind your own business!
As an adult, it is my right to do as I please with another consenting adult even if it brings me harm. The state has no legitimate interest in protecting me from myself as long as my activities do no violate the rights of another.
A secondary response to this is to explain that in spite of whatever statistics are cited about the prevalence of less-than-healthful activities among homosexuals, there is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. Probability is not the same as certainty and examples of sane, sober, monogamous homosexual couples stand as a testament to that fact.
Homosexuality is harmful to the children!
I don't have to point out that I don't think children should permitted by their parents to have sex and adults should certainly not have sex with children. Such lines of discussion are not relevant to the question of gay marriage.
No, this argument is directed toward same-sex couples who already or may eventually raise children.
Again, substantiation of this argument relies on statistics of which there are ready counter-examples within whatever sample set occurs in the data presented. There is nothing inherently harmful to children in being raised by homosexuals.
Homosexuals can already get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is an argument that deserves a slap in the face, but a more socially acceptable (and legal) response is to point out that just as homosexuals cannot marry anyone of the same sex, neither can heterosexuals. This unreasonable restriction on individual rights affects everyone, not just those people who want to exercise that right. That the state discriminates in this way against everyone does not make it any less wrong.
Can you imagine anyone arguing that because all Americans were slaves to British tyranny that no one was? Ridiculous!
Gay Marriage will criminalize churches who opposed gay marriage or refuse to perform them.
Given the trend of most liberals to criminalize free speech and discrimination by private parties, I can understand why people worry about this. I worry about it, too, but we cannot defend individual rights in one area while arguing against them in another. This only underscores the critical necessity of a strong, consistent defense of individual rights as the means of restricting the actions of the state by moral principle.
Here's a summary of what I've seen (because I think it's safe to acknowledge that my last three posts have been anything but short and sweet) and what I say in response.
Gay Marriage shouldn't be legalized because it's not marriage!
If your opponent is claiming this because gay marriage isn't legal, they're just begging the question.
If your opponent is claiming this because of tradition, it should be noted that at various points in history, nearly every culture has allowed same-sex unions and there is even a Christian history of same-sex unions, however the argument from tradition fails any rational standard for logical argument.
Further, this is a political question, not a moral question. I am not interested in anyone's approval of my life. I am merely interested in being permitted to live my life as I see fit.
Society's interest in marriage is tied inextricably to the reproductive capacity of heterosexual couples.
First, "society" has no interest. Society is not a person. "Society" also does not have any legitimate authority over the person, property, or even conscience of the individual. The same facts are true of the state, the species, the church, the book club, the neighborhood -- or any other conglomeration of people. It is the right and privilege of the individual to his own conscience and person and the enjoyment of the fruits of his labor.
Second, speaking of the state, the function of the state is not to ensure the propagation of the species or even the citizenry. There is no legitimate concern under the purview of protecting individual rights that calls for the restriction of political protection of unions between consenting adults.
Arguments from state interest should concern any rational-minded lover of freedom because it leaves anyone and everyone at the mercy of whoever happens to be in power.
Homosexuality is harmful because it turns people into disease-riddled, drug-addled, sex-crazed maniacs!
Few opponents of gay marriage are as colorful in presenting this argument as I have here, but we see it come in the form of arguments that homosexuals cannot maintain monogamous relationship or that our households are plagued by substance abuse (FitzGibbon's essay cites some information on this) or that homosexuals are inherently less healthy than heterosexuals.
The primary response I have to this is: mind your own business!
As an adult, it is my right to do as I please with another consenting adult even if it brings me harm. The state has no legitimate interest in protecting me from myself as long as my activities do no violate the rights of another.
A secondary response to this is to explain that in spite of whatever statistics are cited about the prevalence of less-than-healthful activities among homosexuals, there is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. Probability is not the same as certainty and examples of sane, sober, monogamous homosexual couples stand as a testament to that fact.
Homosexuality is harmful to the children!
