The Gay Marriage Debate!

This might severely taint my reputation, but I couldn’t pass it up, so here we go. This week I came across a blog post that argued against same-sex marriage. You can find it here. These sort of conversations/posts aren’t typically my cup of tea, but every once in a while I get the inclination to be an asshole, so I wrote a response.

Now, my response is completely satire. Please don’t take me at my word. If you spend enough time on the internet, you begin to see a lot of arguments sprout up in comment feeds (especially on YouTube) and they tend to go nowhere. So, I prefer to use satire (whether it’s actually funny is debatable) when voicing my opinion to things I don’t like, rather than bickering about it.

That’s where you come in. You see, I would much rather see what you have to say. Below is the comment feed between myself and “The Solitary Conservative.” I’m in blue and he’s in red (at least I think it’s a he). Please feel free to leave comments at the bottom. I won’t be restricting anything from going in, so say whatever you really feel, and maybe we’ll at least get something interesting out of this. Here’s the full version, including the comments that “The Solitary Conservative” blocked.

I completely agree with your position. It makes so much sense! Gays should not be allowed to marry because they can’t make babies, and babies are awesome, and our world needs as many babies as it can get. If marriage is about making babies, and gays can’t make them, then of course they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

I can understand where you’re coming from because, being adopted myself, my parents couldn’t reproduce properly but they still chose to get married. I always thought this was wrong growing up, and said “mom and dad, I love you, but you shouldn’t be married. Marriage is all about making babies.” And my mom would always come back with something about ovarian cancer, but she’s wrong and God agrees with me that she’s wrong. It’s like I was telling my friend yesterday, “black people should not be allowed to live in our society.” I wasn’t saying that they should be killed, I was just saying that they should live in their own special area. The dictionary definition of society says “society is a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.” And black people have like Kwanza and rap and stuff, and totally don’t fit the definition of what society should be. Sorry for the rant, but I’m really trying to say that I agree with you completely: Fags shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and blacks should go back to Africa. Keep the faith strong, and God bless. Peace.

 

Thanks for the comment, but how does this respond to any of what I said?

 

I was merely boasting of your immense logical capacity! Marriage is obviously all about sex, and sex is all about making babies, and gays can’t make babies so they can’t get married. Duh. And wasn’t it Carl Sagan who proved that gay marriage is the leading cause of black holes?

You say it’s a “metaphysical impossibility” for gays to get married, even though there are plenty of gays who are legally married, and for that I even envy your ability to brush away plain truth and implement your own brand of personal logic. You laugh reason, virtue, love, and humanity in the face. I’m on your side man, those qualities are for pussies and liberals and faggots. The world needs more men like us to tell people how they should live their lives!

Anyway, I’m sure God will send all the gays to Hell anyway because “God hates faggots,” or whatever my minister keeps repeating. Keep up the great posts, and maybe one day we will finally have a government that is man enough to fully piss on the egalitarian ideal.

 

Sarcasm aside, you’ve done nothing to address my argument. I daresay that you’re acting quite like a bigot.

“You say it’s a “metaphysical impossibility” for gays to get married, even though there are plenty of gays who are legally married”

This goes to show that you don’t understand my argument. Calling same-sex couples married is one thing, being actually married is another. If, as I argue, marriage is rooted in the biological realities of human nature, then same-sex marriage is a logical impossibility, despite the fact that we may label such arrangements as marriages. Calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. The same principle applies here.

 Naw man, WE’RE bigots. Bigots as in “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics.” I mean, we both strongly identify with conservatism, right… and Christianity?

I’m sorry if I come off sarcastic; my beliefs can be a little extreme. But I sympathize with your cause completely. Marriage is totally not a concept of human construction. It exists just as physically as a “dog’s tail.” Marriage can’t be what the dictionary supposes as, “A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.” The dictionary was written by faggot loving liberals. Marriage is biological, and being gay totally isn’t.

No, you’re acting bigoted in the sense that you refuse to engage with the arguments of the opposition, choosing instead to respond with satire instead of a well-reasoned argument.

Once again, you still haven’t engaged with my arguments, so your comments are now moderated. Further sarcasm will not be approved. I expect all commenters here to engage rationally with my arguments. Those who don’t lose the privilege of commenting.

Oops… I thought there was well-reasoned argument in my satire. I always found satire more fun than argument when interacting in text, so I’m not looking to launch into a full online debate with the written word. It lacks too many elements of rhetoric. I was just having fun.

So, in brief, marriage is a concept, a ceremony, a tradition, etc. It does not physically exist as you presume. People might be biologically attracted to each other, but the institution of marriage is constructed from belief, not tangible reality.

