Idiotic arguments

[avram]

Ack. I think I need to stop reading the Marriage Debate weblog, which is devoted to discussion of marriage rights. It’s run by Maggie Gallagher and Eve Tushnet, who both oppose the freedom to marry, though they claim to have a balance of pro- and anti- opinions on the blog. Anyway, so many of the anti-freedom arguments are just so incoherent and wrong that they drive me to distraction. Here’s an example, by Mark Tardiff:

There is no longer any subject to posit actions since 'I' cannot be identified with either my body or my consciousness. In genital sex between a husband and wife, on the other hand, we see not one person decomposed into two but two who become one flesh. Husband and wife separately can perform the bodily functions of eating and digestion. But the reproductive act can only be performed by the two of them acting as a single reproductive principle.

Tardiff has clearly confused genital sex with organ donation. I’ve had sex. I wasn‘t closely related to my partner, so though I’m not actually certain, I’m pretty damn sure that if we had become one flesh, there would have been some serious immune system issues and rejection symptoms. Or maybe this one-flesh thing only happens with married couples; I’m pretty sure my parents didn’t have any problems along these lines.

And did you notice that Tardiff also seems to be unaware that people can reproduce without being married or having genital sex?

Comments

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

the worst thing about that kind of thinking, imho, is that it ignores the non-reproductive aspects of sex. our species gave up on overt estrus two splits ago; human sexuality is specifically and evolutionarily rendered to function separately from reproduction. or does he believe that folks had only ought to fuck when it's gonna be reproductive? this would give yer theoretical lifelong monogamous couple a good thirty or forty pleasant dates, spread out across their whole lives....

[redbird]

Aargh indeed. Gallagher at least ought to be aware that people can reproduce without being married--she did it. (I knew her when I was in college; I don't know who the father of her child is, or whether she knew, but she certainly wasn't married to him.)

[gentlyepigrams]

I have not noticed becoming one flesh during the beast with two backs, other than metaphorically. However, both my husband and I have roots in East Texas, so we probably are related. ;)

Also, since we are childfree and have taken deliberate, permanent steps to ensure we remain that way, we probably aren't really married anyway. Certainly the whole nookie thing should be right out.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

For god's sake don't tell him, it increases the chances that he'll reproduce.

Mer

[avram]

Someone else on the blog called him “Father Tardiff”, so maybe not.

[batyatoon]

But the reproductive act can only be performed by the two of them acting as a single reproductive principle.

If that were true, rape would never result in pregnancy.

NEXT!

[marykaykare.livejournal.com]

One recent letter to the editor in our paper started out with how the union of one man and one woman has for thousands of years and in all cultures been regarded as the lynchpin of a stable society and a necessity for child rearing. Which is so wrong one hardly knows where to begin. So it could be worse. Or does the marriage blog have those too?

MKK

[avram]

And that’s probably the only nice thing that guy has to say about unions.

Yeah, Eve Tushnet (who I respect on a wide variety of other topics) argues along those lines. Somewhat more coherently, but no less wrongly.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

But you see, you weren't (I don't think) having sex with someone you were married to. It clearly only works, according to the above quote, between people who are married to each other. This is why the author has a problem with gay marriages, of course. Because hermaphrodites are more or less acceptable, but a creature with two penises is just too much for any insecure male to tolerate.