I don't have to point out that I don't think children should permitted by their parents to have sex and adults should certainly not have sex with children. Such lines of discussion are not relevant to the question of gay marriage.
No, this argument is directed toward same-sex couples who already or may eventually raise children.
Again, substantiation of this argument relies on statistics of which there are ready counter-examples within whatever sample set occurs in the data presented. There is nothing inherently harmful to children in being raised by homosexuals.
Homosexuals can already get married. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
This is an argument that deserves a slap in the face, but a more socially acceptable (and legal) response is to point out that just as homosexuals cannot marry anyone of the same sex, neither can heterosexuals. This unreasonable restriction on individual rights affects everyone, not just those people who want to exercise that right. That the state discriminates in this way against everyone does not make it any less wrong.
Can you imagine anyone arguing that because all Americans were slaves to British tyranny that no one was? Ridiculous!
Gay Marriage will criminalize churches who opposed gay marriage or refuse to perform them.
Given the trend of most liberals to criminalize free speech and discrimination by private parties, I can understand why people worry about this. I worry about it, too, but we cannot defend individual rights in one area while arguing against them in another. This only underscores the critical necessity of a strong, consistent defense of individual rights as the means of restricting the actions of the state by moral principle.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
11:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 813 words, total size 6 kb.
November 27, 2008
Secular Arguments against Gay Marriage (Part 3)
Well, I finished reading Scott T. FitzGibbon's paper on procreative justice last weekend. It was far lengthier than the Free Republic article, but I am sorry to report that the additional wording did not go to clarity. I point this out not merely to insult the author's specious reasoning, but to also warn that it is entirely possible that, in his words, I just don't "get" what he's talking about, which if you believe him undermines my ability to assess these value of homosexual relationships. Nevertheless, as I present his argument here, I will try to present it in the clearest, most challenging form I see for it, although as briefly as I can. (It's bizarre.)
The topic of the paper is "procreative justice." It poses a standard for determining the requirements of a "procreatively just" relationship and presents some of the risks associated with state recognition of relationships that fail to meet that standard.
Procreative Justice
I'd never heard this expression before, but it sensibly refers to justice with regard to procreation. Simply by the necessity of nature, procreation between humans takes place between one man and one woman. A woman may have children from multiple men (improbably, even at the same time) but one egg plus one sperm is what makes a baby.
And usually that one man and one woman team up to not merely make a baby, but to also raise it. But, of course, there are always people trying to mess things up and proposing other arrangements involving various combinations of more than one man and/or woman.
So, the terms "procreation" and "procreative justice" as well as their variations refer to not merely the biological production of a child, but its rearing as well. And so "this paper proposes a set of criteria which identify the most appropriate form for a basic procreative affiliation" (p.2) and only those relationships which meet those criteria should receive special state recognition. The first question FitzGibbon confronts is "what is a procreatively just affiliation?"
Procreation refers to not just biological reproduction, but also raising the child.
Interestingly, when the author refers to "affiliation" here he doesn't seem to be referring to the relationship between the attempted procreative parties, but between the procreators and procreated.
FitzGibbon proceeds from there to define Justice and here is where the most significant departures from rational discussion begin.
Seven Requirements of Procreatively Just Affiliations
Taking both the relationships between guardians and child and the relationships between guardians, FitzGibbon presents seven requirements or standards for determining whether or not a relationship is "procreatively just."
Procreatively Unjust Relationships
So, FitzGibbon gives us examples of relationships that fail to meet the standards of procreative justice. People choose these options, he says, because they fail to balance the romantic love one feels for one's partner and the parental love one feels for one's children. They mistakenly think that other arrangements meet the standards of procreative justice.
Cohabitation
FitzGibbon opposes cohabitating because he says such relationships are bad for children, unstable, and transient. He cites studies that show that cohabitating couples tend to break up, which is bad for children both in terms of the emotional trauma and the simple instability that results from the common mindset that the couple is less committed to one another than they would be if married. He goes on at length about this and the various risks that are associated with cohabitating couples. With or without children, they do not meet the standards of procreative justice.
