A Stupendously Terrible Argument Against Marriage Equality

Mind-Boggingly Idiotic

Not one word about the fact that Marriage is a Contract Issued By the State. Nothing about the rights and privileges it grants that are literally impossible to achieve by other legal means -- even if you're as rich as Bill Gates.

The whole thing reeks of desperation. It is to laugh.

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:04:04 PM CDT

Ya gotta luv a moron ...

... especially one moronic enough to put his smirk-worthy thoughts into words.

 Actually, we could use a few more like him.  And a few more Fred Phelps types also, marriage equality would sweep the country in no time.

... where Same Gender Love rules.

---

by: TaylorSiluwe @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:19:08 PM CDT

Actually I don't mind it

Feminists for years have been pointing out that the ultra-patriarchs believe this is the purpose of marriage and that the opposition to things like abortion access are based on this and feminist lesbians have pointed out that most of the opposition to gay marriage is based on the fact that if the gays were allowed to marry then it would become blindingly obvious that the patriarchal idea of marriage wasn't a necessity.

And this idiot, without using the usual codewords like traditional, natural role, and the like, said it straight up without shame, the dark open secret of the patriarchy.

I applaud him for revealing that and standing by it.

This is exactly the reason they're against gay marriage (well that and the fact that it'll become less publicly acceptable to treat gays like demons come to possess your children) and the more the public sees that, the more these people will get shut out and the better off we'll all be.

---

by: Cerberus @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:26:04 PM CDT

Incest

"the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom."

Leave it to a "christian" to mention "falling in love with my own mother" as an argument against gay marriage.  

Sorry Schulman - incest may be best for those of you who owns a bible, but not in MY book!

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 20:52:42 PM CDT

My fave

Before World War II, high school graduation was accompanied by a burst of engagements; nowadays college graduation begins a season of weddings that go on every weekend for some years. In contrast, gay weddings are rather middle-aged affairs. My impression is borne out by the one available statistic, from the province of British Columbia, showing that the participants in first-time same-sex weddings are 13 years older, on average, then first-time brides-and-grooms. This feels about right.

I dunnow what it feels like, but it reads like a lesson in how to flunk an elementary logic class - as if the same age gap would somehow not be present in reverse if it had been hetero couples that had, until recently, been barred from getting married.

There's more logic in the piles of stuff that I have to pick up after I take my dogs out into the yard.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 21:39:01 PM CDT

Jerry Lee Lewis

"participants in first-time same-sex weddings are 13 years older, on average, then first-time brides-and-grooms."

Which reminds me of an infamous quote by Jerry Lee Lewis, referring to him marrying his 13 year old cousin:

"Have you ever fucked your cousin?

I married mine!"

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:30:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Advice his *other* cousin should have followed

The other cousin being Jimmy Swaggart, of course.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:55:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Schulman hasn't met my family.

Even in modern romantic marriages, a groom becomes the hunting or business partner of his father-in-law and a member of his clubs; a bride becomes an ally of her mother-in-law in controlling her husband...A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband's family; a woman and her wife's kin. It will be nothing like the new kinship structure that a marriage imposes willy-nilly on two families who would otherwise loathe each other.

It never ceases to amaze me that straight people will wax poetic about relationships that they are not apart of. (Well, most people seem to think they are experts on others' relationships, not just straight people vis-a-vis queer families.) My partner and my mother are champs at ganging up on me when they both want me to do something. Just this afternoon I confronted them upon overhearing them plotting on the phone. That I too am a woman is largely irrelevant, as is the fact that our wedding doesn't take place until September. It is exactly how my sister and her mother-in-law relate, and how I imagine I would if my partner had living parents.

I also find it interesting that Schulman can find only one study showing differences between same-sex and mixed-sex married couples, and it shows that same-sex couples are on average 13 years older than first-time mixed-sex married couples. The study is from British Columbia, where same-sex marriage was legalized just six years ago. I wonder how many of those couples who have married in the last six years have been together longer, and might have married sooner had they been permitted. He's comparing a population has been allowed to marry since whenever they attained majority with one who has only been allowed to marry for no more than six years, be they 18-year-olds or 80-year-olds. The groups won't be able to be reasonably compared until marriage has been legal long enough that everyone will have gained the right at legal majority. So when the oldest people in the BC were born in 1985, someone can do a reasonable study.

I can't find a single redeeming argument in the whole article. If his allegations were true, no one, straight or queer, would ever want to marry.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 21:43:08 PM CDT

I read this

earlier today with my mouth open in horror.

I am already not looking forward to tomorrows prop 8 decision.

Plus the fact that the Governor of Nevada vetoed the freaking DP bill on freaking memorial day.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/new...

---

by: ggw59 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:10:15 PM CDT

You forgot a very common third variety of argument against equal marriage

---

The purpose of marriage is to have and raise children together. Since same-sex couples cannot have children together, it is acceptable to prohibit them from getting married.

That was the gist of the argument made by the Washington Supreme Court in its lead ruling on Andersen v. King County in 2006, which upheld the state's "Defense" of Marriage Act. While this sentiment was held up to international ridicule through Washington's Initiative 957, it remains the one anti-equal marriage argument that has withstood court scrutiny.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 22:56:26 PM CDT

Marriage circa 1950

Even in modern romantic marriages, a groom becomes the hunting or business partner of his father-in-law and a member of his clubs; a bride becomes an ally of her mother-in-law in controlling her husband.

What alternate timeline is this guy living in, where the men all belong to "clubs" and a mother-in-law's favorite activity is meddling?  Has he been raised in a concrete bunker, with access to no media except an endless loop of '50s-era sitcoms?

On the bright side, this argument is so VERY stupid that it perfectly illustrates why even their own supporters are bailing out on the anti-marriage crowd.  They've finally run out of arguments that make even the remotest sense.

---

by: popebuck1 @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:07:33 PM CDT

the "a bride becomes an ally of her mother-in-law" cracked me up

What kind of sitcom from the 50s is this guy coming from?

I know very few women who get along with their mother-in-law let alone have become "an ally" to her.  Certainly none of the women on my Dad's side were best buds with grandma, and the only son-in-law isn't part of grandpa's clubs either.

Game set match. Victor hit it on the head.  This is more about failed marriages and bitterness toward women in general than any sort of logic.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:29:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BC Couple

I wonder how many of those couples who have married in the last six years have been together longer, and might have married sooner had they been permitted.

My partner and I have been together since 1 May 1993. We were registered as domestic partners in the province of Nova Scotia on 1 August 2001. We celebrated our civil marriage in British Columbia on 21 September 2003. Might we have married sooner had we been permitted ... or would we rather have remained disenfranchised second-class citizens? The Blind Idiot God of the Latter-Day Theocrats is not in the mix of our marriage.

Mr. Schulman seems incoherent and unable to articulate even his own crude ideas.

---

by: BCCanuck @ Mon May 25, 2009 at 23:22:11 PM CDT

Now, now, be fair...

...crude ideas are very hard to articulate!

---

by: artdyke @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:00:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting attempt to use kinship

Given that just in the miniscule quotes above it is patently obvious that the author has no understanding of how kinship works and what kinship is, and is utterly trapped in the whole women are servile beings trapped in the idea os childbearing.

Well, buddy, I think you may have to get a visit from that woman that knows a lot about kinship and isn't trapped by the idea of childbearing.

I'll plan my visit shortly...

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:50:24 AM CDT

Are we certain this is not a very dry satire?

I ask because the non-gay-marriage alternative seems to be a bit dystopian by the author's description.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:28:50 AM CDT

Agreed

Cindik, I too was hoping that this was a great bit of spoof -- otherwise, I was starting to get the same creepy feeling I had as a kid when I snooped into my mother's 1939 "marriage manual for ladies".

---

by: Jake @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:08:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow. Just wow

So much stupidity in such a short space. I liked the part about the how homosexuals wouldn't be bound by limitations against who you can marry, like incest, so it would be ok for brothers to marry or mothers and daughters. This guy is deranged. Also in "Jewish Chicagoland" brides become "unpaid servants" to their mothers- and sisters-in-law? Who knew?  I grew up in a Jewish community in Chicago and never heard about this! I suspect this may be something unique to Mr. Schulman's family.

---

by: anastasia P @ Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:22:55 AM CDT