Rob Schwarzwalder #fundie

Rob Schwarzwalder #fundie frc.org

Organizations like Freedom to Marry, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the Human Rights Campaign argue that same-sex marriage is a matter of justice: If two same-sex partners (1) love one another romantically and (2) volitionally choose to wed, there should be no legal impediments to their doing so. They assert that such impediments imply some combination of ignorance, religious bigotry, or sheer homophobia.

The claim of injustice is itself unjust. Because people want to do something that does not adversely affect those immediately around them (e.g., neighbors or co-workers) does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Society is organic and, thus, so is harm. Same-sex unions do not threaten any healthy natural marriage but, rather, they threaten the institution of marriage and, thereby, the well-being of countless families.

Similarly, we have laws against myriad "victimless" crimes (substance abuse, prostitution, etc.) not only because they harm individuals who engage in them but also because they degrade society. Consensual homosexual unions might cause no apparent distress to persons proximate to them, but they diminish an institution - marriage - without which, civilization will erode ever more quickly. And in case one hasn't noticed, natural marriage in the United States is in enough trouble as it is.

40 comments

old comment by Mudak

I don't see how opening up the institution to more people who not only want to partake of it -- possibly with greater enthusiasm than those to whom it's already open -- will threaten it.

I also find it curious that you mention the illegality of substance abuse and prostitution. I have long been in favor of ending the prohibitions on both prostitution and illegal drugs. The way to help those who abuse drugs is not incarceration but rehabilitation. Prostitution would also gain an added and needed modicum of safety with government regulation. And both would bring in significant tax revenues. The arguments against both in that "we don't like them" are specious and ignore simple human reality.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Substance abuse has a very large number of victims, not just the end users but a great many others. On the other hand, I know nobody whose marriage has been devalued or affected in any way by the existence of same-sex marriage nor do they perceive the institution of marriage to have been thus threatened. So far, interracial marriage, polygamous marriage, polyandrous marriage, levirate marriage, marriage by abduction, marriage by dowry, marriage by political alliance, forced marriage, marriage for love and marriages of convenience have all failed to damage the institution of marriage, so there's little reason why same-sex marriage should be any different. If "natural marriage" is in trouble, maybe that's because it doesn't exist.

old comment by Swede

Same sex unions, whether they are legalized or not, don't threaten the institution of marriage in most people's eyes. Countless families in my country consist of people who are not married, but live together indefinitely.

Substance abuse cause harm to people close to the addict. Prostitution is mostly one person selling other people's bodies, which definitely harm those people.

Once again, in most people's eyes, consensual sexual unions, whether same- or opposite sex, neither cause harm to people in their surroundings, nor diminish the institution of marriage. Civilization can manage perfectly well without marriage.

"Natural marriage"? If there is such a thing, it must be the "hey, I like you; let's live together" kind. No artificial legal bindings, no ceremony, no rules or regulations, just two individuals who like each other's company, for now.

old comment by Doubting Thomas

They assert that such impediments imply some combination of ignorance, religious bigotry, or sheer homophobia.

They're absolutely right.

Same-sex unions do not threaten any healthy natural marriage but, rather, they threaten the institution of marriage and, thereby, the well-being of countless families.

So, gay marriage doesn't harm any heterosexual marriages, but yet it harms heterosexual marriages?

And in case one hasn't noticed, natural marriage in the United States is in enough trouble as it is.

Which has absolutely zero to do with gay marriage. Maybe if you worked on that instead of trying to keep gay people from marrying, you might save traditional heterosexual marriage. But no, you and your ilk continue to rail against gay marriage while ignoring the high divorce rate, quickie Vegas weddings, marriages of convenience, and the fact that many couples don't see the need for a ceremony and a piece of paper.

old comment by rubber chicken

All you need to do now is show how, exactly, the institution of marriage is threatened or diminished by allowing SSM. I'm sure you can do that, can't you ?

Neither substance abuse nor prostitution are illegal per se, rather certain manifestations have been declared against the law. There are definite arguments that it is the criminalisation of such acts that causes the vast majority of associated social harm and there are increasing calls for the decriminalisation, if not the actual legalisation, of those activities.