If this is an argument against gay marriage, we should now ask if Mr. Fitzgibbon is suggesting that couples who live together should be prevented from getting married, too.
I object strongly also to recommending the dispensation of justice by the state according to statistical probabilities. Fitzgibbon says that 75% of cohabitating couples with children break up by the time the child is 16. What of the couples who stay together and see their child grow into adulthood? It would seem that those couples do meet the criteria of stability and committment. What treatment of these couples does Fitzgibbon propose from the perspective of the law?
Same-sex Relationships
Fitzgibbon cites religion and suggests that homosexual relationships are wrongful and disordered. He also cites a couple of papers that say that homosexual relationships tend to breakup more frequently than heterosexual relationships. And, finally, he presents this argument saying that homosexual relationships don't meet his seventh standard:
Second, the difficulty with studies about modern homosexuality is that it is very young and there is a predominance of ignorance and stupidity with regard to such relationships. Instability is to be expected during times of change such as ours. At best this can be seen as an argument to wait to extend marriage to homosexuals, but not to outlaw it completely. Further, the argument from statistics remains unpersuasive.
FitzGibbon's objection on the ground of seventh standard is nothing more than a series of objections to homosexuality itself.
He objects saying the homosexuals can't incorporate romantic love (I'm ignoring his offensive -- to rational human beings everywhere -- use of the term "eros" in place of romantic love, which suggests that sexual attraction and spiritual attraction are somehow disconnected phenomena within consciousness) into their relationships while raising children because homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality.
Without merit, he suggests that homosexuals cannot raise heterosexual children who have "procreatively just" relationships in adulthood. And because homosexuals cannot have and raise homosexual children he objects still more strongly.
Consider this quotation from one of his citations:
I'll save the remainder of my objections for my conclusion here.
The Harm of Gay Marriage
Assuming that the case is clear that homosexual relationships are bad for homosexuals and bad for any children they may acquire, FitzGibbon proceeds to outline the harm of state recognition of gay marriage.
First, state recognition would act as a sanction for homosexuality and encourage people to accept and even embrace it. And since FitzGibbon finds homosexuality objectionable and believes it harmful, he believes it to be dangerous for the state to condone it.
Second, with increased approbation of homosexuality, heterosexuals would become less inclined to engage in traditional marriage unions and the state would become increasingly less likely to encourage them, which again discourages procreative justice.
Ultimate Conclusions
I've tried while recapping the significant parts of FitzGibbon's argument against gay marriage, I've tried to keep my criticisms to a minimum and before I get to the fundamental flaws in his presentation, there are a few things in this article that annoy me.
I absolutely hate how he intersperses colloquial and imprecise, archaic expressions along with undefined terms along with his arguments. For example, he talks about "getting" his ideas and have a "take" on a particular concept. And then he talks about metaphors of sculpture and houses, sometimes deliberately invoking Biblical allusions. He talks about "honor" but never tells us what he means by it.
He relies heavily on statistics in his argument, which is fine if you want to talk about prevalence. They are completely inappropriate, however, if you're arguing about the essential character of some entity.
Consider left-handedness, which occurs at a rate of about 10% within the human population. Alternatively, the overwhelming majority of human beings are right handed, but it would be wrong to say "people are right-handed" to suggest that ALL people are right-handed. Left-handedness also correllates strongly with schizophrenia. Does anyone think it responsible to call lefties crazy?
Aside from his methodological and epistemological problems the core of his argument rests on his concept of "procreative justice" and his proposed criteria for assessing it, which he holds as the basis for state recognition of marriage.
If one chooses to have and raise a child, one does accept certain responsibilities to provide and care for them. You also have to educate them about reality across all of axes of human interest. Those are the ethical considerations around being a parent and insofar as those considerations guide actions that affect the development and well-being of the child, there is some aspect of justice at play. If one prefers, you could call the scope of justice within that context "procreative justice," but it's a highly contingent virtue relying on a very specific context.
