The Best/Worst Argument Against Gay Marriage Ever

by Metavirus on 30 June 2009

I really do have to agree with Amanda Marcotte, this article by wingnut David Klinghoffer really is just about the best/worst attack on gay marriage in the history of the universe ever:

Consider this piece from the first century BCE poet Catullus (Carmen 61:134-141), in which the poet addresses himself to a bridegroom on the eve of his nuptials:

“You are said to find it hard, Perfumed bridegroom, to give up Smooth-skinned boys, but give them up… We realize you’ve only known Permitted pleasures: husbands, though, Have no right to the same pleasures.”

The social history behind this piece is clear: once they’ve experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them. Notice that the poet is unconcerned about the husband’s dallying with other women—it’s the other men around that threaten the marital union.

Marcotte dissects the argument behind this historical drivel thusly:

Okay, let’s see if you can follow this. If men are allowed to marry other men, women will lose out because because they when marry men—which at leas Klinghoffer will concede will still be legal—they will not be able to keep their marriages together because once a guy has tasted forbidden man flesh, he can’t go back to inadequate lady flesh. Men can step out with other women without threatening the main marriage, because apparently it’s just easier for men to close their eyes and imagine that the missus is the mistress long enough to complete his conjugal duties. So if gay marriage is legalized, all the men will want to fuck each other, and women will have no one decent to marry. Women can’t marry each other, of course, because a) Klinghoffer keeps forgetting about lesbians when he’s dwelling on the delicious images of an ancient Roman cornucopia of manflesh and b) just like men, women can’t lower themselves to touching women once they’ve sampled the dudely goods.

Let’s face it. No one wants vagina when penis is available, end of story. You, like Klinghoffer, know that if you ever succumb even once to the urge to reach out and touch a cock, you will forever be ruined, never able again to muster enough pleasure out of a union with a lady to get through it.

But what I find really interesting about Klinghoffer’s argument is this—he’s trying to argue against gay marriage. Like many panicked wingnuts, he seems to think that legalizing gay marriage=legalizing dudes fucking each other. What they fail to understand is that dudes can already legally fuck each other.
Read the whole article.

I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: We’re in for a long, long winter of complete and utter batshit insanity from the wingnut right.

{ 27 comments }
  1. schu says:
    June 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    If you have to reach out to the decadent Roman period in history to make a tenuous connection to support your bigoted ideas you are total lost. While I do not support homosexuality I do abhor the bias and discrimination that is dumped on them. The arguments against the government legalizing a civil marriage between to people are mind blowing and insulting to any intelligent person. Yes it is against Christian Biblical teaching, but so what, the last I checked this was not yet a theocracy. That a law change will force churches to marry homosexual couples, what part of civil do you not understand? The more these hateful bigoted idiots expound their theories the more they prove that they are idiots.

    Reply
  2. Trail-Mix says:
    June 30, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    My argument against gay marriage is rather simple. Marriage in it's traditional form of being between the opposite sex predates all Governments in existence today and throughout the world marriage never was a Governmental union, but a religious one. Therefore it is not the place of Government to define marriage.

    Now while I oppose gay marriage, I support civil unions with all the same legal recognitions as marriage. (BTW, they can call it what they wish) I also support a ballot box solution, as we are in fact the United States of America, not the America in control of the States. The States formed the Federal Government, not the other way around. It is for the voters of each State to decide, not the courts to make the determination.

    You will notice that Iowa, the only state to have actually voted in gay marriage is not under threat of any lawsuit to overturn that vote. (Nor would I support a lawsuit to do so) Yet anytime gay marriage is rejected, there is a flurry of legal activity to overturn it. I live in the great State of Idaho, and having originally grown up in Detroit Michigan, I made a decision to move to a State where my views are more in line with the population. I disagree with the views of the population of Iowa, and therefore would not move there.

    Liberalism often fails at the ballot box because it is out of step with main stream America and the Constitution as it was written. This is why you always hear educated Liberals refer to the Constitution as a "Living Document", because it means that everything can be interpreted to mean anything. Such as the First Amendment, suddenly means freedom from religion or hardcore pornography is OK, but political speech must be regulated. Liberalism believes the highest authority is not the ballot box but a sympathetic judiciary, which is why never a thought is given to overturning a legal vote.

    Reply
    • schu says:
      June 30, 2009 at 10:17 pm

      I can relate to most of what you say, until you start making political generalizations in the fourth paragraph. Today we have the most conservative judiciary that we have had for over fifty years. And they are in the process of rewriting the laws that we have passed to protect people’s rights. The Bush/Cheney appointments and commitments to ease dropping on all US citizens cell phone messages is just one point. Another is using torture as an approved government measure. The courts will not even hear the cases. These are not liberal court decisions, but rather extremely concervitive corporate controlled arguments.

