Slaver? Moi?

When I point out that legal recognition of gay marriage entails the expansion of a morally indefensible state institution Chip Gibbons of Binary Circumstance likens me to a slaveholder:

Your position is like a plantation owner in the south keeping his slaves, while fighting any effort on the part of the slaves to keep whites as slaves. If blacks had been able to keeps whites as slaves, a lot more whites would have thought that slavery was a bad idea. When heteros are forced to pay my bills and are forced to surrender their freedom to the state, then more of them will figure out that maybe state interference in private lives isn’t such a good idea.

When state-defined and supported marriage is abolished entirely (heterosexuals will not allow that to happen anymore than slaveowners would allow the abolition of slavery), then I will no longer have to defend the efforts of same-sex couples to partake of that corrupt, slave-owning institution. But heterosexuals are not going to give up their claim on a right to have the state sanction their marriages and provide them with special benefits.

Actually I’m a consistent abolitionist. Gibbons claims to be an abolitionist but defends the expansion of the institution he knows should be abolished. To paraphrase: “Since slavery isn’t going away today, let’s get us some slaves.”

Gower:Why, the enemy is loud; you hear him all night.

Fluellen:If the enemy is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb, is it meet, think you, that we should also, look you, be an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb? In your own conscience, now? – Henry V

11 thoughts on “Slaver? Moi?”

  1. Even supposing that state-sanctioned marriage constitutes some kind of wealth transfer from the unmarried and/or homosexuals to married straight couples, it is so far from being the most egregious example of such a transfer as to make Mr. Gibbons’ overheated rhetoric seem more than a bit silly. I mean, hello? The income tax, the military-industrial complex? Can I get a sense of proportion here?

  2. “I’m SO glad that you don’t find me to be a loon.”

    I didn’t want the charge that you were a loon to go unanswered in a comment thread to one of my posts. Silence on my part could easily be misconstrued as agreement especially since Lopez is a contributor to NT.

    “Have you had any luck getting heterosexuals to give up their special privileges, including state-sanctioned marriage yet?”

    I’ve given up state sanctioned marriage myself. Does that count or did you have something more collectivist in mind?

  3. Thanks, John!

    I’m not married either (couldn’t be even if I wanted to) so I guess we’re both doing our part.

    This is the way I see it: Granting same-sex marriage rights definitely expands the entitlement, which I am against. Not granting same-sex marriage, allows one group of inviduals, who have many other state and federal entitlements, to monopolize marriage entitlements with little possibility they will ever surrender them, which I am also against.

    Given the choice between two possibilities which are both anti-liberty as far as I’m concerned, I choose the course which I view to be more in my own rational self-interest. I’m not suggesting that anybody else is obligated to follow the same course.

    For those who are angry that homosexuals might steal their money, but not angry that heterosexuals do it all the time, I can only say they have other issues not related to entitlements or stealing.

  4. “For those who are angry that homosexuals might steal their money, but not angry that heterosexuals do it all the time, I can only say they have other issues not related to entitlements or stealing.”

    I’m angry that anyone steals my money. At the very least, I’m going to fight to keep others from piling on. Put another way, of course I’m angry that heterosexuals steal from me. That’s not an issue.

  5. “I’m angry that anyone steals my money. At the very least, I’m going to fight to keep others from piling on. Put another way, of course I’m angry that heterosexuals steal from me.”

    Good thing, too. Since it’s heterosexuals that steal most of your money.

    You might be interested to read my latest post on why religious fundamentalists want to preserve the heterosexual monopoly on state marriage. They are concerned that same-sex marriage would lead to the privatization of marriage and the end of state involvment in marriage.

    That would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?

  6. “Good thing, too. Since it’s heterosexuals that steal most of your money.”

    You could say that about whites too.

    “That would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?”

    Sure it would be good if marriage were privatized, but you’re rather selectively enamored with that part of Dobson’s reasoning aren’t you? You reject out of hand most of what he says.

Leave a Reply

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