The problem with FitzGibbon's presentation in part is that he ignores context while outlining the requirements of "procreative justice." In raising a child, one should certainly do as well as one possibly can given their particular context and ability, however all people are not created equal and all people do not agree about what is right.
FitzGibbon also conflates the ethical and political concerns of justice.
Children have rights, too, and it is the function of the state to protect them as well as adults. Protect them from a violation of their rights from force or fraud, but it does not, cannot, and should not protect children from accepting bad ideas. As individuals with minds of their own, even under the onerous burden of a bad education coming from parents who set a bad example, and are responsible for determining the content of their own brains and their course in life.
I would argue that it is wrong to teach a child to be irrational. It is harmful to their development and future as adults. If we hold that only people who practice procreative justice -- along with FitzGibbon's confusion between moral judgment and state responsibility -- are allowed to marry, then anyone with religion should be forbidden to marry. And anyone who wishes to argue to the contrary has the burden of proving their nonsense to be true prior to being permitted to marry and procreate.
The criteria that FitzGibbon offers are vague, superficial, and unwarranted. They provide no practical guidance for jurisprudence. In fact, he ends up advocating that the executors of the state's power to protect and enforce act as moral police as well.
The purpose of state sanction of marriage is not to provide special recognition of relationships for the sake of making and raising babies. Children are a secondary result of some forms of those relationships but not a necessary result and that potentiality does not in itself warrant the extension of state power into the realm of marriage.
If this weren't a blog, I'd probably cut this post in half in editing. The FitzGibbon was a long essay and covered lots of different (mostly wrong) ideas and it was hard for me to restrain myself. But there you have it! I find his argument as unpersuasive as the others I've heard.
The topic of the paper is "procreative justice." It poses a standard for determining the requirements of a "procreatively just" relationship and presents some of the risks associated with state recognition of relationships that fail to meet that standard.
Procreative Justice
I'd never heard this expression before, but it sensibly refers to justice with regard to procreation. Simply by the necessity of nature, procreation between humans takes place between one man and one woman. A woman may have children from multiple men (improbably, even at the same time) but one egg plus one sperm is what makes a baby.
And usually that one man and one woman team up to not merely make a baby, but to also raise it. But, of course, there are always people trying to mess things up and proposing other arrangements involving various combinations of more than one man and/or woman.
In our day, various other arrangements are proposed, notably uncommittedAnd there are also cases in which some regular, straight couples resort to orphanages or nannies for help.
cohabitational connections, arrangements between persons of the same sex,
polygamy, polyandry, and “polyamorous” relationships involving shifting
populations of various types. (p. 2)
So, the terms "procreation" and "procreative justice" as well as their variations refer to not merely the biological production of a child, but its rearing as well. And so "this paper proposes a set of criteria which identify the most appropriate form for a basic procreative affiliation" (p.2) and only those relationships which meet those criteria should receive special state recognition. The first question FitzGibbon confronts is "what is a procreatively just affiliation?"
Procreation refers to not just biological reproduction, but also raising the child.
Interestingly, when the author refers to "affiliation" here he doesn't seem to be referring to the relationship between the attempted procreative parties, but between the procreators and procreated.
To be procreatively responsible you must relate well to your offspring and relate well to others who participate with you in the basic projects of procreation. (p. 4)I can't help but note the slip between "justice" and "responsibility" here. He does discuss the relationship between procreators later.
FitzGibbon proceeds from there to define Justice and here is where the most significant departures from rational discussion begin.
Justice is the most fundamental social virtue. It involves all that is requisite in conduct affecting another person. Thus, in the most fundamental sense, justice involves understanding that another person is another person; a person comparable to oneself; a person who is, like oneself, entitled to decent treatment. The radically unjust person never gets this idea. The basically just person does get it. He accepts the demands of commutativity and reciprocity in human relations. Justice involves seeking common ground; applying a common normativity; being fair by applying the same standards in the same way to one person as to another; to others as to oneself.In this introductory paragraph, FitzGibbons implies that his definition of Justice is the Golden Rule, but the insane part is that he doesn't really come out and say that, but prefers to begin with a smear against people who don't agree with him. "If you don't know what I mean, then you don't get it and you're a basically unjust person."