Personally, when it comes to defining the concepts within my own belief system (which I like to abbreviate as BS) I like to make them all-inclusive, and promote, to the best possible degree, a sense of equality. If you prefer to outcast certain sects (not to be confused with sex) from your BS, and create a reality for yourself that only includes people like you, that’s your thing.

 

“So, in brief, marriage is a concept, a ceremony, a tradition, etc. It does not physically exist as you presume. People might be biologically attracted to each other, but the institution of marriage is constructed from belief, not tangible reality.”

I gave an argument that marriage is a biological reality grounded in human nature — specifically, the proper purpose of sex. Merely asserting your contrary opinion is not a refutation of it. You need an argument to warrant your conclusion.

“I like to make them all-inclusive, and promote, to the best possible degree, a sense of equality.”

This begs the question. The meaning of “equal” will depend on the nature of the thing being discussed. To treat people equally is to give them all the rights that they deserve, but what they deserve is the very issue being debated. To know what people deserve, we need to have some grasp of the nature of the thing in question. But if there is no such thing as an objective standard in which marriage is grounded, then the idea of “equality” in the marriage debate makes absolutely no sense. So ironically, in order to invoke the equality argument, marriage must be something other than a mere social construct.

 

Your thoughts 

Advertisements

About cognifeeder

My name is Josh. I like to think about things. I also like to write (albeit, “type” might be a more appropriate verb). Sometimes, I can muster these two likes into an enthralling synergy of self-expression. Sometimes not. Cognifeeder was a word I made up in this poem. To me, a “Cognifeeder” is any bit of learned information. A Cognifeeder is a piece of culture, something learned that contributes to one's map of reality. The world is littered with Cognifeeders. Take them lightly. When I’m not blogging, I run Sonata, a digital marketing and SEO agency based in Aledo, Texas.

Posted on July 6, 2012, in humor, philosophy and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 35 Comments.

  1. For the record, I didn’t block any comments. There were some pending moderation, but those were all approved.

    I did change the way comments are displayed though, since nested comments were quickly becoming impractical. Perhaps that might have caused the confusion.

  2. Still interested? You can read The Solitary Conservative’s most recent post on why he thinks gay couples don’t deserve any marriage benefits. You can read it here: http://solitaryconservative.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/same-sex-marriage-and-benefits/

  3. You make some good points, obviously. I’m trying a different tack with the blogger – we’ll see if it works. He uses words that indicate he’s trying to appeal to reason and reasoning to defend his position, but (you point out some of this) he’s made some pretty serious mistakes in reasoning… We’ll see if he has anything to say about the reductio argument I’ve tossed his way.

    • Thanks for participating. I would say your argument is pretty well grounded. Conservative’s lack of intelligible definitions, specifically in his bastardization of the “marriage” concept into something solely sex-centric and his ambiguous use of the word “metaphysical,” are all valid points you mentioned. I look forward to seeing evolving dialog from each of you.

  4. sarahjaneprosetry

    Ok. I added my point. I do appreciate that this blogger isn’t attacker, but rather trying to open up to an intelligent conversation. I do think this argument is based fully on opinion and perception.

    • Thanks Sarah. I would think all argument is based on opinion and perception, being that arguments have two sides. This is part of the reason I try not take debate too seriously, but to have fun with it.

      Going into this post, part of me felt that this was a jerk move. After all, he never said anything to personally attack my views, so why should I go after his? And to this question I still don’t know an answer. Compulsion? An urge to dispel discriminative hate mongering from political discussions? Or maybe I’m being a hate monger myself…

      As Vonnegut once said, “People have to talk about something just to keep their good voice boxes in working order, so they’ll have good voice boxes in case there’s ever anything really meaningful to say.” I think the same applies to exercising our use of language on all levels, and I’m pretty exercised-out for now, so…

  5. Hey Cognifeeder, You had said you wanted to know our thoughts. Instead of giving him another click, I thought I would post my post on here. It’s easier 🙂

    MY RESPONSE:

    Thank you for posting this. It was a really interesting read, and it was great to think about. I was confused about a couple points if you wouldn’t mind elaborating:

    1. “All that would follow is that eating is a sex act of inferior quality compared to the stimulation of the penis and vagina.”
    I agree that having sex involves the use of a penis or a vagina. But I also believe that a hand shake involves the use of hands, that running uses the legs, that a hug uses the arms, that eating uses the mouth, that speaking uses the tongue, etc. You then present an argument that says sex produces pleasure, and because eating also produces pleasure, eating would have to be considered an inferior sexual act. That is ridiculous. According to your argument, eating is not “a sex act of inferior quality” – it is a PLEASURE act of inferior quality. Pleasure and Sex are not synonymous – nor were they originally presented to be in your argument.

