Wisdom from ages past

My wife just found this poem from 1598:

This idol which you term virginity
Is neither essence subject to the eye,
No, nor to any one exterior sense,
Nor hath it any place of residence,
Nor is’t of earth or mould celestial,
Or capable of any form at all.
Of that which hath no being, do not boast;
Things that are not at all, are never lost.

-Cristopher Marlowe, Hero and Leander

Read More...

Summary only...

Worst...Arguments...Ever

I have been spending way too much time reading anti-gay rhetoric lately. It feels as if opponents of the CA marriage decision are having a contest to see who can write the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage. You gets points for lack of originality, confusing your religion with the government, somehow getting your insanity published in a (heretofore, anyway) legitimate publication, and just plain incorrect facts. Here are some recent entries in the ongoing contest.

Contestant #1: Melanie Scarborough with "Gay marriage not physically possible"
Summary of Argument: marriages between members of the same sex are not possible because the law requires an act of heterosexual intercourse before a marriage will be considered legal.
Lack of Originality - 7 points: well, the argument is a little bit different from the usual "gays will destroy marriage" hysterics, but Peter LaBarabera beat Melanie to it. Not to mention, I've heard a variation on this argument from at least one drunk straight guy at pretty much every party I've ever attended that included them (but...but...how do you, y'know, do it?)
Confusing Religion/Government - 3 points: The article loses points for failing to mention God, Jesus or the Bible, but Melanie has clearly confused Catholic Doctrine on marriage with "the legal standard applied to opposite-sex couples"
Heretofore Legitimate Publication - 8 points: Louisville Examiner. Pretty Good.
Incorrect Facts - 10 points: Melanie scores major points here for using just plain incorrect facts as the entire basis for her argument. Neither state nor federal marriage law requires an act of heterosexual intercourse before a marriage is considered valid. The validation of Civil marriages has to do with the signing and witnessing of a marriage license.
Total: 28/40 points

Contestant #2: Janet Folger with "How same-sex marriage points to the end of the world"
Summary of Argument: Biblical prophecy indicates that the time before the apocalypse with be like "the day of Noah". Some Torah scholars believe that the reason why God (allegedly) wiped out the world was because of gay marriage. Now we have gay marriage in California. Ergo, God is going to destroy the world (apparently, God only cares about whether California has gay marriage.)
Lack of Originality - 7 points: We've been hearing that gay marriage is going to destroy America since the 90s. Janet just takes it one step further here, suggesting that gay marriage is going to destroy the world/bring about the apocalypse.
Confusing Religion/Government - 0 points: Janet mentions her religion a bunch, but her argument doesn't hinge on the idea that the government does or should act to preserve her religion's laws. In fact, she seems to see the apocalypse with its attendant return of Jesus as a bad thing (because she "care[s] about civilization"), whereas if she were doing the religion/government thing properly, she would see it as good thing.
Heretofore Legitimate Publication - 1 point: World Net Daily gets one point for being a publication, but no points for being or having been legitimate at any point in time.
Incorrect Facts - 5 points: This article is mostly based on opinion/interpretation of biblical prophecy, so loses points for missing out on choice incorrect facts. However, a paragraph asserting that every prophecy in the Bible has come true makes up for this oversight. The assertion is dubious at best, since most of the evidence for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy is obtained from the Bible itself (the Bible said this...and then it said this...therefore it was correctly predicting this). For example, Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to die and then rise from the dead (Matthew 20:17-19). Later, according the text, he does. The problem is that all of this was written after both events (the statement about death/resurrection and the death/resurrection) supposedly took place. Plus, there is no external evidence for either event. This is like referring to foreshadowing in a novel as a fulfilled prophecy. Not to mention, there are plenty of Bible prophecies which didn't come true at all.
Total 13/40 points

Contestant #3 Lewis and Lewis with "Come on Down to the Farm"
Summary of Argument: Roosters don't form same-sex partnerships, reproduction in farm animals requires two sexes, and Mr. Lewis thinks "it just ain't normal"...therefore gay marriage is bad.
Lack of Originality - 9 points: We've all heard these arguments before. Hell, "the plumbing is all wrong" is actually part of the lyrics. The Lewises miss out on a perfect score here for making their tired arguments into an (admittedly catchy) song.
Confusing Religion/Government - 7 points: Part of the song's refrain is "when God said love your brother, I don't think he meant like that" and a verse talks about needing to "get back to the Bible". Although the song does not directly state a connection between religion and government, religious doctrine is a major pat of the song's argument against civil marriage equality.
Heretofore Legitimate Publication - 0 points: So far, this has appeared only on youtube.
Incorrect Facts - 8 points: This song is based on the incorrect fact that homosexuality does not occur in animals. Although (due primarily to their lack of arms) you are indeed unlikely to see "two roosters walking arm in arm," gay sex in some form has been observed in thousands of animals, including virtually all domestic species. No farm animals form long term sexual partnerships with animals of the same or opposite sex. The song is also incorrect in asserting that reproduction in farm animals requires a member of each sex. While most conception on modern farms involves artificial insemination, cloning (especially of cows) is also practiced. While two cows may not be able to make a bull, two cows can indeed make a cow with the help of science. The song is additionally incorrect in asserting that this is at all relevant to civil marriage equality. The song is correct that sex education in this country is flawed, but absolutely incorrect in attributing that fact to gay people instead of the social conservative movement that the Lewises are themselves allied with, which has been pushing medically inaccurate "abstinence only education".
total 24/40 points