Seven Requirements of Procreatively Just Affiliations
Taking both the relationships between guardians and child and the relationships between guardians, FitzGibbon presents seven requirements or standards for determining whether or not a relationship is "procreatively just."
- The relationship should provide for the child's for children's needs.
- "In a household or any such system, people who do their part should be acknowledged as doing their part and people who stand as pillars of the household establishment should not be confused with those whose involvement is sporadic and self-serving." (p. 10)
- These relationships should demonstrate benevolence.
- These relationships should demonstrate knowledge.
- These relationships should demonstrate fidelity.
- "Procreators should model a successful relationship between their affiliation and the society in which it is embedded." (p. 16)
- The relationship should demonstrate the previous six requirements both in general, but within the context of the procreators' roles as procreators.
Procreatively Unjust Relationships
So, FitzGibbon gives us examples of relationships that fail to meet the standards of procreative justice. People choose these options, he says, because they fail to balance the romantic love one feels for one's partner and the parental love one feels for one's children. They mistakenly think that other arrangements meet the standards of procreative justice.
Cohabitation
FitzGibbon opposes cohabitating because he says such relationships are bad for children, unstable, and transient. He cites studies that show that cohabitating couples tend to break up, which is bad for children both in terms of the emotional trauma and the simple instability that results from the common mindset that the couple is less committed to one another than they would be if married. He goes on at length about this and the various risks that are associated with cohabitating couples. With or without children, they do not meet the standards of procreative justice.
If this is an argument against gay marriage, we should now ask if Mr. Fitzgibbon is suggesting that couples who live together should be prevented from getting married, too.
I object strongly also to recommending the dispensation of justice by the state according to statistical probabilities. Fitzgibbon says that 75% of cohabitating couples with children break up by the time the child is 16. What of the couples who stay together and see their child grow into adulthood? It would seem that those couples do meet the criteria of stability and committment. What treatment of these couples does Fitzgibbon propose from the perspective of the law?
Same-sex Relationships
Fitzgibbon cites religion and suggests that homosexual relationships are wrongful and disordered. He also cites a couple of papers that say that homosexual relationships tend to breakup more frequently than heterosexual relationships. And, finally, he presents this argument saying that homosexual relationships don't meet his seventh standard:
Same-sex relationships always fail to satisfy the seventh requirement of procreative justice. They either leave eros aside altogether or they involve eros in a special way, divergent from the form it will take for the great majority of the offspring and thus unsuccessful as their model for the great problematic of procreative responsibility. Such associations cannot model the erotic benevolence unique to men and women, nor can they exemplify the inter-gender knowledge which is unique to men and women. They do not recapitulate and ramify themselves, generation after generation. (p. 29)First, we have to reject the assertions of faith out of hand as they do not present any evidence or rational argument for consideration.
Second, the difficulty with studies about modern homosexuality is that it is very young and there is a predominance of ignorance and stupidity with regard to such relationships. Instability is to be expected during times of change such as ours. At best this can be seen as an argument to wait to extend marriage to homosexuals, but not to outlaw it completely. Further, the argument from statistics remains unpersuasive.
FitzGibbon's objection on the ground of seventh standard is nothing more than a series of objections to homosexuality itself.
He objects saying the homosexuals can't incorporate romantic love (I'm ignoring his offensive -- to rational human beings everywhere -- use of the term "eros" in place of romantic love, which suggests that sexual attraction and spiritual attraction are somehow disconnected phenomena within consciousness) into their relationships while raising children because homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality.
Without merit, he suggests that homosexuals cannot raise heterosexual children who have "procreatively just" relationships in adulthood. And because homosexuals cannot have and raise homosexual children he objects still more strongly.
Consider this quotation from one of his citations:
heterosexual adults generally have significantly and substantially better health, more energy, and better emotional stamina to devote to children, without the level; of physical and emotional health problems and substance abuse that interfere with daily activities among homosexual adults. (footnote p. 29)Even if true, the evidence presented here does not establish that the reason for low energy, health problems of all sorts, and substance abuse are inherent in homosexual relationships. It also does not establish the reasons for whatever statistical prevalence of such behavior, which are likely related at least in part due to the still prevalent prejudice against homosexuality -- even in places where gay marriage is permitted.
I'll save the remainder of my objections for my conclusion here.
The Harm of Gay Marriage
Assuming that the case is clear that homosexual relationships are bad for homosexuals and bad for any children they may acquire, FitzGibbon proceeds to outline the harm of state recognition of gay marriage.
First, state recognition would act as a sanction for homosexuality and encourage people to accept and even embrace it. And since FitzGibbon finds homosexuality objectionable and believes it harmful, he believes it to be dangerous for the state to condone it.
Second, with increased approbation of homosexuality, heterosexuals would become less inclined to engage in traditional marriage unions and the state would become increasingly less likely to encourage them, which again discourages procreative justice.
Ultimate Conclusions
I've tried while recapping the significant parts of FitzGibbon's argument against gay marriage, I've tried to keep my criticisms to a minimum and before I get to the fundamental flaws in his presentation, there are a few things in this article that annoy me.
I absolutely hate how he intersperses colloquial and imprecise, archaic expressions along with undefined terms along with his arguments. For example, he talks about "getting" his ideas and have a "take" on a particular concept. And then he talks about metaphors of sculpture and houses, sometimes deliberately invoking Biblical allusions. He talks about "honor" but never tells us what he means by it.
He relies heavily on statistics in his argument, which is fine if you want to talk about prevalence. They are completely inappropriate, however, if you're arguing about the essential character of some entity.
Consider left-handedness, which occurs at a rate of about 10% within the human population. Alternatively, the overwhelming majority of human beings are right handed, but it would be wrong to say "people are right-handed" to suggest that ALL people are right-handed. Left-handedness also correllates strongly with schizophrenia. Does anyone think it responsible to call lefties crazy?
Aside from his methodological and epistemological problems the core of his argument rests on his concept of "procreative justice" and his proposed criteria for assessing it, which he holds as the basis for state recognition of marriage.
If one chooses to have and raise a child, one does accept certain responsibilities to provide and care for them. You also have to educate them about reality across all of axes of human interest. Those are the ethical considerations around being a parent and insofar as those considerations guide actions that affect the development and well-being of the child, there is some aspect of justice at play. If one prefers, you could call the scope of justice within that context "procreative justice," but it's a highly contingent virtue relying on a very specific context.
The problem with FitzGibbon's presentation in part is that he ignores context while outlining the requirements of "procreative justice." In raising a child, one should certainly do as well as one possibly can given their particular context and ability, however all people are not created equal and all people do not agree about what is right.
FitzGibbon also conflates the ethical and political concerns of justice.
Children have rights, too, and it is the function of the state to protect them as well as adults. Protect them from a violation of their rights from force or fraud, but it does not, cannot, and should not protect children from accepting bad ideas. As individuals with minds of their own, even under the onerous burden of a bad education coming from parents who set a bad example, and are responsible for determining the content of their own brains and their course in life.
I would argue that it is wrong to teach a child to be irrational. It is harmful to their development and future as adults. If we hold that only people who practice procreative justice -- along with FitzGibbon's confusion between moral judgment and state responsibility -- are allowed to marry, then anyone with religion should be forbidden to marry. And anyone who wishes to argue to the contrary has the burden of proving their nonsense to be true prior to being permitted to marry and procreate.
The criteria that FitzGibbon offers are vague, superficial, and unwarranted. They provide no practical guidance for jurisprudence. In fact, he ends up advocating that the executors of the state's power to protect and enforce act as moral police as well.
The purpose of state sanction of marriage is not to provide special recognition of relationships for the sake of making and raising babies. Children are a secondary result of some forms of those relationships but not a necessary result and that potentiality does not in itself warrant the extension of state power into the realm of marriage.
If this weren't a blog, I'd probably cut this post in half in editing. The FitzGibbon was a long essay and covered lots of different (mostly wrong) ideas and it was hard for me to restrain myself. But there you have it! I find his argument as unpersuasive as the others I've heard.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:03 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 2450 words, total size 17 kb.
November 21, 2008
Secular Arguments against Gay Marriage (Part 2)
So, last night, I did a wee bit of searching for a secular argument against gay marriage and I found this article on the Free Republic: The Secular Case against Gay Marriage by Adam Kolasinksi.
For example, he says that infertile couples are permitted to marry because it would be too costly to weed them out. He also says that old people rarely marry, so it's just too much trouble to stop them.
So much for standing on principle, eh?
Aside from these "pragmatic" exceptions, the underlying principle here is simply false. The state has no legitimate self-interest because the state does not exist apart from the individuals whose rights it is charged to protect. (I'm not even going to point out that the "state" is not an entity with a consciousness nor any vested interest in survival.)
By this argument, then the agents of the state are justified in doing anything to ensure that there are citizens to rule including force breeding a la Anthem or The Handmaid's Tale or kidnapping people from other countries as slaves.
We see the corrupting influence of this premise in lots of areas of government, not just in marriage law as well. We see it in the recent Supreme Court ruling on the use of eminent domain in Kelo v. The City of New London. We often see this premise hiding in arguments for universal health care and welfare benefits. We see it underneath arguments for bailouts. We see it lurking in our progressive income tax plans. We could pose this argument to outlaw abortion and euthanasia. The argument could be used to argue on behalf of conscription or draft.
The notion that the state has any self-interest is extremely dangerous because the state does not exist at all without the individuals that comprise its population. In order for agents of the state to act in the interest of the state for the sake of the state, they must necessarily act against the individual rights of its citizenry.
I return now that this limit on gay marriage represents a limitation on all citizens, not merely those who wish to exercise that right.
The only legitimate premise that should guide any state action is that of individual rights. If the state violates the rights of any individual citizen, then it is overstepping its bounds and making a defacto threat against all of its citizens.
It does not matter if I want to get married or not. It doesn't matter if I can have an abortion or not. It doesn't matter if I do not want to speak my mind. But the idea that I cannot if I wanted to should offend everyone in this country.
Kolasinksi's examples of the state's restrictions and lack of restrictions on other groups presuppose the same flawed premise.
There is no legitimate reason why consenting adult relatives should be barred from marriage.
There is no legitimate reason why elderly, infertile, or otherwise non-reproductive couples should be barred from marriage. Contrary to his assertion, it is also not a function of practicality. It is FAR more difficult and costly to check whether or not someone has an STD than it is to check their age.
These restraints -- including that of incest -- are actually not original to the legal protection of marriage. In some cases, they're not even recent, so the claim that restraint against gay marriage originates out of a concern for the interest of the state can be regarded as a very wordy and corrupt grasp for straws.
Kolasinski closes his argument thus:
And then we have the old canard of polygamy flung into our faces. I've discussed this previously, but the union of two people provides clear guidance in numerous situations about how the state should treat the person and property in the event of dispute. Polygamous unions, however, present insuperable challenges to clear treatment, however.
This isn't to say that such unions could not be created, but that they would require extremely complicated contractual stipulations about who's rights supercede whose in the event of incapacitation, death, or dispute as well as a host of other situations.
Further, polygamy (particularly the practice of taking multiple wives) does not challenge the interest of the state in having lots of people to rule over. In fact, it presents the opportunity for a male to impregnant far more women than he would in a monogamous union.