    2. “The meaning of sex, love, and the like will be the same for everyone.”
    If this is true, how are we having this debate? You, presumably, value the sanctity of marriage and the reproductive elements of sex. Some value the emotional connection; others value the orgasm.

    3. “What people think sex is and what sex actually is are two different things.”
    I think what you are trying to say here is more like: What other people think sex is and what I know sex is are two different things. Well, I completely agree. Just out of curiosity, though, have you had sex? It would be nice if you could establish your credentials and your experience with the debate at hand.

    4. “Now to love someone is to give yourself completely to them. This is achieved via sex”
    According to this logic, you are incapable of loving your mother, father, children, God, grandparents, friends, or any other being on Earth – unless you are planning to have sex with everyone you love. I don’t recommend this.

    5. “The essence of marriage: a comprehensive union with a special link toward children.”
    Even if we remove the homosexual element from the equation, this argument is flawed. Marriage is a comprehensive union – hmm okay. This begs the question, however, what defines the union? The traditional marriage is defined by a ceremony. What happens if this is impossible? In order for your argument to hold water, marriage has to exist beyond the ceremony or the union – and that union cannot be Sex (or procreation which you deem synonymous with sex). So what is marriage? It cannot be just a ceremony, and if there are no definitive terms outside of intent or love then marriage can only be known to those seeking it.

    QUESTION: So, is it immoral for two people of the same gender to get married if they do not have sex?

    You speak a lot about human nature and common values, yet this very conversation refutes that. If a value was common, wouldn’t we agree? If a certain condition was natural, wouldn’t everything be that way? You cannot argue that nature is paramount yet also claim that weak individuals are defying it every day.

    So which is it?

  6. There’s some very well-reasoned responses being put in that post. Sadly, they all seem to be going over the author’s head. I’ve been arguing with people like this for ages, and I haven’t been able to convert any of them. It may be that the only way to break the brainwashing they’ve gone through from religion and middle school locker rooms is to have them experience a close friend or family member come out to them.

    • Yah, you’re probably right. Now I’m just wondering how I’m going to pull-off seducing this guy’s father… I might have to drug him first… and definitely take pictures… KY?… anal beads?… I’ll have to think this over. But in all seriousness, I know what you mean; logic does seem to go over the heads of these types. He might be a lost cause.

  7. logic does seem to go over the heads of these types. He might be a lost cause.

    Rather ironic comment, don’t you think? I’ve done nothing but appeal to logic and reason in my posts (And I’ve responded to everyone’s queries so far). Even if you disagree with my conclusions, you’ve got to at least acknowledge that.

    • It’s hard to acknowledge the logic and reason in an argument based on the idea that marriage is a natural institution rather than (what you would call) an “artifact” perpetuated by religions and governments.

      • What’s so irrational about that? I gave arguments to support that conclusion, arguments that nobody has adequately responded to.

      • Nobody can swallow the idea that marriage came about on its own without human intervention. It’s beyond absurd, it’s just wrong. If you can believe in such a fairy tale, you’ll believe the Earth was created within six days only six thousand years ago.

  8. That’s not very convincing, especially considering that I gave arguments for the conclusion. What’s so “absurd” about it anyway? If marriage is grounded in real sex differences between men and women, then it can’t be anything other than a natural institution — one as natural as motherhood and fatherhood. Even if you disagree, it at least is a reasonable position. It’s quite unfair to compare it with young earth creationism.

  9. I should also add that this “absurd” position is defended by a great number of scholars, who have published defenses in very reputable journals and publishers (e.g. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, American Journal of Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press). Here’s one example: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

    • Right… And? Harvard, Oxford, and the like are made up of people, and people are entitled to their opinions. Guess what?… There are scholars that would argue the contrary as well. Here are some that were found on the same website your links were on:

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=968274

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=203649

      No matter what your stance is on this, it will merely be opinion, and I accept that your opinion is different than ours.

      The main point to be made is that this is all opinion, and that although you are permitted to have your own opinion, our opinion doesn’t discriminate or victimize against people because of their sexual preference. When it all comes down to it, logic can be used as an irreverent tool against humanity by those looking to marginalize cultures different than their own. Personally, I would say your argument is no more and no less logical than that of your opposition. Congratulations! Unfortunately, your opinion is chauvinistic and cruel, and to that end alone I would say it is wrong.

  10. First, I was responding to Joe’s claim that my position is “absurd.” Clearly it’s not, given that the traditionalist position is taken seriously and defended by respected academics in highly esteemed journals. Of course, they have their critics (and their counter-critics), but that says absolutely nothing with regard to its respectability. There will for nearly every position out there be dissenting voices, but this only goes to show that it’s taken seriously by the academic community, unlike young earth creationism.

    Second, that something is an opinion doesn’t preclude it from being right or wrong. So instead of merely pointing out what my opinion is, you should also offer an assessment as to its truth value. Clearly you think there is a right answer here, otherwise how could you say that my opinion was “chauvinistic and cruel” if not by reference to a standard of what is right? If the marriage debate were really just a mere conflict of opinions, then your assessment of it holds no water. It’s not really “chauvinistic or cruel”, that’s just what you think.

    I’m still waiting for arguments from you and Joe.

    • “that something is an opinion doesn’t preclude it from being right or wrong.”
      Um…
      o•pin•ion 
      noun
      1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. (i.e. not right or wrong, at least objectively)

      Also, when it comes to one’s stance on gay marriage, I don’t think there is a right answer nor is the “truth value” assessable. Not logically at least. Whatever logic you feel compelled to stand behind is rooted in your own personal opinion. However, your opinion is grounded in a lack of tolerance toward diverse lifestyles, and I personally feel disdain toward such views. It is my opinion (and the opinion of many others) that showing blatant discrimination toward other people is wrong. If you’re perfectly comfortable with such prejudices, then so be it.

      P.S. I’m going to go screw my girlfriend for the mere aim of pleasure, so if I don’t respond right away you might have to wait…

  11. No one’s denying that only a man and a woman can procreate. That’s biology, not matrimony.

  12. He didn’t seem to get my initial points (particularly about the word ‘metaphysical’, though he thinks he does, so I’m not sure it’s worth responding to his reply… I can see where this goes – back-and-forth, with him continuing to shift his language use depending on the context of his reply, and changing subjects midst-conversation to suit his purposes. I went to college with a lot of folks who did this, and it’s not possible to have an argument with them, because arguing isn’t what they’re doing – it’s more like “stating and restating opinion”… and it loses its appeal so quickly!

  13. Marriage is a contract between two people. Anyone outside that contract hasn’t a right to invade that contract’s sanctity, legality or sexual status. Whether or not two people can enter into such a contract certainly boils over the bigotry pot, no doubt about it…

  14. Marriage is the “proper purpose of sex”? Which I assume means the writer of the post has never had sex until marriage which purports the fact that the person who wrote is absolute crap in bed.

    Something I think that post writer should have kept to themselves, don’t you think? Rather telling and very sad.

    I thought your responses were quite funny and the post writer should have cottoned on that you were being completely sarcastic. That nob head is rather douche-worthy…

    • Ha, yah he is. And he’s not much of an expert on the topic of sex or marriage, being that he’s never participated in either. My girlfriend asked him in a comment if he’s been laid, and he said no. Sometimes, I think a long-standing virginity causes a person to hate groups that get laid. Poor guy…

      • I would tell the individual “hon, don’t knock it till you try it.” But not all virgins are haters. That one, though, seems particularly hell-bent. Yeah, feeling sorry for someone doesn’t get much sadder than that.

  15. Wow. Insanely awesome. I am so glad you wrote this, because…..same-sex marriage is an explosive topic just begging to be discussed!!! It is more mainstream, now, though, and, in general, a subject “attacked” by all. I’m not sure I agree with everything you wrote, though, and you could’ve been a little more forth-right with your opinions, but I give this a B+. :))

  16. Tauromaja, I would like to be your friend, on here, at least, as crazy as that sounds, because some of your comments were quite shocking, above@@@ Anywho, you are Mexican? You don’t look it at all; I like your purple arm sleeves, by the way. Do you ever visit the Mid-west, or how do you know the gentleman who wrote this post, “cognifeeder,” or whatever?How are things in Mexico? :/ Not too good, I hear. But you’re braving it. That’s nice. Thanks . . .

  17. “Holds no water.” WELL-PUT. Hey, Cognifeeder, how do you know my Friend Kev.? 🙂 ’nuff said. THANKS. ~Suphie

    ~s.w.

    • Um, Kev. Who?
      Thanks for the feedback. And I know Tauromaja (and probably Kev.) the same way I know you: Impersonally through WordPress comments.
      Also, I noticed that you’re from Cleveland too. Cool. But I couldn’t get to your blog from your Gravatar, you might want to include a link somewhere; just a heads up 🙂

      • never mind, I found it.

      • Oh, cool! Wow,,,,gravitars are complicated on this site. If we just pretend that people are people (and lay off the fancy ideas/computer lingo/& snobbish terms) then we may all get more out of this site…Just sayin’……yours, Suphie. :))!

      • It’s *wesner3. How did you like Notre dame? Head’s up given. Reply Bck! Gotta go to sleep. My bed awaits! Kevin SMITH! I think. I think I am following him. Lol. Good night. This was a good invention, apart from Facebook….I’d hate for every site to be the same!! 🙂 ~yours, Suphie

        p.s. my gravitar should have a pug pictured on it. Do you have n-e pets? Suphie.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: