I Now Pronounce You Building and Wife

I’ve always suspected that the root of many people’s opposition to same-sex marriage is not just that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but between one dominant man and one submissive woman. This is why they find same-sex marriage so threatening to their view of traditional marriage. A same-sex couple doesn’t have a clear distinction as to who is to hold the dominant role and who is to hold the submissive role.

Bachmann herself alluded to this view when he mentioned that she became a lawyer because Marcus wanted her to and Jesus said she must be subservient to her husband in all things.

This why arguments about relationships between consenting adults sail over their heads. In their view, asking about the wife’s consent makes as much sense as asking for the Eiffel Tower’s consent.

“When I say this I know you at home are thinking ‘this woman is nuts'”

Correct.

I don’t know about the Eiffel Tower being female. Like the Washington Monument, it looks pretty phallic to me.

Nonsense! She’s obviously a tall, slender lady with four killer legs

Don’t worry Ms. Scott. If it happens, our crack INS folk will make sure that any so-called ‘marriage’ is not simply the Tower’s attempt to get into the country without a proper work visa. The french may have got that green lady by us, but it won’t happen again!

They never get the idea of informed consent, do they?

She’d probably heard something about this woman:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html

Of course, even though the person in the article is real, equating what she did to same-sex marriage is… insane.

Now, if two buildings wanted to get married, that’s a different thing. 😉

Fundies jump to the conclusion that granting the right for universal person-person marriages based on mutual consent will somehow lead to person-object, person-nonsentient animal, or person-plant marriages where one half is unable to give informed consent. The fact that they make this wild leap as if it were an obvious, stepwise progression makes me wonder what new frontiers of kinkiness they’ve been exploring in porn while trying to enforce orthodox hetero-missionary sex on everyone else.

Of course, my anecdotal experience that “traditional marriage” advocates have a large overlap with rape apologists (“She was asking for it by wearing a miniskirt instead of a burka modest clothing!”) makes me question whether they think about consent as a factor in sexual ethics. If they don’t bother with consent, that would let them slide down the slippery slope they propose. These fundies also wouldn’t recognize that the consent factor prevents normal people from going down that alleged slope.

This is why they find same-sex marriage so threatening to their view of traditional marriage. A same-sex couple doesn’t have a clear distinction as to who is to hold the dominant role and who is to hold the submissive role.

This is the only explanation I have seen explains the conservative stance so well. They obviously have other objections, but I think this is the primary one. I believe it extends beyond homosexual marriage to homosexuality in general, and even to race relations. In general, these people are uncomfortable with any relationship that lacks a clearly defined hierarchy of power.

When I say this I know you at home are thinking ‘this woman is nuts’

This gives me an opportunity to use my favorite new word!

No, I am thinking ‘this woman is nerts!’

I’m sure they’re just fine with the sort of transactional arranged marriages where families basically sell their daughters to the sons of other families for strategic reasons, and the only reason they’re not out in public saying that’s how everyone should do it is because they don’t think they can get away with it…yet. But they’ve got their heels dug in and they’re shoving away at that Overton Window as hard as they can…

That’s something else I should have commented on. Society at large already accepts the “radical” notion that marriage is about the desires of those individuals getting married. That flies in the face of the traditionalists, and they’ll probably try to crush that if they manage to get their higher priority goals of crushing same sex and interracial marriages.

makes me question whether they think about consent as a factor in sexual ethics.

I think to a lot of people the idea of informed consent as a prerequisite for ethical, legal, and moral sexual activity is just some new-fangled PC bullshit. Sex is something to be taken or acquired. One party is always the penetrated victim, the other always the accomplished penetrator, so consent is really an imaginary concept. Sex is something that is sick and dirty, which men inflict on women because they are fallen. That’s why we need careful moral proscriptions for determining the appropriate partner (i.e. your wife and none other). The desires of the woman are irrelevant, since as the party being penetrated there is no way for her experience to not be degrading. If she “consents,” it is only out of begrudging duty to her husband. Women who consent to (or show any interest at all in) sex with a partner who is not their lawful husband are sluts who deserve whatever happens to them, and need to protected from themselves by their fathers.

