Marriage Is a Punishment, Imply Defenders of Marriage

Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can “produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.

By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, “substantial advance planning is required,” said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.

The LA Times calls this an “unusual defense” of marriage, which is a bit like calling the Pacific “moist”.

So the California Prop 8 trial has reached the Supreme Court, and apparently the anti-gay side’s lawyers have figured out that the “buttsecks is icky” and “Baby Jesus told me to hate you” lines of argument aren’t going to fly in a venue that has cross-examination (a legal term for “calling you on your bullshit”).

It is plainly reasonable for California to maintain a unique institution [referring to marriage] to address the unique challenges posed by the unique procreative potential of sexual relationships between men and women,” argued Washington attorney Charles J. Cooper, representing the defenders of Proposition 8. Same-sex couples need not be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they “don’t present a threat of irresponsible procreation.

So what they’re saying is that the only reason the state has to have marriage in the first place is to provide unwanted and unplanned children with a stable environment. That if it weren’t for drunk guys shooting their cum up equally-drunk vaginas all over the place, no one would have to get married, shotgun or otherwise. So really, they’re doing the homos a favor by not imposing marriage on them, and all the nasty icky visitation rights and tax-filing status that come with it.

The first thing that jumped out at me was that this line of reasoning sophistry is so underpants-on-head retarded that it shows that the anti-gay-righs folks are running so low on arguments that they’ve scraped through the bottom of the barrel and are now serving up whatever they’ve found under the rocks below the barrel.

But the second thing was the stereotyping. They’re lumping me along with the irresponsible guys who get women pregnant and then refuse to take responsibility for their children. Me, and every guy who always carries a condom, just in case; every woman who makes sure she doesn’t get pregnant until she’s ready. Every mutually-infertile straight couple who use IVF or adopt children.

But even though I’m being insulted, I can’t even get that worked up about it. Because as Greta Christina points out, if they’re using this sort of argument, it’s because nothing else has worked, so they’re desperate. They’ve lost. But some of them haven’t realized that yet.

5 thoughts on “Marriage Is a Punishment, Imply Defenders of Marriage”

  1. Since both of our children were well-and-truly planned, and conceived and born at what we though was the best time for us to raise kids, does that mean that my wife and I aren’t “really” married, or shouldn’t be, or something? I realize lawyers are paid to try any argument, no matter how unlikely, but this surpasses even the Catholic position on permissibly family planning methods in head-up-ass pretzel-logic.

    1. this surpasses even the Catholic position on permissibly family planning methods in head-up-ass pretzel-logic.

      So I guess what you’re saying is that the Catholic position is not the missionary position.

      Though at first, I thought you meant the Catholic hospital’s lawyer’s position that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, unless you’re being sued for its wrongful death, in which case it’s not.

      1. So I guess what you’re saying is that the Catholic position is not the missionary position.

        I see what you did there ;-).

        Though at first, I thought you meant the Catholic hospital’s lawyer’s position that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, unless you’re being sued for its wrongful death, in which case it’s not.

        Nice example, though I’m referring to the logic that allows “natural” family planning methods (which they refuse to call “contraception”) based on detecting and avoiding fertile periods, on the grounds that they are “open to the transmission of life” (despite the fact that the point of the system is to avoid conception) in a way that condoms or hormonal methods are not, but totally *not* because they’re less reliable than “artificial” methods. The whole rationale seems an elaborate exercise in pretending you aren’t doing what you obviously are. Self-deception is build into the system.

        1. The whole rationale seems an elaborate exercise in pretending you aren’t doing what you obviously are.

          Yes, this, exactly. This also applies to purity-pledged teens who rationalize that blow jobs and anal don’t constitute “sex”. And to William Lane Craig when he explains how God ordering his chosen people to genocide the Canaanites was the kindest thing he could do.

          Actually, I’m a bit sad at how easy it was to come up with other examples of people pretending they’re not doing what they’re doing, for religious reasons.

  2. Because as Greta Christina points out, if they’re using this sort of argument, it’s because nothing else has worked, so they’re desperate. They’ve lost. But some of them haven’t realized that yet.

    It’s kind of like when the bad guys used to shoot Superman over and over again until they ran out of bullets and then throw the empty gun at him. Then again, Superman had a tendency to duck when the gun was thrown at him, so maybe there’s something to it.

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>