As an honorable mention, since it was published before the CA marriage decision and so, as a matter of procedure cannot be a part of the contest, I wanted to showcase this article from the Family Research Council's website. (They also have a video up of their panel discussion on gay marriage, which I'm sure is pretty rich, but which my computer is apparently unable to play).

This is Dr. J. Budziszewski with "Advancing a Heterosexual Public Ethic With Grace, Wit, and Natural Law." It hits the lack of originality, confusing religion with government and incorrect facts buttons the way Katrina hit New Orleans. Particularly impressive is a list of the author's proposed responses to theoretical gay/sane person "attacking" his arguments (obviously written for straight readers who have never met a gay person, since any gay person could easily refute every one of his statements). A selection:

Attack 1: You're intolerant--you reject me just because I'm different from you.
Reply: Let's be honest with each other. We both know you're the one who rejects what is different from yourself. You reject the challenge of the other sex.

Attack 2: I have a committed gay relationship.
Reply: The committed gay relationship is a myth. Research shows that homosexuals with partners don't stop cruising, they just cruise less.

Attack 3: You're demeaning my dignity.
Reply: I respect your dignity as a human being, but when you practice acts you'd be ashamed for heterosexuals to know about, you demean your own dignity.

Attack 4: There's nothing wrong with gay love.
Reply: Tell me what's loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term Gay Bowel Syndrome, or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils.

Bad...Information...Overload. Self destruct in 5...4...3...2...1...

Read More...

Summary only...

Dear Tradition, You Suck

and other responses to the California Supreme Court's decision on marriage.

1. I am getting married. On labor day weekend. Save the date all 0 people that read this blog. I will then (or rather, starting now but continuing until November and beyond) have to fight to keep my marriage legal. You will not take this away from me.

2. Doing stuff solely because some other people did it that way is dumb. Didn't your mama ever tell you that? (Now, Jimmy, if all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?)

Okay, sure, I like some traditions. I like the Kentucky Derby. I like this one thing my sister and I do every year where we make each other one gift for Christmas, which is always more meaningful that whatever purchased crap everyone else buys for us and each other. I like Summer Pride season.

What I don't like is Tradition. Capital T. Our past has value, sure. Connecting with your ancestors and whatever is great. Being able to learn things from other people instead of each of us having to figure out everything through personal trial and error is a monumental part of what makes us, as humans, cool. But when you want to excuse all kinds of abuses and oppression and crap because your parents did it, or your grandparents did it, or some sheep herders in the desert 3,000 years ago did it, fuck you. Fuck you, FGM fans. Fuck you, racists. Fuck you, hegemonies. Fuck you "family values" dummies who don't think my family counts. Fuck all of you.

3. Traditional marriage is polygamy. Everybody likes to bleat about how gays and "activist judges" (also known as judges who don't agree with you) are redefining marriage, pretending that marriage has been a stable institution across time or that it has always meant what it means to you.

Helloooo in there. Across time and space, polygamy - pretty much FLDS-style, child-raping, wife-beating, rigid gender roles, whatever the local answer to gingham is polygamy - wins out as the standard of "traditional" marriage. Go take an anthropological survey course. Go read your own damn Bible.

One man one woman marriage? It was a redefinition of marriage. Also, marriage being something related to love rather than property rights. Also, everything that makes marriage something that gay people actually want to "redefine" rather than run the fuck away from.

Read More...

Summary only...

What Freedom of Speech Is (and What it is Not)

Hi dummies! I am getting really tired of some of you misunderstanding what the phrase "free speech" means in the context of U.S. law, so I wrote this post to help you out. For those of you who missed/forgot what you learned in civics class, here is the text of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For those of you who lack basic reading comprehension skills (but Madison, what big words you have), here is the part that deals with free speech.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.

Note the word "Congress". (Now, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not Congress actually obeys this amendment - Hell, 11 years after they ratified it, they passed the Sedition Act, and then you've got "fire in a crowded theatre," obscenity laws, defamation laws, speech restrictions in public schools and so on - but that's not why we are here.) "Freedom of Speech" means that the government is not allowed (sort of) to restrict your right to express yourself.