This attitude varies by degree. You will only occasionally find it expressed so baldly. But if you examine the behaviors and statements of archconservatives you will find this attitude at their root. Often people have this as an unconscious, unexamined attitude that they know intellectually is wrong, which is why when you approach the question of sexual ethics from a more intellectual angle, or even just state the logical implications of their actions in a clear and concise manner, they will disavow them – but then utterly fail to modify their beliefs accordingly.

There was something very similar a week or two ago, not her IIRC.

I can see how you’d get them all mixed up. There’s not much variation in this group.

I wonder if these people think through the position

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Never.

or if they genuinely don’t think consent important in a marriage? The only way their argument can possibly make any sense is if it doesn’t matter whether the two participants agree or not.

They think, as has been pointed out repeatedly, that “Og hit woman head. Og drag woman. Go Og cave.”

Actually, their ideal courtship is this:

Female taken to church with family. Male sees female. Wants female. Goes to father. Tells father, I will marry your daughter. Father negotiates with whippersnapper about his qualifications. If suitor worthy, father tells daughter to marry whippersnapper. Daughter obeys. They live happily ever after.

I’m serious–this is how they’d all do it, if they had their way.

As always, delving into the minds of fundies by examining their arguments and actions takes us into terrifying places.

Even worse, people may even try to marry corporations! After all, a corporation is a ‘person’ in the U.S., so why not?

Apparently the only thing that holds back the tide of degradation and insanity is the force of law. Without such legal restraint, there will be no end to the terrible acts that would be committed. Humans and animals would get married. Children would be forced to marry. Objects will be brought into marriage. People will marry their patents and copyrights. They will marry insurance policies.

And then, the tide of unfettered behavior will spread beyond the realm of marriage! A mining company will feel free to neglect proper safety equipment and procedures, resulting in the deaths of dozens of workers. Meat packing plants will incorporate prion-disease tainted meat into products to be sold to school lunch programs. Dicey mortgages will be repackaged into obscure financial implements and given “AAA” ratings, eventually crashing the world economy. People diagnosed with cancer will be dropped from their health insurance coverage to ‘save money’.

Where will it all end?

. . .

What’s that you say? It’s already happening? Oh no!

This is the only explanation I have seen explains the conservative stance so well. They obviously have other objections, but I think this is the primary one. I believe it extends beyond homosexual marriage to homosexuality in general, and even to race relations. In general, these people are uncomfortable with any relationship that lacks a clearly defined hierarchy of power.

You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go “according to plan.” Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan.” But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!~Everything you need to know about the Conservative mindset.

The Plan is good no matter how many people it hurts.

umlud @ 12,

I saw a program a while back on BBC America about that. They profiled more than one person with object fetishes. It was pretty interesting and strangely arousing.

danielkim @ 28: “Even worse, people may even try to marry corporations! After all, a corporation is a ‘person’ in the U.S., so why not?”

–>Awesome! I would arrange to marry a corporation in California, get involved a little bit in the day-to-day workings, then divorce under CA’s 50/50 community property law. Talk about a golden parachute!

Even worse, people may even try to marry corporations!

I’m having a mental image of a board of directors and shareholders recreating the scene in Futurama: Beast With a Million Backs, where various leaders are debating about whether our universe should continue dating Yeevo or to dump shkler.

Now I know why we haven’t heard from mroberts for a while. The Bachman campaign appears to have hired him to develop their talking points.

d cwilson #2 wrote:

I’ve always suspected that the root of many people’s opposition to same-sex marriage is not just that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but between one dominant man and one submissive woman. This is why they find same-sex marriage so threatening to their view of traditional marriage. A same-sex couple doesn’t have a clear distinction as to who is to hold the dominant role and who is to hold the submissive role.

You may very well be right, but this wouldn’t explain why the opponents like to bring not just polyamory but polygamy into their scenario of the horrible things that will become legal if same-sex marriage is allowed. The standard stereotype of polygamists is that the husband rules in stern and strict authority over ‘his’ very submissive wives. Or perhaps this doesn’t disturb them as much as they pretend. I don’t know.

I love how she doesn’t even attempt to draw a connection between same-sex marriage and polyamory.