Finally, if, -and it's a big if- , natural marriage in the US is in trouble without SSM then the problems obviously cannot be laid at the feet of SSM.

old comment by

"You can not logic someone out of a position he did not logic himself into". That's why we'll keep seeing infinite claims that same-sex marriage is terribad for mankind because I say so.

Interestingly, in my own country, where s-s marriages have been legal for almost a decade, only the nutcase wing of the right keeps claiming such a thing, the mainstream groups have just accepted it as a normal thing, and the conservatives, who once sent the law to the Supreme Court, have quietly taken back all their promises to remove it as soon as they got back into power because nobody cares that some people who before couldn't can now have the same rights as other people.

old comment by Cloning Blues

I'm going to echo some of the other posters here in noting that you made a lousy choice of "victimless crimes". Even leaving aside the damage that drug users may do if they run someone over with a car or turn violent, drug addiction still harms the self. Similarly, prostitution can, and often is a terrible experience for the women (and the few men) who are trapped in it, both in terms of abuse from others, and damage to their sense of self-worth.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, doesn't have any of those negative effects, and being treated like a person has a positive impact on most people's sense of self-worth.

In short, this argument fails.

old comment by Felix Wilde

(I had a bunch of lead in to this going over the basics of post feminist and queer lib views on the sex industry, but I lost it in trying to post. Damn browser not remembering all I type. Yes, pimping is rape, but prostitution is not the problem; lowlife pimps and rapist Johns are. Sex workers were typically dehumanised in the past, as women and/or gay men generally were by straight men; now, they are more likely to be seen as defenseless, powerless victims, which is still disrespectful and condescending, especially to those who are not. etc.)

Unionising and regulating the sex industry would be far more beneficial to sex workers than treating them as either criminals or defenseless prey. Remember the Victorian era, when an "honest" job was liable to leave you killed or chronically diseased? We didn't ban factories, even if Ludd and co. had reasons for wanting to do so. Establishing that industrial workers have basic human rights, and actively protecting those rights, was the rational response. Reason is a bit more lacking in the context of the sex industry, largely because conservatives are likely to see any involvement at all as sin and deserving of punishment, but it's time to move past that. Prostitution isn't going anywhere, and the solution is to make it safe for sex workers, an integral part of which is not forcing them into the black market or deals with organised crime syndicates.

old comment by Felix Wilde

Part II:
The same goes for "illicit" drug consumption. Downing a couple of shrooms is quite victimless - much more so than Dad going on a bender involving alcohol, that most widespread and easily most destructive of recreational drugs - and any victims of the psychedelics are created by the "war on (certain) drugs" itself. Even with nasty stuff like crack or heroin, studies show that when the end user isn't afraid of legal repercussions, they're nearly twice as likely to seek help. Additionally, that help could be funded quite well simply by legalising and taxing cannabis alone; this would generate billions in tax revenue and at the same time destroy a major source of profit for organised crime.

@Cloning Blues specifically: drugs do not "make you" violent, and in the few cases they do (isn't it funny that one of the very few drugs that does increase physical aggression to a large degree is the most prevalent and legal one?), the drug user is not absolved of any responsibility; they knowingly took the drug in the first place. If you drive on drugs, you choose to endanger lives that way. Nearly every recreational drug is actually less destructive, both to the self and to society, than alcohol. Similarly, if it weren't for exploitative (in the sense of both usury and rape) pimps and judgemental public opinion, those damaging aspects of prostitution wouldn't exist.

old comment by Mister Spak

" Because people want to do something that does not adversely affect those immediately around them (e.g., neighbors or co-workers) does not mean they should be allowed to do so. Society is organic and, thus, so is harm."

That's a good reason to outlaw fundie pressure groups like family research council.

" And in case one hasn't noticed, natural marriage in the United States is in enough trouble as it is."

Not that much trouble. Several states have allowed same sex marriage, giving me hope that natural marriage may triumph in the US.

@Filin De Blanc

"Does the Family Research Council ever do any actual research? I'd like to see a paper they got published. "

They use the usual fundie definition of research ie. politically correct shit I made up then spell checked.