It does not mean that you can say whatever you want and no one is allowed to care.


Case 1: Ryan Sorba and The Born Gay Hoax.

Mr. Sorba wrote a book called The Born Gay Hoax. I slogged through about half of the advance version before I got tired of the tortured prose (this guy writes like a blog troll...pro-sodomy activists...hetero-repugnant-homo-narcissism...). From what I gathered, his basic thesis is that because the term "gay" and the widespread notion of an identity centered around same-sex love are relatively new constructs, gay rights are bad.

Now Mr. Sorba was giving a speech at Smith, den of liberal iniquity that it is. A bunch of lesbians disrupted his speech by shouting and otherwise making noise. He had to stop giving the speech, because the atmosphere had become too loud for anyone to hear him. Subsequently, a bunch of anti-gay activists trumpeted this supposed "free speech violation" to the world.

Newsflash, guys! Smith lesbians are not "Congress" (as much I may personally wish they were). While it may have annoyed you, the Smith protest was not illegal and it was not a violation of free speech. Nothing and nobody got hurt here except perhaps Mr. Sorba's ego. Certainly, we can have a legitimate debate about whether this protest was the best option available to Smith students, or whether or not it was the neighborly thing to do. However, for those of you who've forgotten, the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". The 1st Amendment does not say "You must sit down, shut up and listen to pseudoscientific propaganda from people who fell asleep in class when everyone else what discussing Foucault."

The reason why the 1st Amendment does not say that it because that, my friends, would be a restriction of free speech.

Case 2: The Firing of Crystal Dixon

Crystal Dixon was formerly an associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo (which is a state university, so all that government stuff is relevant here). Ms. Dixon was in charge of carrying out the school's policies on diversity.

Now, Ms. Dixon wrote what has been variously described as a letter or a column in the Toledo Free Press (the distinction is immaterial in this context) in which she outlined her views on gay rights. Ms. Dixon does not believe in gay rights. (In some sense, she does not believe in gay people - being gay is a choice...you can change...Exodus...PFOX...).

In light of this expression of her right to freedom of speech, Ms. Dixon got fired. Subsequently, a bunch of anti-gay activists freaked out about the firing. I know some of you might have gotten confused, what with Bush's track record on nominees for government positions (see David Palmer, Michael Leavitt, Bill Pryor, etc.) and all those not having to do your job if you don't like it laws for pharmacists and stuff, but being able to do your job is actually an important criterion for your retention at said job. Ms. Dixon stated, publicly, her contempt for a central tenant of her position at the University of Toledo. She was offered another position at the University, one that would not require her to uphold the rights of gay students/staff/prospective students/staff. She chose not to take it.

Let's take this out of the context of gay rights. Let's say I work for Coca-Cola. Let's say I'm in charge of marketing my company's product to schools. Now, as a private citizen, I publish an article (or a blog post, or a letter, or whatever) indicating that I think Coca-Cola is an evil product of the corn conspiracy, contributing to the decline of health and the rise of obesity in children, and that marketing Coca-Cola to schools is wrong. The next day, I have to clean out my desk. I had every right to my opinion and the expression thereof. Coke had every right to fire me.

Of course, the Coca-Cola corporation isn't the government (well...not exactly...) but this applies to publicly funded/controlled stuff too. If I work for a committee in charge of implementing the Violence Against Women Act, and I have publicly stated my opposition to the very act I'm supposed to be implementing, I should lose my job (or rather, never have been given it in the first place) no matter what President Bush may think about it.

Once again, that's: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."
It's not "no employer may fire an employee for publicly expressing contempt for the job function they are supposed to perform."

Case 3: Calling You a Bigot

Sally Kern made a speech. In this speech, she said that gay rights are a greater threat to this nation than terrorism (which is probably true if by "this nation" you mean "white male Protestant privilege" but otherwise not true). A gay rights group filmed said speech, and made portions available on YouTube. Many people got upset. Subsequently, anti-gay activists got upset because Ms. Kern was "labeled a bigot."

Do we need to trot that Amendment out again? Sally Kern has every right to say that gays are worse than terrorists. She has every right to characterize this statement as "not anti- and not gay bashing". In short, she has the right to be a bigot. She has the right to be wrong. She does not have the right not to be called a bigot. She does not have the right not to have her statements criticized, her resignation called for, and her reelection opposed. That would be a violation of freedom of speech. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Not "No one is allowed to get angry or upset at you for saying stupid crap."

Sorry. You have a right to say homophobic things. I have a right to call you a homophobe for doing to it. Too bad for you.

So stop whining about your free speech rights being violated when they haven't been. Just in case you missed the point of this post, the previous statement was not a violation of your free speech rights, even though it told you to shut up.

Read More...

Summary only...