      Reply
      • Trail-Mix says:
        July 1, 2009 at 3:40 am

        Understand two things, 1. Listening to a call that originates outside of the US from a known terrorist, is not, nor has it ever been protected by the Constitution nor has it ever required a warrant. This whole eaves dropping thing has been blown completely out of proportion. 2. "Torture" as you define it against enemy combatants that do not fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions is not only legal, but summary executions may be performed as well. Terrorists are not protected under any law either our own or international, in fact Piracy is in the same category. (Hear me Somalia?) Furthermore however, "Torture" as you define it has been used for years as what the Military refers to as a "Training Aid" at a place called SERE. Water boarding is something that every Special Operations personnel and every Military Pilot has undergone. Why? Because it is effective, and leaves no permanent damage and there is zero possibility of a fatality.

        I absolutely support the use of harsh interrogation techniques and they have been proved to save lives. Anyone who will tell you they don't work, simply is either living a fantasy or doesn't know. If a terrorist needs to have his limbs removed in order to save American lives, I am 100% in support of it! The idea that we can fight a war of rules has no doubt cost lives and the debate over so called "torture" is being paid for in American blood.

        Both Iraq and Afghanistan are a disaster because of the politician's (On both sides of the isle and GWB and Obama and basically our entire Government) unwillingness to allow the Military to fight the wars and finish the jobs. If you want to blame Bush for anything blame him for two things, 1. disbanding the Iraqi Military. 2. Not having the giblets to tell the entire Democrat Party as well as all the RINO's (Republicans in Name Only) to go pee up a rope!

        You want to cry for some scumbag terrorists, I can't stop you, but personally I would have Gitmo closed by the end of the day, I would simply shoot every single one of them dead. Why? Because they absolutely deserve to die. Have you ever been face to face with a terrorist? I have and I can tell you that all your "let's all just get along" ideas are not going to sway these evil pieces of crap.

        The "War on Terror" or whatever the politically correct term is will never be won until we realize that the "orthodox" way of practicing Islam is the way these terrorists practice it. Some of you may want to pretend that Mohammad was like a 1500's Jesus, but nothing could be further from the truth. Read the Koran, the entire thing is about dominance and the push for Sharia law. Believe me, if Islam wins the holy war we are in fact fighting, then Liberals will be the first to be executed. These people are in love with death, not peace and they always have been.

        Reply
        • Metavirus says:
          July 1, 2009 at 3:47 am

          yeeeahhh… i'm going to reconsider coming by and visiting your blog. ouch.

          Reply
        • schu says:
          July 1, 2009 at 4:35 am

          So to save the nation we must destroy the nation and sink to the level of the terrorist. We then turn our backs on our history of condemning and prosecuting torture as we did in WWII and Korea for the temporary satisfaction of torturing victims swept up from the streets. While I have not faced a Middle Eastern terrorist yet, I have faced the local home grown version, known as the Aryan Brother Hood and survived. And as I have research the subject on torture and have yet to find a case were the information gained delivered timely information for a military or police strike. And your bigoted description of the Moslem faith only underlines the hate that you live.

          Reply
          • Trail-Mix says:
            July 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm

            Recognizing Islam for what it is and seeing the Koran for what it says is not hatred. I don't condone killing all Muslims, I am simply stating that the so called radicals are practicing their faith according to the scripture. Are there so called "Peaceful Muslims"? Yes, they are not practicing their faith according to the Koran.

            I oppose ALL hate groups, including KKK, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam…etc. I grew up in a racially/ethnically mixed family in Detroit Michigan, minutes away from the single largest Arab population in the US (Dearborn MI). Truth, is never bigoted and we cannot hide behind political correctness and pretend that truth does not exist. Nobody can point to the whole of the Koran or Sharia Law and say that this represents a way of living your life that is in peaceful harmony with your neighbors. If you read these, you must either decide that you will only live the positive parts and not the negative ones, but that is not considered the path of a true believer.

            Why do you think that among so called "peaceful" Muslims living in the US they poll with high number sympathetic to terrorists? It's because they know that these guys are the true believers and the warriors of the faith.

            Koran Quotes:

            When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.

            Q 9:5

            Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.

            Q 4:34

            Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.

            Q 9:73

            "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

            "If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches…" (Surah 3:156-)

            "Forbidden to you are…married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)

            "Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

            "The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)

            "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

            "Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons…he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home…" (Surah 8:12-)

            "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

            "…make war on the leaders of unbelief…Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them…" (Surah 9:12-)

            "If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

            There are many many more!

            The fact is, Islam is about dominance and death. We can be as politically correct as anyone would like to be, but we have to understand that a "true believer" is one who follows his/her religion to the letter and that describes these so called "terrorists" to a "T".

            Now for those who would pull the one or two quotes from the old testament out of the bible and put those fourth in a claim that Christianity is no different, I will point out that the New Testament is what is practiced in Christianity and the Old Testament is studied for historical value which is why Christians eat pork and crab. Christians also do not require Kosher foods and they do not conduct a Passover feast or many other Jewish holidays. Passover is recognized in the Christian Church but with the exception of Messianic Jews, these are not acted upon.

            So again, I am not being bigoted, I simply refuse to allow political correctness to be my guiding principle, truth is my guiding principle and nobody can say that a Muslim not practicing the above quotes is a "True Believer".