Maybe the rule is that, if it’s not traditional Christian … then it’s CRAP! And from their perspective one way of being wrong looks like any other way of being wrong. That would account for their concern over all those Muslim-atheists.

Now, if two buildings wanted to get married, that’s a different thing. 😉

Yes, but they’d have to be consenting buildings.

Don’t forget the “handmaids” (read: slaves) who bore several of his sons…

If they bore him children, they didn’t stop at being handmaids, did they? Heh.

You may very well be right, but this wouldn’t explain why the opponents like to bring not just polyamory but polygamy into their scenario of the horrible things that will become legal if same-sex marriage is allowed. The standard stereotype of polygamists is that the husband rules in stern and strict authority over ‘his’ very submissive wives.

But how do you know what the hierarchy of wives is? A proper marriage is a wife, a husband, and his obedient mistresses.

Also, I’m not sure that this is the popular stereotype of polyamory amongst fundies. I think they are more apt to picture a bunch of hippies living on a commune and having drug-fueled orgies with each other, their children, their vegetables, etc. Of course, Jack Chick isn’t always the best source for typical fundie paranoia, so I could be wrong.

I saw a program a while back on BBC America about that. They profiled more than one person with object fetishes. It was pretty interesting and strangely arousing.

Fetish fetish?

Eric, you have to put the pause in between “brick” and “house” to account for the “shit” that Ritchie had to leave out.

Nah, she’s not simply nuts. She’s stupendously barking mad. We’d have to invent several new degrees of stupid to encompass such as she.

Four years ago living in Iowa was interesting. The Clintons and Obama were criscrossing the state. Bill Clinton made a surprise visit to our celebrated greasy spoon restaurant here in Iowa City. But this year the campaigning before the caucuses is already very annoying. Rich Perry is blasting gays and Gnat Romney is using big words like GNP. Apparently Michelle can’t afford TV ads and I am thankful.

Who’s the doofy big guy with her?

San Antonio making the news again for being stupid:

http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/

Natalie Johnson is a 27-year-old student and, until last week, worked at the River Center Macy’s.

On Nov. 30, a teenager shopping caught her attention.

“I made sure to keep an eye on him because he was shopping for women’s clothing,” remembered Johnson.

She said she was convinced the shopper was a man. So when she saw him in the women’s dressing room, she told him he couldn’t change there.

“I had to just straight forward tell him, ‘You’re a man,’ and of course that made him really got him steamed,” said Johnson.

But the group of people he was with supported the shopper, arguing Macy’s policy allows transgender people to change in the fitting room of the gender they associate with.

“I’ve made my choice the other day,” Johnson told her manager. “I refuse to comply with this policy.”

Johnson said she was let go.

Johnson filed a complaint with the federal employment commission, claiming her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people.

“There are no transgenders in the world. A guy can dress up as a woman all he wants, that’s still not going to make you a woman,” said Johnson.

A response from the retail giant said, “Macy’s does not comment on personnel matters. At Macy’s, we recognize and appreciate the diversity of our customers and associates.”

Johnson hopes the company will amend their policy.

I am, however, in awe of the GOP’s laser-like focus on jobs!

Aquaria, #58: Johnson filed a complaint with the federal employment commission, claiming her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people.

Another nut who thinks she should be allowed to keep her job even though her beliefs prevent her from carrying out her duties in an adequate manner.

Well, I watched the video. And watched it again.

Erm… um…

I have this strange sensation of understanding all the words, and yet none of the sentences. Did the speaker actually have a point she was trying to get across, or is this some linguistics demonstration à la Noam Chomsky’s “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously”?

:-/

While I have never had the opportunity to marry a corporation, I have been screwed by one or two in the past.

Wheatdog, that was your own fault. If you didn’t dress like a slut you wouldn’t be treated like a slut.

@eric

In order to prevent a source of outrage. And there will always people like gingerbaker who then defend political decisions, even as it is more than clear that it was not based on evidence (admitting that your policy is inconsistent actually proves that).

I do believe that polygamy should be legal. Why not, if all of them are consenting adults?

Inheritance issues. Gridlock in next of kin decisions. The unsustainable burden of corporations having to offer health insurance benefits to any arbitrary number of spouses.