Reader Britton has referred us to another, much more lengthy argument by Scott T. FitzGibbon. I've just printed it out and intend to read it tonight on the train, so I will give it some consideration in a previously unplanned segment of this series if it presents any material considerations I think are worthy of my blog.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.The author goes on to discuss various legal marital unions that apparently violate this consideration.
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
...
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
For example, he says that infertile couples are permitted to marry because it would be too costly to weed them out. He also says that old people rarely marry, so it's just too much trouble to stop them.
So much for standing on principle, eh?
Aside from these "pragmatic" exceptions, the underlying principle here is simply false. The state has no legitimate self-interest because the state does not exist apart from the individuals whose rights it is charged to protect. (I'm not even going to point out that the "state" is not an entity with a consciousness nor any vested interest in survival.)
By this argument, then the agents of the state are justified in doing anything to ensure that there are citizens to rule including force breeding a la Anthem or The Handmaid's Tale or kidnapping people from other countries as slaves.
We see the corrupting influence of this premise in lots of areas of government, not just in marriage law as well. We see it in the recent Supreme Court ruling on the use of eminent domain in Kelo v. The City of New London. We often see this premise hiding in arguments for universal health care and welfare benefits. We see it underneath arguments for bailouts. We see it lurking in our progressive income tax plans. We could pose this argument to outlaw abortion and euthanasia. The argument could be used to argue on behalf of conscription or draft.
The notion that the state has any self-interest is extremely dangerous because the state does not exist at all without the individuals that comprise its population. In order for agents of the state to act in the interest of the state for the sake of the state, they must necessarily act against the individual rights of its citizenry.
I return now that this limit on gay marriage represents a limitation on all citizens, not merely those who wish to exercise that right.
The only legitimate premise that should guide any state action is that of individual rights. If the state violates the rights of any individual citizen, then it is overstepping its bounds and making a defacto threat against all of its citizens.
It does not matter if I want to get married or not. It doesn't matter if I can have an abortion or not. It doesn't matter if I do not want to speak my mind. But the idea that I cannot if I wanted to should offend everyone in this country.
Kolasinksi's examples of the state's restrictions and lack of restrictions on other groups presuppose the same flawed premise.
There is no legitimate reason why consenting adult relatives should be barred from marriage.
There is no legitimate reason why elderly, infertile, or otherwise non-reproductive couples should be barred from marriage. Contrary to his assertion, it is also not a function of practicality. It is FAR more difficult and costly to check whether or not someone has an STD than it is to check their age.
These restraints -- including that of incest -- are actually not original to the legal protection of marriage. In some cases, they're not even recent, so the claim that restraint against gay marriage originates out of a concern for the interest of the state can be regarded as a very wordy and corrupt grasp for straws.
Kolasinski closes his argument thus:
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.I would also challenge the idea that love regardless of fecundity is a criteria of marriage just as I would challenge the idea that love with fecundity should be a consideration for marriage. Love is simply not the state's business. Instead, the desire to marry is one established between two individuals and the state's only real concern is that they are entering into the union without coercion.
And then we have the old canard of polygamy flung into our faces. I've discussed this previously, but the union of two people provides clear guidance in numerous situations about how the state should treat the person and property in the event of dispute. Polygamous unions, however, present insuperable challenges to clear treatment, however.
This isn't to say that such unions could not be created, but that they would require extremely complicated contractual stipulations about who's rights supercede whose in the event of incapacitation, death, or dispute as well as a host of other situations.
Further, polygamy (particularly the practice of taking multiple wives) does not challenge the interest of the state in having lots of people to rule over. In fact, it presents the opportunity for a male to impregnant far more women than he would in a monogamous union.
Reader Britton has referred us to another, much more lengthy argument by Scott T. FitzGibbon. I've just printed it out and intend to read it tonight on the train, so I will give it some consideration in a previously unplanned segment of this series if it presents any material considerations I think are worthy of my blog.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
04:30 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Category: On Faggotism
Post contains 1249 words, total size 8 kb.
<< Page 1 of 4 >>
202kb generated in 0.2711 seconds; 88 queries returned 281 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