            Reply
            • schu says:
              July 4, 2009 at 8:54 pm

              So again, I am not being bigoted, I simply refuse to allow political correctness to be my guiding principle, truth is my guiding principle and nobody can say that a Muslim not practicing the above quotes is a "True Believer
              Yea, sure, and I can quote very similar references from the old testament that say almost the same things. When we cannot argue in brief concise statement on the topic them we begin so sound like rambling idiots. Demonstrating our bigoty in our words.

              Reply
          • Trail-Mix says:
            July 1, 2009 at 2:25 pm

            In addition. Would you have us endlessly sent young men and women to die because of our failure to fight the war like a war? I will also point out that the Obama administration has selectively and intentionally only passed memos that detail what we have done "wrong", not the results of the actionable intelligence. In other words…the reason you claim:

            And as I have research the subject on torture and have yet to find a case were the information gained delivered timely information for a military or police strike.

            Is because the information is not being supplied to you by the Obama administration. How about a case where a harsh interrogation immediately thwarted an attack on US troops:

            http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=169229

            Lt. Col. Allen West fired his pistol near a captured terrorist sympathizer and he immediately told all he knew. This was after he had been interrogated according to Hoyle. So this is one instance that absolutely proves your claim to be false. Can you stand by your statement now? Or will you claim that it "mostly" has not saved lives? Or would you rather they have let this guy go and American soldiers have been killed in favor of treating a terrorist with kid gloves? What Lt. Col. Allen did may not seem pretty, but it was 100% effective and there were lives of soldiers saved that day. So my assertion has been proved correct and this is only a case that we are absolutely aware of, not all the ones Cheney asked to be released and Obama has refused. Because giving out classified information can only be done if it supports Obama's view point.

            Reply
            • schu says:
              July 4, 2009 at 8:36 pm

              West, who at the time was just short of having 20 years of service, was charged with violating articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and was in danger of receiving an 11 year prison sentence, dishonorable discharge and losing his retirement benefits. West was processed through an Article 32 hearing in November 2003, where he admitted wrongdoing, was fined $5,000 over two months for misconduct and assault. He then submitted his resignation, and was allowed to retire with full benefits in the summer of 2004.
              Yeap, just another all American hero, like the Air American boys pushing people out of air planes and Helicopters in Viet Nam. Great examples of the American system of justice and ethics. Not!

              Reply
            • schu says:
              July 4, 2009 at 10:33 pm

              Now let us compare you disgraced Lt Colonel who was saved from prison time and kept his retirement by the intervention of the GOP, with the comments of a few other military leaders.
              The concern I've had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. So and I think that centers — you know, that's the heart of the concern for Guantanamo's continued existence, in which I spoke to a few years ago, the need to close it," Mullen said

              Reply
            • schu says:
              July 4, 2009 at 10:35 pm

              The we can add.
              Retired Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq and the highest-ranking Hispanic officer in the US military at the time of his retirement that he supported the formation of a truth commission to investigate abuses in Iraq…
              General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror In an appearance on Radio Free Europe Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies…"I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention … With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner … But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.

              Reply
          • Trail-Mix says:
            July 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm

            Last thing: We prosecuted the torture of uniformed Military personnel in WWII and if a uniformed conscript of the Iraqi Army was tortured…I would absolutely back you 100%. But do me a favor, please point to were we prosecuted the torture and execution of a spy in WWII. A uniformed member of the Military has legal and moral protections under law, civilians have protections under law, but no terrorist or spy has those protections ever. Now through a bastardization of our Constitution suddenly it's being applied to people of other countries on foreign soil and never in our history has it had that reach. In fact nowhere in the Constitution does it claim to have that reach, because if it does than we would have the right to prosecute the leaders of places like Cuba and Iran for not abiding by it.

            Reply
            • schu says:
              July 4, 2009 at 8:59 pm

              And were can you show me that we did torture captured spies, called fifth column in WWII. In fact the ones that managed to land in the US were caught and imprisoned, not randomly rounded up in street sweeps or turned in by informers, wisped away to secret prisons and tortured by US officials.

              Reply
      • Trail-Mix says:
        July 1, 2009 at 3:49 am

        In addition, I ask that you re-read the fourth paragraph that you are referring to and then research and find one time…even once that a Conservative (A real one) attempted to overturn or reverse a legal vote such as Liberal groups are doing with Prop 8 out in Cali. I am talking specifically about a vote of the people, by a wide margin, with no ambiguity and Liberals are using the courts to override it. Please point to anywhere in that fourth paragraph that my assertions could be proved factually inaccurate. You may not agree, but that's called an opinion, however I was simply laying out facts.

        Reply
        • schu says:
          July 1, 2009 at 4:36 am

          Facts as you see and understand them within your limits.

          Reply
          • Trail-Mix says:
            July 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm

            Yet, you cannot disprove only disagree. I challenged you to find a single time that Conservatives gathered to use the court to overturn the absolute clear will of the people and though you cannot you still deny my assertion? Why is that?

            Reply
            • schu says:
              July 2, 2009 at 11:40 pm

              Because I have better things to do than rant for pages on a blog, covering five or ten different topics instead of the one presented. If you cannot out argue a person with concise facts you seem to be able to bury them with a ton of prose.

              Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors