Today's Puzzlement ~ When Racism And Homophobia Actually Do Collide

[bloodyrosemccoy]

I was watching Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show this week, and Jon Stewart kinda laid the smackdown on him for his stance on gay marriage.  Which was good, because I was sputtering in my seat at that—the “reasons” people like Huckabee give to oppose it are always spectacularly stupid and downright inaccurate.

 

The one that really pisses me off is the argument that marriage has always been between one man and one woman everywhere for the duration of human history—and please note, it is not Western history, it is human history they’re speaking for. Dudes, goddamn, no it hasn’t. Take one basic anthropology course and I promise you you’ll find that out damn fast.  Jon Stewart even pointed that out: in Biblical times—which are, in the arguments of the opposition, extremely relevant to their interests—marriage was polygamous and featured concubines and rapists being required to marry their victims* and all sorts of crazy shit.

 

But you know what’s really creepy about the argument?  When I respond with examples of modern marriage in other culture that don’t follow One-Man-One-Woman-Foreverz, like walking marriages or Islamic polygamy or polyandry, they get dismissed as irrelevant to the fact that Marriage Has Always Been Between One Man And One Woman.

 

… Uh.

 

So what you’re saying is, the other cultures—the ones that have different definitions of marriage—don’t count as part of history? Why the hell not? Are they just those inconsequential Others? Because what I’m hearing is, “Your argument is irrelevant because I am racist too!” Go ahead, explain your way out of this one. And while you’re at it, explain why you see our own culture’s different definitions of marriage—divorce, Vegas weddings, serial monogamy—as immoral, while the irrelevant savages can just go on doing their own thing because they don't count.  Take your time.

 

I don’t think people quite hear what they’re saying, do you? Maybe we should start repeating what people say to them—I’d be interested to see if they become any more self-aware when we do that

 

*Although AT LEAST THAT WAS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!  EDIT: (Unless, as pixel39 points out, the rapist was already married.)

Comments

[nobleplatypus]

Hey, youtube has that new feature where it will read your comments to you aloud before you post them. I kind of wonder if people ever click that button and find themselves thinking, "Gosh, I guess 'lol wut diaf' does sound idiotic"?

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

I choose to believe that feature is the direct result of the XKCD comic. And yeah, that is where I got the idea. ("I ... I'm a moron. I never knew!")

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

I'm quite certain that it is due to XKCD. Google engineers are geeks too, and have been known to do things like that.

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

*Except that nowhere in the OT does it say that you're off the hook if you rape a virgin but you're already married, so it's only nominally one man and one woman.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

Point.

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

And being a rapist doesn't prevent the man from marrying more women down the line, either.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

*grin* That one I had thought of, and actually mentioned to the person who had said at least it was OneManOneWoman. They dismissed that, too.

[biomekanic.livejournal.com]

Throughout human history the facts have never gotten in the way of people who firmly believed they were in the right.

[mirnavela.livejournal.com]

This post is full of win.

[luinmir.livejournal.com]

People are always trying to "norm" relationship behavior based on their own culture, and it seems that their efforts are rarely successful, even within the culture they think they have a handle on. In the end, people will form whatever relationships they damn well please... Human beings are programmed for love, but not very specifically for any one kind of love.

Nice music choice. :P

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

It blows my mind how often people confuse "my culture" with "normal." Mark Rosenfelder once came up with a list of American cultural ideals, and got a lot of responses saying, "But that's just normal!"

;) My iPatch editorializes at times.

The HYPOCRISY!!!

[toast-zombie.livejournal.com]

What really pushes my buttons about gay marriage is the fact that the people against it are saying that marriage is a scared thing between a man and a woman. Then you look at the media, celebrities, reality tv shows, shotgun weddings, trophy wives, and gold-diggers that have already destroyed the 'institute' of marriage!! Jon even pointed out Britney Spears and Kevin Whatshisbucket! It's actually quite horrendous how marriage is treated so lightly today and yet these people just DISMISS IT!!! >:(

Re: The HYPOCRISY!!!

[toast-zombie.livejournal.com]

sacred.... not scared... heh heh

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

People who say "But the Bible SAYS Marriage is between a Man and a Woman!!!!"

Actually it doesn't, but it says all KINDS of things about marriage.

It says that there is neither greek nor jew nor man nor woman but all are one in Christ Jesus. (Woo oo - COMMUNISIM!)*

Throughout the OT, "Marriage" is between a man and as many wives as he can afford. Bonus points if they are related or foreign.

It says that you should get married if you really really really can't hack chastity.

But this whole "one man one woman" thing - not so much.

*Most of the letters attributed to Paul were written to a congregation that had heard that part and ran with it. Paul got back about 20 years later and found them all living in common, holding property and wives in common. "But isn't that what Jesus SAID?!?!" they asked when they got him all calmed down with a stiff drink and some smelling salts. Paul spluttered "But... but... but...Look, that's not what He MEANT!!!!!" and then spent a lot of money on ink, papayrus/parchment/whatever and postage explaining what exactly He DID mean.

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

Maybe we should start repeating what people say to them—I’d be interested to see if they become any more self-aware when we do that

If only it was that easy. Generally, if you restate what someone is saying in a way that clarifies the horrible aspects, they just feel insulted and get mad.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but I keep trying ...

[bean-bunny.livejournal.com]

Vaguely irrelevant, but my anthropology course never talked about different sorts of marriages like that. This is because the instructor was too busy saying "athlete" when she meant "black person". (Oh my God it was humiliating to be in that room.)

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

. . .

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I should say "Take a GOOD basic anthropology course?"

I do recall your mentioning that this instructor refused to believe in Black people. Yes the idea of "race" itself (as versus "culture" or "geographic location") is rather fuzzy when you look at it closely, but it's sort of like "economy"--we behave as if the concept exists, so it's kinda important to pay attention to how we do it.

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

This is going straight onto my memories list. ♥

[crazykawaii.livejournal.com]

Yes! This!

I honestly don't get how people can try to logically defend their stance against gay marriage. Dude - you can't. There is NO logical, rational argument against gay people marrying!!! Just suck it up and admit that it goes against the illogical, maybe-kinda-sorta-but-not-really based in certain parts of history but not all of it, precepts and teachings of YOUR particular religion.

Honestly, I think I'd find people like this easier to deal with if they'd just admit that they were illogically and irrefutably prejudiced.

[zimwifepgk.livejournal.com]

I wish these people would some time just come out and say what they really think, which is, 'I don't want homosexuals to marry because I think they're icky. ICKY poo poo ewwww gross with COOTIES. WAH MOMMY they might get their GAY ON ME!' Because. Yanno. That's what it boils down to in the end, no matter how they try to dress it up with 'history' and 'religion.'

[placetohide.livejournal.com]

Dang, I missed that Daily Show!

[http://users.livejournal.com/_wastrel/]

From what I've heard, Canadians pay +/- 2% difference in tax based on whether they're married or not and Americans, +/- 10%, making the issue of where marriage is and isn't legal more of an issue of economic relevance than is deemed fashionable to present.

Whenever I'm even having these discussions with people, I've learned that the voice in the back of my head wanting to ask "Why is marriage so damn valuable that it deserves so much protection in the first place, because if it's just because our society's based on it, wouldn't society have to be a whole lot less crappy for more of us to justify that?" is better off remaining in the back of my head.

I love these comments!

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

Wanted to throw in that I'm reading a book right now called "On Being Certain" which looks at exactly how and why people continue to believe what they believe in the face of all evidence or information to the contrary. It's quite fascinating. Amazing how much cognitive dissonance controls our minds!