(no subject)

[noahgibbs]

Y'know, I realized something. The argument against gay marriage that goes "if we let gays marry, soon we'll have to let houseplants, dogs, hubcaps, poor people and other undesirables marry" is a little weird, and not just for the obvious reasons.

Because nobody seems to extend that to, say, murder, assault, burglary and so on. There's too obvious a reason that it doesn't work, and it's the same answer people give to the pedophilia thing -- there are other perfectly good reasons that that's already a crime, so you don't have to worry about them marrying.

So the argument actually runs, "if we can no longer arbitrarily forbid you to marry someone of your own gender, then soon we'll have to stop arbitrarily forbidding you to marry *anybody*, and before long we'll have to have reasons for all *sorts* of laws, and society as we know it will collapse."

In other words, "we can't require laws to have *reasons*, because that way lies anarchy!"

Comments

[urbanbard.livejournal.com]

Judith Butler, and some other Queer Theorists, have written marvelous stuff on this topic.
All of heterosexism, like most other kinds of superiority, be it white supremacy or what have you, is based on what is at heart an arbitrary privileging of one thing over another. The privilege is then normalized as if its the ‘way things are’ so that any challenge of it becomes non-sensical. Things that challenge that, like the gay marriage movement tear at the very heart of those constructs.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

Because nobody seems to extend that to, say, murder, assault, burglary and so on.

I am so failing to grasp what sort of extension you mean. If we let straight people get away with murder, gay people will too? If we let gay people marry they'll start murdering and assaulting more? I know that's not what you mean, but I'm at a loss for other interpretations.

[dryadgrl]

Crazy! You can't have reasons for things, that would kill everything.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Nope. "if we fail to enforce our existing law against gay marriage and make that legal, then obviously we'll have to do the same about murder (regardless of sexual preference) and make murder legal."

The argument is "if we allow action A, then action B must soon be allowed". Nobody tries to use that argument when action B is an obvious and objective crime like murder or burglary and action A is gay marriage. A few people try to extend it to action B being one of a number of other already-criminal sexual situations, like pedophilia. But that is quickly and correctly shot down as being already criminal.

Clearer?

[sproutchk.livejournal.com]

heya :) It's Jessica, from the party... oh wow. That was cheezy :) You walked me to my car, does that help? :) Anyway.. had a blast! Adding you... feel free to add back..

Maybe I'll catch you on AIM or something sometime..

seeya :)

[moonlightgdess.livejournal.com]

Hi! I'm a friend of Jess and Johanna, I requested to be added to your community. Just wanted to let you know! :)

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Yup! I remember you.

[r-transpose-p.livejournal.com]

Did you ever hear my non-conventional reason for supporting gay marriage?

It'll probably piss off a few readers of your journal, but that is precisely why I'm repeating it here.

In my opinion, legalizing gay marriage is a strong step in the direction of creating a culture of gay monogamy, which would be a serious step in the direction of stemming the growth of HIV, at least in one at-risk group. One could even say that the drive for gays to get married might stem from a culture of gay monogamy established as a reaction to the HIV epidemic (and something enabled by greater gay rights). To extend this argument with one small jump to the right, abstinence-based sex education makes far more sense if you can tell gays "don't have sex until you're married" and actually have it mean something.

[ravenslost.livejournal.com]

I suppose that would work, if monogamy were an answer for sexually transmitted infections in the first place. Seeing that, as a rule, humans don't mate exclusively for life, be they straight or gay?

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

It's worth mentioning some of Dan Savage's rants here, actually. While monogamy isn't a complete answer for sexually transmitted infections, there is particular behavior that is especially characteristic of certain gay male culture that spreads them like wildfire. I'm thinking of things like the baths, the occasional ridiculous one-night promiscuity, and lamentably prevalent unprotected sex here.

Dan went on a rant about it in response to a "hey, women can be complete sluts too!" from a straight female reader, who was put pretty firmly in her place, sluttiness-wise, at least insofar as it applied to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

It doesn't help that certain infections (HIV, Hepatitis B) are *far* more easily spread by sodomy (no, it's not unique to gay men, but it's certainly most prevalent among them) than by vaginal intercourse.

[ravenslost.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in the rants in question, any easy way to find them? They sound informative.

None the less, it is the behaviors and precautions taken with sexual partners that expose one to greater or lesser risks. Not an equation of similar or disparate genitalia.

Yes there is a segment of *humanity* that embraces anonymous sex. (What are prostitutes going for these days anyway?) There are people who have sex without any type of protection. I think it's safe to say that most people in our culture at some point or other have at least tried to have a one night stand... usually when drunk, it seems. Which makes them ever so much more likely to be able to think clearly when it comes to prevention. And hey, there's a big debate about morning after pills. There's nothing wrong, as far as I'm concerned with a litte paranoia about preventing pregnancy... but if you didn't use protection? Pregnant is just one on the list of the things you get to worry about.

Is there more unprotected sex amongst gay men? Probably. Do societally recognized monogamy pacts answer this? Only if people are actually monogamous. Thus, no more than it does for the un-coupled, uneducated youth (and adults!) in our culture, the people cheating on their partners (of whatever gender) or any other determining factors for vectors of diseases.

I assume you've heard of the "Down Low?" Or straight men who have sex with men? The rational of "I'm not gay, so not at as much risk" coupled with, "I'm not gay, I've got a girlfriend?"

Gay sex doesn't equate to danger of exposure to various diseases, not exclusively.

Sex does.

Cheeky I Be

[misternihil.livejournal.com]

Is the next step monogamy in porn? I wish that were funnier.